in forma pauperis
Posted on 07/06/2009. at 11:48 amLike a pauper!
I see there is a way.
Stay tuned!
EarthEyeImages
Like a pauper!
I see there is a way.
Stay tuned!
To: cnovoa@edats.com; admin@edats.com; aibaugh@edats.com; jamadori@edats.com
Cc: inquiries@namemedia.com; Erik Zilinek; plamson@namemedia.com; Domains@Buydomains.Com
Subject: call us now to get eartheye.com
Ms. Novoa, Mr. Fragala, Mr. Amadori, Mr. Ibaugh, et al;
Cynthia you are the administrative contact and Derek is the technical contact for eartheye.com now. Each of you used your company email addresses in a haphazard way back in April 2009. I suppose after giving NameMedia so much more than eartheye was worth and reinforcing their inflated value, you did not wish to spend more money for name brokerage from the same company or another. You landed yourselves and Data Transfer Solutions as defendants in a lawsuit along with every officer of your company and every officer of NameMedia.
Erik S. Zilinek wrote me and chose a lawsuit. I hope he did not think I would mistake WIPO to be a valid domain name dispute resolution process. It is just part of the way you all establish fictitious "real estate" values. I have not saved enough money yet to file in the Arkansas Western District of United States Court, but I will sue for many millions of dollars. I am considering allowing other firms to join me and perhaps even take the lead. Several have now asked and you will probably hear from one soon. Eventually neither of your companies and none of its officers who became wealthy using these malicious type actions will remain wealthy.
I hope I can scrape up enough money to file on my own. I suppose being a member of the CLASS ACTION suit they decide to do on their own will suffice. I doubt they will find a better case to represent the CLASS.
I am more than a little upset. I suppose this will all eventually be part of the evidence regarding my mental anguish. I struggle to type this with my one normal arm in a wheelchair or from a hospital bed. Something that might make it more interesting is starting to work toward their being a new law enacted. There needs to be a new law or a Supreme Court ruling that alters the domain name landscape. Funny thing is you must all feel that the "landscape" term even semi-applies. A domain name has no landscape. Domain names are not real estate. With the mortgage crisis affecting the nation and loan defaults etc., I feel it odd that so much fictitious "real estate" is being held at so high a fictitious value.
Perhaps your companies are related in some way? I will leave that for a discovery question. Did Erik S. Zilinek advise you in April that he and the NameMedia sales team were aware that the eartheye domain was the subject of an anticipated lawsuit before they sold a domain to you as a premium domain? Did he tell you that buying the "premium domain" meant you would also be sued? The placeholder page you are using while ransoming my domain looks pretty lame and has remained lame for several months. It will look much more like a legitimate use to the WIPO folks than the buydomains for-sale announcement was. Maybe you knew there was an interest in the domain by the PERSON who originally registered it? Did they advise you I was still interested?
NameMedia is not doing as well with sleepspot that they also stole from me while I was incapacitated. I will give you folks a bit of a clue about how it was once very valuable to me.
There was once even a copyright notice. NameMedia ignored that warning. Eartheye is copyrighted to me as well and I intend to bring a copyright violation TORT as well. Yes, Mr. Zilinek, I intend to sue NameMedia for their copyright violation as well. NameMedia or Erik has an attitude. This is not a THREAT of a TORT. THIS IS A PROMISE! I WIILL SUE EACH OF YOU ASAP! Counter sue your hearts out! I am just a man disabled in a wreck. Sleepspot has no value except for its place in the provenance of my art now and CIRS died in the same accident that took my mental agility, normal use of my left arm, and both of my legs. I wonder why NameMedia ransomed Sleepspot and Eartheye and left CurtisRes alone? The lawyers who are wanting to take over say that fact is an argument that will sustain NameMedia's claim that they did not target me specifically. We will see. My very rough draft of my lawsuit is on my BLOG. The BLOG's popularity was how I initially encountered NameMedia. A BLOG comment.
I planned to file suit in Fort Smith at the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas by the end of March. NameMedia unloaded the premium domain they were ransoming the next month. I did not sell enough art to allow me to pay the filing fees.
I formerly requested that BuyDomains allow me to have MY domain at cost. I now will require EDATS pay $200.00 via PayPal and transfer the domain to me. Otherwise, I will ask for significantly more. I welcome the opportunity to meet your attorneys in court in my wheelchair. I will appeal if I loose and start fighting this in the court of public opinion. I already am doing that. Court is expensive.
Maybe EDATS does not know they are ransoming a domain I originally copyrighted? I will contend that they were aware of it and simply desired to become the new kidnappers. Once you create a website and register it, your copyright of that is copyrighted whether you file it or not. In the same way photographs are copyrighted when the shutter is released. The domain expiry auction is where companies "bid" to kidnap a copyright? Supreme Court, here I come! There is the potential class that they will certify!
