Clover Arrested Again. At AEE

This time for beating up Morgan lee.  Clover was also charged with possession of Cocaine and is currently being held in Las vegas Lockup

In Other news from AEE


Finally Several people have inquired about Jesse Jane, she is gone from Digital Playground and Digital Playground owns the trademark and the name Jessie Jane, as well as her site and anything else to do with that name.  She is now simply calling herself Jesse and is contracted to Jules Jordan Video.

116510cookie-checkClover Arrested Again. At AEE

Clover Arrested Again. At AEE

Share This

70 Responses

  1. Who is “The Word’s” again?
    Tommy doesn’t know how to spell his own name… duh.

  2. So, now that she is no longer Jesse Jane and is now under contract to Jules Jordan, how soon before her first anal, DP and blow bang. It was the fate of Lisa Ann, Julia Ann, Raylene and others who did no anal or limited anal in their careers when the contracts ran out.

  3. ATLMA has just severed its relationship with Clover. They said, “there is no place in the industry for a person who perpetrates domestic violence against women, Disrespect for women or a propensity for violence.”

    So, I guess they are going to server their relationship with most of the guys in this industry than?

  4. I guess I should give credit to ATLMA for doing the right thing though. So, Kudos to you ATLMA!

    Now if people in the industry could maybe start severing their relationship with woman beater, Ari Bass, instead of hanging out with and taking pictures with him at the AVN awards?

  5. The perfect encapsulation of this site.

    Picture of name spelled wrong as to point out error, directly below we get this: “Jesse Jane, she is gone from Digital Playground and Digital Playground owns the trademark and the name Jessie Jane”

    Jessie or Jesse? Which does Digital own?

  6. Isn’t that a contradiction? She’s under contract, but the issue is her contract ran out? Digital has fallen off, they don’t make good scenes, a bunch of their top talent has left quite willingly.

  7. While I guess you can praise ATMLA for doing this, you have to remember this isn’t the first time this has happened. Heck this isn’t the 2nd or 3rd time either. ATMLA had no choice. Clover was supposed to attend the AVN Awards sober, he didn’t fell off the wagon and now any shot he had at reviving his career or maybe finding forgiveness is completely gone now. But besides Porn he is going to be looking at some serious jail time for violating his probation.

  8. While I know you think yer the smartest man in the room and all…but there is method to my madness that was PURELY intentional…when you figure it out let me know.

  9. It sounds like Clover is a world-class ass, maybe his drinking and drugging has something to do with it according to one of the comments here but I drank heavily for most of my life and never once did I get arrested for beating an innocent woman (actually I haven’t been arrested for anything but you get the point). Evidently from Morgan’s Twitter they knew each other quite well, she said a couple of days before that Clover was her “best friend”, one response succinctly suggested she had been warned about him.

    I hope Morgan isn’t too badly hurt and that she heals soon. Her Twitter post about still attending the AVN awards evidently shows she was likely not hurt as badly as Christy Mack when War Machine (evidently) tried to kill her so at least there is that silver lining here. However, this is two years in a row where a porner was arrested for violence against a woman (Dr. Flip Flop was arrested there last year, one of the Dannys posting here said it was a woman he assaulted) — is it caused by the water, cocaine (Clover was caught with some, I don’t think Flippy has that excuse) or liquor (served at every night’s party although again I don’t know if either of was under the influence) that they serve in Vegas or what? Now that I think of it, wasn’t Christy assaulted in or near Vegas as well (although not at a porn function)? In other words, WTF is wrong in Vegas that porn chickies have to watch out for flying fists and other implements!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  10. Who is to say that he really did hit her at this point he is innocent, he has not been convicted, in a domestic violence situation the man goes to jail if he is there when the police get there. As they were called out somebody is going to jail. Also in court it can be brought up to a jury that this woman has mental issues she sells her body for money, perhaps a private investigator gets involved and the statement is not the same or even 5% off from what was given to police and the case is ultimately dismissed.

