Within U.S.A.About this Item: New York City, NY: Ophelia Editions, 2000. Condition: As New. Dust Jacket Condition: As New. 1st Printing.
Published in 2000. Revised And Expanded Edition. One of the most controversial photography books of our time. The first appearance of the title in the United States. Precedes and should not be confused with all other subsequent editions. Published in a small and limited print run as a hardcover original only. The First Edition is now rare.
The American edition, titled.Anjos Proibidos: Forbidden Angels., and published by Ophelia Editions in 2000, with 27 additional photographs was again suppressed when one of the models, now grown to adulthood, sued for invasion of privacy. Cabral took photographs, and included them in a book titled 'Anjos Proibidos', which in English means 'Forbidden Angels'. This book included pictures of girls aged 10 through 17. Cabral and his publisher were prosecuted in Sao Paulo for publishing child pornography.
Anjos Proibidos WITH Various Sets of Publisher's Proofs for the American edition entitled: Anjos Proibidos: Forbidden Angels (Ipirangia, Sao Paulo, Brazil: Itamarati Grafica e Editora, no date - 1991). Small oblong quarto. Very brief text in Portuguese. Twenty-four photographic images. Leatherbound edition. Language: por Volume: 6-7 Leather Binding on Spine and Corners with Golden leaf printing on spine. Reprinted from 1907 edition. NO changes have been made to the original text. This is NOT a retyped or an ocr'd reprint. Illustrations, Index, if any, are included in black and white. Hibit, at which the first edition of was Anjos Proibidos offered for sale, displaying black and white photographs of girls between the ages of ten and seventeen, including a photograph of Almeida inside the book. Two hundred copies of the book were sold before the authorities in Sao Paulo seized the remaining copies. Cabral and the book's.
Anjos Proibidos First Edition Movie
Anjos Proibidos First Edition Online
An austerely elegant production by Alaistair Johnson: Oversize-volume format. Hard boards with metallic-silver titles embossed on spine, as issued. Photographs by Fabio Cabral.
Printed on pristine-white, thick coated stock paper in Tokyo, Japan to the highest standards. In publisher's original shrinkwrap. In pictorial DJ with black titles on the cover and spine, as issued. Presents Fabio Cabral's 'Anjos Proibidos'.
Forbidden angels. 'So-called because they do not appear to be of this world in which they have been captured. Instead they inhabit a realm of sensuality that is still in the process of becoming. They are forbidden because, having been fleetingly captured, they must be freed again to return to that realm to which they belong' (Publisher's blurb).
Cabral paid dearly for wanting to capture his otherworldly angels. In Brazil, his book was burned, the negatives confiscated and damaged, his studio shut down, and his gallery sued by the Federal Government. After winning his case, he had problems all over again with the American publication (one of the models, back to earth and now full-grown, felt her privacy was violated). Hauled back into court, Cabral ultimately prevailed. By then, the damage had been done, effectively rendering his book unavailable to the mass market. It is, of course, the quintessential collector's item.
The late great fashion designer Gianni Versace considered the Brazilians as the world's most beautiful people. Since Versace was from Italy, where the idea and actual presence of youthful beauty have been celebrated and depicted since the Renaissance, his judgment was controversial in a different way. Cabral's problems did not stem from the fact that Brazil is Roman Catholic and has had a long history of authoritarian rule. It is because, compared to Gianni Versace, he is completely unknown, with no socially prominent supporters, and even less money. The Brazilian Edition contained 24 images. The Complete Series, which includes another 27 plates, is presented in this edition only. An absolute 'must-have' title for Fabio Cabral collectors.
This title is an erotic art photography classic. This is one of few copies of the First American Edition/First Printing still available online, is still in the publisher's original shrinkwrap, and is in especially fine condition: Clean, crisp, and bright, a pristine beauty. A rare copy thus. 51 duotone plates. A fine collectible copy. Seller Inventory # 17893 9. Within U.S.A.About this Item: Itamarati Grafica e Editora, (Ipirangia, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 1991.
Condition: Fine. Dust Jacket Condition: Fine. First edition.
Small oblong quarto. Very brief text in Portuguese. Twenty-four photographic images. Fine in just about fine dustwrapper with a small smudge on the rear panel. An exceptionally rare book of nude photography of adolescent Brazilian girls, published to accompany an exhibition of photographs in Sao Paulo. The devoutly Roman Catholic Brazilian government authorities seized and then destroyed 236 copies of the 500 copy run of this title just a week after its publication.
Police raided Cabral's studio, gallery, and printer, and confiscated his negatives and existing prints of the photographs. After two years and legal vindication, Cabral received his negatives back, although in varying degrees of damage.
The American edition, titled.Anjos Proibidos: Forbidden Angels., and published by Ophelia Editions in 2000, with 27 additional photographs was again suppressed when one of the models, now grown to adulthood, sued for invasion of privacy. Despite the publisher's eventual victory in the lawsuit, the book was still effectively suppressed, and when it now appears on the secondary market, it invariably commands four figures.
WITH publisher's maquette and proofs for the American edition, as follows: 1. A full set of printer's 'blue' proofs for the photos, text, and dustwrapper on blue proofing paper; 2. A full set of same on glossy paper; and 3. A full set of the folded and gathered sheets on glossy paper, laid into a proof of the dustwrapper. A rare book, with unique accompanying material. Provenance on request.OCLC.
locates two copies of the American edition, and no copies of the Brazilian edition. Seller Inventory # 99192 10.