EDATS personnel I offer you the same offer currently as a chance for you to be removed from the lawsuit. Maybe NameMedia did not advise you the domain was the subject of a pending lawsuit? I will contend that they were aware of it and simply desired to become the new kidnappers? Maybe they will say that the Chief Financial Officer and the Lead Applications Officer were not "doing business as" Data Transfer Solutions when they took over kidnapping my domain name? Two company officers bought a ransomed domain and used their company emails and their companies name server without it being a company decision?
The first period is an IP beacon that I am tracking to record the IP of each person who reads this. Its also a link. Hmm periods can be clicked. It will not be on the BLOG. Too many IPs there to track. I will use those IPs to verify delivery. EDATS can consider this an offer to settle out of court. I am unsure why Erik thought a PDF was required. See the messages in them below. This is included as an attachment. I will send it as an attachment only after this.
I am more than a little upset,
Curtis J Neeley Jr, MFA
XXXX Quality Ln, Ste XXX
Fayetteville, AR 72703
Voice: XXX-XXX-XXXX
----------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Curtis Neeley suffers from a severe traumatic brain injury that impedes the way he communicates. He is often perceived as blunt, self-centered and rude. Although Curtis has a disability, he is determined to continue performing meaningful art.
Page 1 of 2
Erik S. Zilinek
Legal Counsel
NameMedia, Inc.
230 Third Avenue
Waltham, Massachusetts 02451
ezilinek@namemedia.com
T: (781) 839-2860
F: (781) 839-2801
January 30, 2009
VIA E-MAIL ONLY
Curtis J. Neeley, Jr., M.F.A.
d/b/a Curtis Neeley Photography
XXX Quality Lane, Suite xxx
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703
Re: NameMedia, Inc. d/b/a BuyDomains.com: <eartheye.com>
Dear Mr. Neeley:
Reference is made to your recent correspondence to the executives of the wholly-owned BuyDomains.com subsidiary of NameMedia, Inc. (“NameMedia”) concerning the <eartheye.com> domain name registration. NameMedia and its subsidiaries register and offer for sale domain names that have expired and/or have become available to the public and they do so in good faith. NameMedia’s policy is to register and maintain only domain names that incorporate common acronyms, words, or phrases and/or descriptive terms for which the available evidence suggests no single party has exclusive rights.
Searches of the trademark databases maintained by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”), the World Intellectual Property Organization (the “WIPO”) and the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (the “OHIM”) reveal neither your currently registered nor present application for an “earth eye” or “eartheye” trademark. Tribunals at the WIPO and the National Arbitration Forum (the “NAF”) have routinely recognized the principle that the Rules under a Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (“UDRP”)proceeding require that a domain name be identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which a party has rights.
By contrast, in order for a party to bring a claim under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (the “ACPA”), the party must not only own a trademark, but that mark must be either distinctive or famous. If you have evidence to suggest that you registered, or applied for
Page 2 of 2
an “earth eye” or “eartheye” trademark prior to NameMedia’s registration of the subject domain name, or if you have evidence of your trademark’s fame or distinctiveness, we will certainly consider such evidence. Without such evidence, however, a court will likely find that on July 2, 2003—more than five and half (5.5) years ago—NameMedia acquired the subject domain name in good faith and without notice of any competing claims when the previous registration lapsed.
Thus any assertion of bad faith at the time of NameMedia’s registration of the domain would likely fail because there is no evidence that your company is either well-known in NameMedia’s jurisdiction; well-known in a field in which NameMedia operates; or that the similarity between the <eartheye.com> domain name and your company name was deliberately created by NameMedia. Accordingly, it appears that there is no legal reason why NameMedia should not maintain its <eartheye.com> domain name registration should it choose to do so.
This letter is sent solely in the interest of promoting an amicable settlement of these matters and nothing contained herein should be construed or understood as an admission or waiver of any kind. NameMedia reserves all legal, equitable and administrative rights, remedies and defenses available and this letter is sent without waiver of any claims or counterclaims— including, but not limited to, defamation and tortious interference with business contracts—NameMedia has against you or any entities associated therewith. I remain at your disposal should you have any questions or additional legal concerns.
Sincerely,
Erik S. Zilinek
Page 1 of 2
Erik S. Zilinek
Legal Counsel
NameMedia, Inc.
230 Third Avenue
Waltham, MA 02451
ezilinek@namemedia.com
T: (781) 839-2860
F: (781) 839-2801
February 13, 2009
VIA E-MAIL ONLY
Curtis J. Neeley, Jr., M.F.A.
d/b/a Curtis Neeley Photography
XXXX N Quality Lane, Suite XXX
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703
Re: NameMedia, Inc. d/b/a BuyDomains.com: <eartheye.com>
Dear Mr. Neeley:
Upon further consideration and review of the circumstances surrounding NameMedia’s registration and use of the subject domain name, NameMedia is maintaining its position as previously stated. NameMedia’s use of the domain name has been legitimate and proper and in no way impinges on your rights. Since NameMedia registered, and is using, the domain name in good faith, we consider that a tribunal would not preclude NameMedia from retaining or continuing to use the domain.