  11. So Digital does own “Jessie Jane”? If not, you’re saying you’re reporting wrong info purposefully as some weird tangential joke? That’s not really a great excuse and reeks of trying to justify an error. If you want to just tell me your reasoning instead of this weird guessing game then it would become more believable. Until then, the excuse ‘No, you just don’t understand my typos’ isn’t too powerful. I wasn’t trying to seem smart, I pointed out a typo. Might have been a bit dickish, but it wasn’t to seem smart, it’s literally just an observation.

    Why obfuscate? Just tell me what the inside joke is instead of this ‘I know something you don’t’ about typos game. Talk about ‘smartest guy in the room’…… ‘”error”?….I think not, more like brilliant inside jokes and wordplay’.

  12. Digital owns the variation jessie jane as well as jesse jane but that aint the point there is value to a website to also cover these variations in a story for the same reason digital would want to own them

  13. Not surprised. Like I said, most of the men in this industry today hate women (I am not just referring to the talent) .. and the credibility and hypocrisy of these characters is laughable.

  14. So they own both? Despite one of those names not being the name of the performer? Is that allowed? Can they own ‘Jess Jane’ and ‘Jessi Jane’ as well? That explanation still doesn’t make sense in the context of the paragraph you wrote. Seem for it to make sense you would specify that they own both names. You really don’t like admitting typos lol.

  15. I make tipos all the time and readilt admit them NP but there are good reasons to make them specially on an adult blog…think about it how often do people type in Jessie jane instead of Jesse Jane….startin to get the picture…things aint always as they seem

  16. So now it’s not about Digital owning that name as well? That was the first excuse. You’re confusing me. Now you are saying you made the typo on purpose to represent the fact that it was a frequent typo? I’m clearly missing some part of this. Are you going to switch ‘there’ and ‘their’ in posts as an homage to that as well? The idea that you did it as like a way to point out a common error makes almost no sense in the context of the sentence it was used in. Go back and look, you are describing the ownership of a trademark, really weird to make that the place where you switch the name to the wrong thing on purpose. So to answer your question, I’m not getting the picture at all really. Also, where can you find who owns what trademarks online? Why did Digital own her name but not some other contract girls?

  17. Erik: It is not uncommon for production companies like DP to own the name and website of its contract girls. There is nothing out of the ordinary here – business as usual in porn. Tera Patrick had to go to court over it (I forget the outcome but Mike may remember) and I believe there was a similar issue with Savana Samson and Vivid (again, Mike might remember).

  18. @erik2690

    ” where can you find who owns what trademarks online?”

    Might want to start with the US Trade & Patent Office iirc it’s had a name change since old farts like me had to trudge down to the library to check hefty outdated tomes under the librarians watchful evil eye lest we bend a page.

    “Why did Digital own her name but not some other contract girls?”

    The answer to this can be as varied and is generally determined by the contract. Much of it depends on a performers ability and willingness to read and negotiate the contract before signing.

  19. I’ll have a large soda, small popcorn, and some Joo Joo Bee’s please. In the red corner, sporting viagra induced wood, with the Price-Fisher pacifier, and pampers diapers, Kurt,”the Squirt” Lockwood,,,,and in the blue corner, wearing the fifteen year old high school prom dress, the grandma on Xanax, with the blue Depends, Alana “AARP” Evans. Shake hands and come out tweeting.

  20. I guess you didn’t read this exchange at all. Mike in his article wrote ‘Jesse Jane’ as ‘Jessie Jane’ and claimed the reason for this was a hat tip to the fact that Digital owned both names. I wanted to know how or why they could own the name ‘Jessie Jane’ just because it’s close to the name of a performer. Also, saying it isn’t uncommon and citing 2 anecdotes of 10 years retired stars isn’t really good proof.

  21. OK yall really should be as thoughtful in your thinking processes as you are in nit picking…first Jesse Jane trademark would legally include Jessie Jane, no ifs and or buts, you don’t think so try to enter into the biz using the name Jessie Jane

    and second It embarrasses me that i should have to draw a picture of this, I guess public education just leaves people without much ability to reason for themselves.

    Think about it. Why would I intentionally include a misspelling of the name Jesse Jane when The names Jesse and Jessie are spelled differently but pronounced identically? I further even pointed out that people commonly use Jessie jane by mistake…as the owner of a blog that is highly ranked on google in general why would I want BOTH spellings to be a part of the same article and even in other articles?