(Ipirangia, Sao Paulo, Brazil: Itamarati Grafica e Editora, no date - 1991).Price: $15,000.00Hardcover. First edition.
Small oblong quarto. Very brief text in Portuguese. Twenty-four photographic images. Fine in just about fine dustwrapper with a small smudge on the rear panel. An exceptionally rare book of nude photography of adolescent Brazilian girls, published to accompany an exhibition of photographs in Sao Paulo.
The devoutly Roman Catholic Brazilian government authorities seized and then destroyed 236 copies of the 500 copy run of this title just a week after its publication. Police raided Cabral's studio, gallery, and printer, and confiscated his negatives and existing prints of the photographs. After two years and legal vindication, Cabral received his negatives back, although in varying degrees of damage. The American edition, titled.Anjos Proibidos: Forbidden Angels., and published by Ophelia Editions in 2000, with 27 additional photographs was again suppressed when one of the models, now grown to adulthood, sued for invasion of privacy. Despite the publisher's eventual victory in the lawsuit, the book was still effectively suppressed, and when it now appears on the secondary market, it invariably commands four figures. WITH publisher's maquette and proofs for the American edition, as follows: 1. A full set of printer's 'blue' proofs for the photos, text, and dustwrapper on blue proofing paper; 2.
A full set of same on glossy paper; and 3. A full set of the folded and gathered sheets on glossy paper, laid into a proof of the dustwrapper. A rare book, with unique accompanying material. Provenance on request.OCLC. locates two copies of the American edition, and no copies of the Brazilian edition.
DATE: July 18, 2006
COURT: United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (Tjoflat and Hall, Circuit Judges, and Restani, Chief Judge, United States Court of International Trade (sitting by designation). Opinion by Restani)
PLAINTIFF: Thais Cardoso Almeida
Anos Proibidos First Edition En
DEFENDANT: Amazon.com, Inc.
INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SERVICE: “Almeida does not dispute that Amazon is an ‘interactive computer service.’”
MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS: “At issue here is a photograph of the plaintiff Almeida taken when she was ten years old and displayed on the cover and inside the second edition of the photographic book Anjos Proibidos, or “Forbidden Angels.” In essence, Almeida claims that Amazon should not display her image to promote the sale of Anjos Proibidos because she did not consent and did not receive just compensation for the use of her image.
…
“It is customary business practice for Amazon to provide a product detail page that displays the cover of each book offered for sale, as well as text describing the book.
“In 2002, Almeida discovered that her picture was being displayed on Amazon.com websites in furtherance of the sale of the second edition of Anjos Proibidos. Amazon’s product detail page displayed the second edition cover photograph of Almeida and a quote attributed to a ten-year old Almeida: ‘I really liked Fabio. He’s super-cool. I never felt any shame in making the photos.’”
CAUSES OF ACTION: Violation of Florida’s right of publicity statute, civil theft statute, and common law invasion of privacy doctrine. The panel noted that the “Florida right of publicity does not impose upon interactive service providers an obligation to filter or censor content.”
PROCEDURAL HISTORY: The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Marcia G. Cooke, J., granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the CDA preempts the subject matter of Almeida’s right of publicity claim. Almeida appealed.
PROCEDURAL ACTION TAKEN HERE: Affirmed district court’s grant of summary judgment, although with respect to Almeida’s right of publicity claim, on different grounds.
OUTCOME: Because “Almeida’s right of publicity claim based on [Florida statute] would not withstand a motion to dismiss under the law . . . , it was unnecessary for the district court to determine whether the CDA preempts Almeida’s state law right of publicity claim, and we do not reach any of Almeida’s challenges to the district court’s application of the CDA here.”
OPINION: “The majority of federal circuits have interpreted the CDA to establish broad “federal immunity to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for information originating with a third-party user of the service.” [citing Zeran] In this case, the district court adopted this approach, but even this broad statutory immunity does not apply without limitation. [citing 47 USC 230(e)(1)-(4), that last of which provides that “[n]othing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property”] . . . Here, the district court did not consider whether immunizing Amazon from liability under the right of publicity would limit any law pertaining to intellectual property.”
…
“Whether the CDA immunizes an interactive service provider from a state law right of publicity claim is an issue of first impression for this Court. Few federal courts have considered the effect of § 230(e)(2) on the CDA’s grant of immunity, although it is clear that “any law pertaining to intellectual property” at least refers to the three traditional forms of intellectual property: copyright, patent, and trademark.”
…
“While we agree with Almeida that the district court should have addressed § 230(e)(2) before invoking the CDA’s grant of immunity, we believe that regardless of the answer to this question, the district court did not need to address the difficult issues of application of the CDA under the facts of this case . . . [because] Almeida’s right of publicity claim based on Fla. Stat. § 540.08 would not withstand a motion to dismiss under the law . . . , it was unnecessary for the district court to determine whether the CDA preempts Almeida’s state law right of publicity claim, and we do not reach any of Almeida’s challenges to the district court’s application of the CDA here.”
However, the panel seemed to hint at how it would have ruled were the CDA issue properly before it. Responding in a footnote to Amazon’s argument “that Almeida’s right of publicity action is a tort-based suit, and Congress did not intend to limit the CDA’s immunity with respect to tort-based suits,” the Court noted that “[i]t is also apparent, however, that the right of publicity does not fit neatly into the category of tort-based lawsuits from which Congress sought to immunize interactive service providers, i.e., dissemination of damaging information via the internet.” [citations omitted]