To that end, all potential buyers of domain names held by NameMedia are routinely referred to the Sales Team at its wholly-owned BuyDomains.com subsidiary. Our Sales Team has indicated that your offer of <ozarkphotos.net> in exchange for the subject domain name is not acceptable. If you would like to negotiate the sale of the domain further, please contact the Sales Team at BuyDomains.com.
This letter is sent solely in the interest of promoting an amicable settlement of this matter and nothing contained herein should be construed or understood as an admission or waiver of any kind. NameMedia reserves all legal, equitable and administrative rights, remedies and defenses available and this letter is sent without waiver of any claims or counterclaims NameMedia has
Page 2 of 2
against you client, or any entities or individuals associated therewith. I remain at your disposal should you have any questions or additional legal concerns.
Sincerely,
Erik S. Zilinek
-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Miner [mailto:domains@buydomains.com]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 12:15 PM
To: curtis@curtisneeley.com
Subject: Winter Savings Event - get great savings on eartheye.com
Dear Curtis Neeley,
Let BuyDomains remind you that our Winter Savings Event will continue through January 31, 2009.
Spectacular discounts are available by calling our Domain Consultants at 866-846-5099 (US)
339-222-5121 (Worldwide).
These discounts do not appear on the BuyDomains website, so call us now to get eartheye.com or any other domain in our inventory!
Best wishes to a successful New Year!
Jason Miner
VP Sales
www.BuyDomains.com
jminer@buydomains.com
866-846-5099 (US)
339-222-5121 (Worldwide)
Cynthia Novoa
| Cynthia manages the day to day financial, administrative and accounting functions of Data Transfer Solutions, LLC. She brings to the company several years of experience in Accounting, Finance and HR. Before becoming part of the DTS team, Cynthia worked several years as the Controller for a telecommunications company in South Florida.
3680 Avalon Park Blvd E |



IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS
DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION
CURTIS J. NEELEY JR., MFA
VS......................................
NameMedia, Inc.
COMPLAINT FOR CYBERSQUATTING AND
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
Comes now Curtis J Neeley Jr., MFA, respectfully to this court and states for his complaint as will follow.
WHEREAS premises herein considered and supported by witnesses, Curtis J. Neeley, Jr. respectfully requests that this court enter an order granting rights to Plaintiff’s domain names permanently. Curtis J. Neeley, Jr. respectfully requests the court also awarding statutory and punitive damages in excess of fifty million dollars.
Respectfully Submitted,
--------------------------------
To: cnovoa@edats.com; admin@edats.com; aibaugh@edats.com; jamadori@edats.com
Cc: inquiries@namemedia.com; Erik Zilinek; plamson@namemedia.com; Domains@Buydomains. Com
Subject: call us now to get eartheye.com
I planned to file suit in Fort Smith at the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas by the end of March. NameMedia unloaded the premium domain they were ransoming the next month. I did not sell enough art to allow me to pay the filing fees.
I formerly requested that BuyDomains allow me to have MY domain at cost. I now will require EDATS pay $200.00 via PayPal and transfer the domain to me. Otherwise, I will ask for significantly more. I welcome the opportunity to meet your attorneys in court in my wheelchair. I will appeal if I loose and start fighting this in the court of public opinion. I already am doing that. Court is expensive.
Maybe EDATS does not know they are ransoming a domain I originally copyrighted? I will contend that they were aware of it and simply desired to become the new kidnappers. Once you create a website and register it, your copyright of that is copyrighted whether you file it or not. In the same way photographs are copyrighted when the shutter is released. The domain expiry auction is where companies "bid" to kidnap a copyright? Supreme Court, here I come! There is the potential class that they will certify!
EDATS personnel I offer you the same offer currently as a chance for you to be removed from the lawsuit. Maybe NameMedia did not advise you the domain was the subject of a pending lawsuit? I will contend that they were aware of it and simply desired to become the new kidnappers? Maybe they will say that the Chief Financial Officer and the Lead Applications Officer were not "doing business as" Data Transfer Solutions when they took over kidnapping my domain name? Two company officers bought a ransomed domain and used their company emails and their companies name server without it being a company decision?
Page 1 of 2
Erik S. Zilinek
Legal Counsel
NameMedia, Inc.
230 Third Avenue
Waltham, Massachusetts 02451
ezilinek@namemedia.com
T: (781) 839-2860
F: (781) 839-2801
January 30, 2009
VIA E-MAIL ONLY
Curtis J. Neeley, Jr., M.F.A.
d/b/a Curtis Neeley Photography
XXX Quality Lane, Suite xxx
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703
Re: NameMedia, Inc. d/b/a BuyDomains.com: <eartheye.com>
Dear Mr. Neeley:
Reference is made to your recent correspondence to the executives of the wholly-owned BuyDomains.com subsidiary of NameMedia, Inc. (“NameMedia”) concerning the <eartheye.com> domain name registration. NameMedia and its subsidiaries register and offer for sale domain names that have expired and/or have become available to the public and they do so in good faith. NameMedia’s policy is to register and maintain only domain names that incorporate common acronyms, words, or phrases and/or descriptive terms for which the available evidence suggests no single party has exclusive rights.
Searches of the trademark databases maintained by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”), the World Intellectual Property Organization (the “WIPO”) and the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (the “OHIM”) reveal neither your currently registered nor present application for an “earth eye” or “eartheye” trademark. Tribunals at the WIPO and the National Arbitration Forum (the “NAF”) have routinely recognized the principle that the Rules under a Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (“UDRP”)proceeding require that a domain name be identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which a party has rights.
By contrast, in order for a party to bring a claim under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (the “ACPA”), the party must not only own a trademark, but that mark must be either distinctive or famous. If you have evidence to suggest that you registered, or applied for
Page 2 of 2
an “earth eye” or “eartheye” trademark prior to NameMedia’s registration of the subject domain name, or if you have evidence of your trademark’s fame or distinctiveness, we will certainly consider such evidence. Without such evidence, however, a court will likely find that on July 2, 2003—more than five and half (5.5) years ago—NameMedia acquired the subject domain name in good faith and without notice of any competing claims when the previous registration lapsed.
Thus any assertion of bad faith at the time of NameMedia’s registration of the domain would likely fail because there is no evidence that your company is either well-known in NameMedia’s jurisdiction; well-known in a field in which NameMedia operates; or that the similarity between the <eartheye.com> domain name and your company name was deliberately created by NameMedia. Accordingly, it appears that there is no legal reason why NameMedia should not maintain its <eartheye.com> domain name registration should it choose to do so.
This letter is sent solely in the interest of promoting an amicable settlement of these matters and nothing contained herein should be construed or understood as an admission or waiver of any kind. NameMedia reserves all legal, equitable and administrative rights, remedies and defenses available and this letter is sent without waiver of any claims or counterclaims— including, but not limited to, defamation and tortious interference with business contracts—NameMedia has against you or any entities associated therewith. I remain at your disposal should you have any questions or additional legal concerns.
Sincerely,![]()
Erik S. Zilinek
Page 1 of 2 Erik S. Zilinek
Legal Counsel
NameMedia, Inc.
230 Third Avenue
Waltham, MA 02451
ezilinek@namemedia.com
T: (781) 839-2860
F: (781) 839-2801 February 13, 2009
VIA E-MAIL ONLY
Curtis J. Neeley, Jr., M.F.A.
d/b/a Curtis Neeley Photography
XXXX N Quality Lane, Suite XXX
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703
Re: NameMedia, Inc. d/b/a BuyDomains.com: <eartheye.com>
Dear Mr. Neeley:Upon further consideration and review of the circumstances surrounding NameMedia’s registration and use of the subject domain name, NameMedia is maintaining its position as previously stated. NameMedia’s use of the domain name has been legitimate and proper and in no way impinges on your rights. Since NameMedia registered, and is using, the domain name in good faith, we consider that a tribunal would not preclude NameMedia from retaining or continuing to use the domain. To that end, all potential buyers of domain names held by NameMedia are routinely referred to the Sales Team at its wholly-owned BuyDomains.com subsidiary. Our Sales Team has indicated that your offer of <ozarkphotos.net> in exchange for the subject domain name is not acceptable. If you would like to negotiate the sale of the domain further, please contact the Sales Team at BuyDomains.com.This letter is sent solely in the interest of promoting an amicable settlement of this matter and nothing contained herein should be construed or understood as an admission or waiver of any kind. NameMedia reserves all legal, equitable and administrative rights, remedies and defenses available and this letter is sent without waiver of any claims or counterclaims NameMedia hasPage 2 of 2against you client, or any entities or individuals associated therewith. I remain at your disposal should you have any questions or additional legal concerns.Sincerely,
Erik S. Zilinek
-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Miner [mailto:domains@buydomains.com]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 12:15 PM
To: curtis
Subject: Winter Savings Event - get great savings on eartheye.com
Dear Curtis Neeley,
Let BuyDomains remind you that our Winter Savings Event will continue through January 31, 2009.
Spectacular discounts are available by calling our Domain Consultants at 866-846-5099 (US)
339-222-5121 (Worldwide).
These discounts do not appear on the BuyDomains website, so call us now to get eartheye.com or any other domain in our inventory!
Best wishes to a successful New Year!
Jason Miner
VP Sales
www.BuyDomains.com
jminer@buydomains.com
866-846-5099 (US)
339-222-5121 (Worldwide)
Looks like a wall is too short?
|
Daum Museum be aware Michael Peven, who showed there May 30, 2003 - September 13, 2003 and is in the permanent collection with confidential information. Michael Peven first published pornography in the guise of art in 1979 and still promotes it today? How did that slip by your curatorial staff? I would think a show underwritten by the Missouri Art Council would not promote an artist who did "art" of that sort. I believed the Museum is almost in the buckle of the Bible belt. I do not even find a nude at the museum site. They presented an artist who shot "his" erect penis as art five years before they added some of his confidential information twenty-six years ago? . He pulled a set of artist books that resembled match books and called them "snatches". He published these with his erect penis on display at the University of Arkansas server for several months, the Daum museum can be excused for missing his porn. Large images of a dog printed spread across various pieces on a wall? Good Dog was so far ahead of its time. Its time might not get here this century. Leave it to the Daum Museum to preserve his past art masterpiece of dog snapshots in the old exhibit section. The University of Arkansas cleared their server of his pornography within 24 hours of the first complaint of 2009. His masterpiece confidential information in your collection stamps your approval on his reputation. Lands you in his resume. With Daum museum's help, who will he deceive next? Below was the alert the University of Arkansas got. Michael Peven's artist book series he calls SNATCHES are still online. Michael Peven works at the University of Arkansas Art Department and publishes pornographic photographs. Michael Peven has been employed at the University of Arkansas for thirty-two years. What a waste of taxpayer money! To study photography at the University of Arkansas a person implies an approval of Michael Peven’s pornography masquerading as art! Michael Peven's pornography will offend the morals of any reasonable juror and even those who are the most accepting of the nude as art. Michael Peven continues to lead the University of Arkansas in non-photography after more than a quarter century as its figurehead. Michael Peven must feel publishing erotica and pornography will not harm his career. It probably won't. We will see soon enough. Someone should explain why the University of Arkansas has wasted so much money on Michael Peven for thirty years. Donors might decide instead to support a new NWA Crystal Bridges Museum of visual art? Michael Peven took a photo of a semi-nude male, along with an erect penis, and printed it on a simulated matchbook. Michael Peven then calls it a snatchbook. Michael Peven first published pornographic photos of his erect penis about thirty years ago. Michael Peven still offers it for public viewing. It was removed from the University of Arkansas website after complaints that minors were not even warned! The porn once found on the University of Arkansas server is still linked below on a server of a book seller. It was first pulled from the University of Arkansas server but it was removed after receiving a public complaint. The green text below accompanied the vulgar images. A set of six oversize styled matchbooks featuring well known US landmarks and monuments on the front flip cover. Also titled "SNATCHES”, the sexual wordplay hints at the subtext, here laid out not beneath the surface but under the (matchbook) covers, that suggests a less than Puritan take of some of Us' more famous and revered erections Michael Peven initially published pornography two years after the University hired him thirty-two years ago? Michael Peven markets these "snatches" today! Artist books are what Michael Peven's Masters Degree is in and NOT photography! His art book series called "snatches" are a vulgar publication! Michael Peven has been a pornographer paid as a photo instructor by the University of Arkansas for thirty years after his erect penis photo was published. An erection shown inside what he calls a "snatch" is not a nude study as art. It is a photo of an erection. How many donors will still be donors after they see his vulgarity that they have paid for? Perhaps they have not noticed? Malfeasance. Stupidity? Pornography. I call it all three. Michael Peven's vulgar publication was first thirty years ago. In these hard economic times, the erect penis Michael Peven publishes a photo of will be all the evidence anyone needs to introduce. Removing the "snatches" marketing now will not help Michael Peven's morals. It might stop his continuing to repel potential students and donors to the University of Arkansas? How much does it matter who the penis was owned by? Michael Peven's site on the University of Arkansas server once showed them with no warning to minors. It was removed after several protests. It should be easy to find artistic photography done by the photo instructor at a major university? It isn't. How many have sought an MFA in photography in Michael Peven's thirty-two years?
An Artist Book/Photography MFA was close as Arkansas could get to photography? I hope it is not for long. Michael Peven being offered and then accepting an early retirement would solve the University's dilemma. Will Michael Peven's departure from the University be fast enough and quiet enough to avoid a loss of donors? I doubt that. How many school teachers were fired for nude photos that were not as vulgar as done by Michael Peven while a college art professor? Here are examples found quickly on the internet. (1)(2)(3)(4)(...) If an acceptable instructor replaced him, more artists might pursue a degree at the University of Arkansas? The pornographer employed by the Art Department at the University of Arkansas will be hard to ignore. Michael Peven's history as a publisher of pornography and Michael Peven's current lack of morality as demonstrated by his publishing his penis photo he took thirty years ago will be glaring. What will the Walton family or other large donors think about donating after reading of this issue? Michael Peven could be dismissed for cause or otherwise replaced in the event he refuses to cease publishing his pornographic 'snatchbooks'? Help end Michael Peven allowing nudity displaying sexuality to be excused in the guise of art. Curtis only recently encountered Michael Peven's blatant pornography being passed off as an artist book. Curtis found this while promoting his book "Figurenude". Curtis Neeley became outraged and compelled to act to avoid appearing to condone Michael Peven's definition of art and Michael Peven's blatant misuse of nude photography. As a serious area photographer who feels nudes can be art, Curtis Neeley must protest very loudly. Are University of Arkansas staff already letting Michael Peven publish his ERECTION and hiding it behind the mask of art? Image was removed from the University server eleven hours or so after Curtis Neeley's complaint. Michael Peven's artist book series he calls SNATCHES are still online.So is his: ERECT PENIS. |
| Malfeasance? Michael Peven, a photography instructor at the University of Arkansas for thirty-two years, taught thirty years after his first use of pornography! Michael Peven's artist book series he calls SNATCHES are still online although they were removed from the University of Arkansas uark.edu server. Michael Peven works at the University of Arkansas Art Department and publishes pornographic photographs. Michael Peven has been employed at the University of Arkansas for thirty-two years. What a waste of taxpayer money! To study photography at the University of Arkansas a person implies an approval of Michael Peven’s pornography masquerading as art! Michael Peven's pornography will offend the morals of any reasonable juror and even those who are the most accepting of the nude as art. Michael Peven continues to lead the University of Arkansas in non-photography after more than a quarter century as its figurehead. Universities should be a place for open, messy debates? Someone should explain why the University of Arkansas has wasted so much money on Michael Peven for thirty years. I feel the University of Arkansas made a severe error hiring Michael Peven as a photo instructor. Donors might decide instead to support a new NWA Crystal Bridges Museum of visual art? Michael Peven took a photo of a semi-nude male, along with an erect penis, and printed it on a simulated matchbook. Michael Peven then calls it a snatchbook. Michael Peven first published pornographic photos of his erect penis about thirty years ago. Michael Peven still offers it for public viewing. It was removed from the University of Arkansas website after a complaint that minors were not even warned! The pornography professor Peven did that was once found on the University of Arkansas server is still linked below on a server of a book seller. It was first pulled from the University of Arkansas server. It was removed after receiving a public complaint. The green text below accompanied the vulgar images. A set of six oversize styled matchbooks featuring well known US landmarks and monuments on the front flip cover. Also titled "SNATCHES”, the sexual wordplay hints at the subtext, here laid out not beneath the surface but under the (matchbook) covers, that suggests a less than Puritan take of some of Us' more famous and revered erections Michael Peven initially published pornography two years after the University hired him thirty-two years ago? Michael Peven markets these "snatches" still today! Artist books are what Michael Peven's MFA is in! His art book series, he calls "snatches" is a vulgar publication! Michael Peven has been a pornographer paid as a photo instructor by the University of Arkansas for thirty years after his erect penis photo was published in 1979. An erection shown inside what he calls a "snatch" is not a nude study as art. It is a photo of an erection. How many donors will still be donors after they see his vulgarity that they have paid for? Perhaps they have not noticed? Malfeasance. Stupidity? Pornography. I call it all three. Michael Peven's vulgar publication was first thirty years ago. In these hard economic times, the erect penis Michael Peven publishes a photo of will be all the evidence anyone needs to introduce. Removing the "snatches" marketing now will not help Michael Peven's morals. It might stop his continuing to repel potential students and donors to the University of Arkansas? How much does it matter who the penis was owned by? Michael Peven's site on the University of Arkansas server once showed it with no warning to minors. It was removed after a protest. It should be easy to find artistic photography done by the photo instructor at a major university? It isn't. How many have sought an MFA in photography in Michael Peven's thirty-two years?
An Artist Book/Photography MFA was as close as Arkansas could get to photographer? Michael Peven being offered and then accepting an early retirement would solve the University's dilemma. Would Michael Peven's departure from the University be fast enough and quiet enough to avoid a loss of donors? I doubt that. How many school teachers were fired for nude photos that were not as vulgar as done by Michael Peven while a college art professor? Here are examples found quickly on the internet. (1)(2)(3)(4)(...) If an acceptable instructor replaced him, more artists might pursue a degree at the University of Arkansas? The pornographer employed by the Art Department at the University of Arkansas will be hard to ignore. Michael Peven's history as a publisher of pornography and Michael Peven's current lack of morality, as is demonstrated by his currently publishing his penis photo taken thirty years ago, will be glaring. What will the Walton family or other large donors think about donating after reading of this issue? Michael Peven could be dismissed for cause or otherwise replaced in the event he refuses to cease publishing his pornographic 'snatchbooks'? Michael Peven is a university photography professor allowing nudity displaying sexuality to be excused in the guise of art. I only recently encountered Michael Peven's blatant pornography being passed off as an artist book. I found this while promoting my book of fineart nudes. "Figurenude". I became outraged and compelled to act to avoid appearing to condone Michael Peven's definition of art and Michael Peven's blatant misuse of nude photography. As a serious NWA area photographer who feels nudes can be art, I feel I must protest very loudly. Are University of Arkansas staff already letting Michael Peven publish his ERECTION and hiding it behind the mask of art? Michael Peven's artist book series he calls SNATCHES are still online. Curtis J Neeley Jr, MFA ---------------------------------------- DISCLAIMER: Curtis Neeley suffers from a severe traumatic brain injury that impedes the way he communicates. He is often perceived as blunt, self-centered and rude. Although Curtis has a disability, he is determined to continue performing meaningful art.--------------------------------------- |
|
His hair is wet and shorts are still dry. |
Malfeasance. Stupidity? Pornography! Michael Peven's artist book series he calls SNATCHES are still online. Michael Peven works at the University of Arkansas Art Department and publishes pornographic photographs. Michael Peven has been employed at the University of Arkansas for thirty-two years. What a waste of taxpayer money! To study photography at the University of Arkansas a person implies an approval of Michael Peven’s pornography masquerading as art! Michael Peven's pornography will offend the morals of any reasonable juror and even those who are the most accepting of the nude as art. Michael Peven continues to lead the University of Arkansas in non-photography after more than a quarter century as its figurehead. Michael Peven must feel publishing erotica and pornography will not harm his career. It probably won't. We will see soon enough. Someone should explain why the University of Arkansas has wasted so much money on Michael Peven for thirty years. Donors might decide instead to support a new NWA Crystal Bridges Museum of visual art? Michael Peven took a photo of a semi-nude male, along with an erect penis, and printed it on a simulated matchbook. Michael Peven then calls it a snatchbook. Michael Peven first published pornographic photos of his erect penis about thirty years ago. Michael Peven still offers it for public viewing. It was removed from the University of Arkansas website after complaints that minors were not even warned! The porn once found on the University of Arkansas server is still linked below on a server of a book seller. It was first pulled from the University of Arkansas server but it was removed after receiving a public complaint. The green text below accompanied the vulgar images. A set of six oversize styled matchbooks featuring well known US landmarks and monuments on the front flip cover. Also titled "SNATCHES”, the sexual wordplay hints at the subtext, here laid out not beneath the surface but under the (matchbook) covers, that suggests a less than Puritan take of some of Us' more famous and revered erections Michael Peven initially published pornography two years after the University hired him thirty-two years ago? Michael Peven markets these "snatches" today! Artist books are what Michael Peven's Masters Degree is in and NOT photography! His art book series called "snatches" are a vulgar publication! Michael Peven has been a pornographer paid as a photo instructor by the University of Arkansas for thirty years after his erect penis photo was published. An erection shown inside what he calls a "snatch" is not a nude study as art. It is a photo of an erection. How many donors will still be donors after they see his vulgarity that they have paid for? Perhaps they have not noticed? Malfeasance. Stupidity? Pornography. I call it all three. Michael Peven's vulgar publication was first thirty years ago. In these hard economic times, the erect penis Michael Peven publishes a photo of will be all the evidence anyone needs to introduce. Removing the "snatches" marketing now will not help Michael Peven's morals. It might stop his continuing to repel potential students and donors to the University of Arkansas? How much does it matter who the penis was owned by? Michael Peven's site on the University of Arkansas server once showed them with no warning to minors. It was removed after several protests. It should be easy to find artistic photography done by the photo instructor at a major university? It isn't. How many have sought an MFA in photography in Michael Peven's thirty-two years?
An Artist Book/Photography MFA was close as Arkansas could get to photography? I hope it is not for long. Michael Peven being offered and then accepting an early retirement would solve the University's dilemma. Will Michael Peven's departure from the University be fast enough and quiet enough to avoid a loss of donors? I doubt that. How many school teachers were fired for nude photos that were not as vulgar as done by Michael Peven while a college art professor? Here are examples found quickly on the internet. (1)(2)(3)(4)(...) If an acceptable instructor replaced him, more artists might pursue a degree at the University of Arkansas? The pornographer employed by the Art Department at the University of Arkansas will be hard to ignore. Michael Peven's history as a publisher of pornography and Michael Peven's current lack of morality as demostrated by his publishing his penis photo he took thirty years ago will be glaring. What will the Walton family or other large donors think about donating after reading of this issue? Michael Peven could be dismissed for cause or otherwise replaced in the event he refuses to cease publishing his pornographic 'snatchbooks'? Help end Michael Peven allowing nudity displaying sexuality to be excused in the guise of art. Curtis only recently encountered Michael Peven's blatant pornography being passed off as an artist book. Curtis found this while promoting his book "Figurenude ".Curtis Neeley became outraged and compelled to act to avoid appearing to condone Michael Peven's definition of art and Michael Peven's blatant misuse of photography. As a serious area photographer who feels nudes can be art, Curtis Neeley must protest very loudly. Are University of Arkansas staff already letting Michael Peven publish his ERECTION and hiding it behind the mask of art? Image was removed from the University server eleven hours or so after Curtis Neeley's complaint. Michael Peven's artist book series he calls SNATCHES are still online.So is his ERECT PENIS. |
| Collectors, museums, and galleries may never learn of my work. This email/BLOG may never be read. Those reading it may never look at my photography. This fact does not discourage me in the least. I read much of Ms. Cotton's www.wordswithoutpictures.org website archive PDFs. A fact that I consider trivial and common is almost universally misunderstood by collectors, curators, and museums it appears. There is so much talking about photography and debating about it as an art form. A solid definition of the word art has been missed. What is art? Is there an agreed-on definition of a word critical to this overworked question? Is photography art? There is not a valid agreed-on definition. Is painting an art? Can one have a career as an artist? Can one have a career where you help people care for cavities and other issues with their teeth? A dentist would answer yes to this. Depending on your definition of art, all dentists could be artists to you. Many collectors, curators, and museums see photographs by Cindy Sherman as art. They would consider her a photographic artist. I say that the average human would disagree almost as much as I do. I wager that the average person would agree that she is an artist only with the "proper" definition of artist. Here we begin to see the importance of definitions. We would only be accepting being human to realize that. I do not agree with the concept of war. I believe in war. A war is where one country decides to kill people of another over an idea. War is wrong. I served in the United States Marine Corps and can fire a handgun with more accuracy than the USMC marksman can fire a rifle. I was discharged as a conscientious objector to war during a time when there was no impending combat. I agree with the concept of defense of self and those you love as individuals with the least amount of violence possible. There are always absolutes. One plus one is two. 1(X) two times = 2(X). Art has one absolute definition I agree with. The quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. How hard is that to grasp? Apparently it is beyond most curators, museums, and galleries. I realize none of you may agree with me as you already obviously already demonstrate as Cindy Sherman's collectors. Pictures must posses a generally pleasing aesthetic quality without words to remain art. We all appreciate NaCl to be salt as humans. We all appreciate art in the same exact way. Everyone will agree that seawater tastes salty. Everyone will agree that a photograph is artistic in EXACTLY the same way because it is a human trait. Can a person be portrayed as art? Mona Lisa is a figure painting that is generally held as art. Watching a person paint her using MS Paint is amazing. SEE It is a painting of a human figure that has persisted among humanity for slightly longer than half a millennium as art. I, like millions of others, agree that it is art. I see in the Annenburg Space for Photography that there is a drive for more humanity per pixel. Here I will try educate those still reading and unite several ideas for each of you. One particular object that lends itself to artistic presentation is the human figure without clothing. A figure that is presented nude can be a figurenude or not. Figurenude has a very specific definition. I should know. I wrote it. Nude photography as well as all other types of art depicting a naked human is a very common source of controversy. I figured I would read of Minor White somewhere in the "Minor Threat" story. Especially because another Mr. White was the author. It instead dealt with portraying youths as figures. It touched on nude and non-nude figures. You may see my figurenudes HERE. I have done hundreds more but these all were done since my disability except for a few of one model. My photographing the nude figure has caused a great deal of controversy for me. This will continue till I finish dying. Here will be my attempt to unite several ideas from words without pictures dialog. "Who cares about books?" A figurenude is most appropriately viewed in a book. Every decision to turn to the next page instead of closing the book is a renewed acceptance of another similar presentation. The same can be said of a presentation of a figurenude on the internet. Computer monitors today can easily present nude art photos with quality that easily exceeds that of paper. Collectors, museums, and galleries; I hope you understand better my explanation now that photography is an art just as salt is a taste. One does not need to be well-versed or educated in food to taste salt. One does not need to be well-versed or educated to appreciate art. Forty-eight curators who decide photos like Ms Sherman's should be perceived as art will not alter them magically into being art. The period in these brackets { Curtis J Neeley Jr, MFA Fayetteville, AR 72703 Voice: 479-xxx-479x ---------------------------------------- DISCLAIMER: Curtis Neeley suffers from a severe traumatic brain injury that impedes the way he communicates. He is often perceived as blunt, self-centered and rude. Although Curtis has a disability, he is determined to continue performing meaningful art. |
Nails are easy to pull out compared to woodscrews. |
Who would guess that when |
|
|
I went for a walk on Scull Creek Trail. /\/\/\/\
I was in my EXTREME 4 X 4, but will never try this steep a trail segment! /\/\/\/\/\
My next museum quality photo is somewhere about here I bet. I will find out tomorrow - I hope. /\/\/\/\
This is as close as I got today. :-(
I went down to below the bridge at the Creek. This is looking down at me from the bridge. /\/\/\/\
This is below the bridge looking back up. I thought I would never see this so I took a photo although it is only to document a scene I saw. /\/\/\/\/\
This is four photos stitched together with Canon PhotoStitch but was shot with an Olympus SP-350. /\/\/\/\ |