    Simple because if someone searches “Jessie Jane” I want my blog included in that search.

  22. OK admitted i didnt explain it exactly but heres the truth Jesse Jane trademark would legally include Jessie Jane, no ifs and or buts, you don’t think so try to enter into the biz using the name Jessie Jane or start a soft drink called koka kola

  23. According to IAFD Alana was born on July 6,1976 which if true would make her 38. Many times I suspect they are low on women’s ages but usually not that much low that she would actually be at least 50, the minimum age for AARP membership. I am surprised as to how young she is claimed to be too but I didn’t think she looked 50 yet last time I saw a recent picture of her.

    For the record Kurt and Alana have been going at it for years, here is a link to a thread where Alana claims to have been improperly creampied by Kurt during a scene and a few weeks later she turned up pregnant and ended up “aborting” the baby rather than deal with Kurt as the daddy. She claimed her husband has been clipped and she had fucked no one else but her clipped hubby (Chris) and Kurt during that timeframe. Here is a link: . It really gets going on the second page.

  24. So why does one come up as owned by Digital and one doesn’t? Can you explain the disparity? Again, do they own “Jessi Jane” and “Jess Jane”? Where exactly does it end? This still doesn’t make the typo make sense even if it was true, which you haven’t shown to be the case.

  25. For the life of me, I’ve never understood why there are these endless nit-picking, dorm room debates over things like this.

    Trademarking and licensing the names of its contract stars is part of DP’s business model. They create the stars and their characters. They nurture them along. And, they are well paid for a fairly limited number of performances. Or, that was the business model.

    DP created Jesse Jane, the character. Jesse’s real name is Cindy Taylor. If you look her up on IAFD and you’ll see that the Jesse Jane name first appears in DP productions – she wasn’t independent as Jesse Jane and then went under contract. DP owns the names of its creations to protect its investment. Whether its a good deal or a bad deal for a performer, its legal and she signed the deal and was happy to take the money while it lasted.

    And Mike is correct, whether its Jesse or Jessie, you can’t be too cute by half and call yourself Jessie James rather than Jesse and say, oh, its a completely different name. No one will be confused. Just as the guy who created the Incredible Hulk for Marvel couldn’t go to a rival comic book company and create the Amazing Hulk. Marvel trademarks its characters.

    End of the day, Jesse Jane is DP’s creation. She can recreate herself as someone else but she can’t continue to perform as the character Jesse Jane until the licensing or trademark agreement ends.

    Why is this such a big deal?

  26. @erik2690

    What are you trying to prove? That you found a typo or that the typo you found fit the motives and effects you assigned to it?

    As for where it ends re what forms of Jesse Jane DP owns perhaps a patent/trademark attorney would be a better source of information than a blog.

    “This still doesn’t make the typo make sense even if it was true, which you haven’t shown to be the case.”

    Do you think this is a court of law where a stated intent or motive can become fact? It isn’t. Life is full of contradictions IG courtesies extended to answer your questions despite your rude disrespect which I’d argue is the true encapsulation of this site.

  27. @mike

    I get your point, but a cola named Koka Kola is an obvious example of likelihood of confusion. One is not granted all names that are remotely similar. Something like a flat-chested 18 year-old brunette isn’t an obvious example of confusion when it comes to the name “Jessie Jane”. Since DP doesn’t own that name they could try to sue, but may not win it. DP has to prove that there is a confusing similarity.

    Beatles Apple Corp sued Apple Computers and lost. Budweiser Bier Burgerbrau has had tons of success against suits from Anheuser-Busch. Microsoft sued MikeRoweSoft and Microsoft settled by giving the kid a lot of merchandise in exchange for the domain name.

    Tommy Gunn has an underwear line and how many people in porn have used the name “Tommy Gun” in some way shape or form?

  28. cpanzram – sorry, friend, but you’re missing the point. In this instance, we’re talking about Jesse Jane, a creation of DP, continuing to perform under the name Jesse Jane, or Jessie Jane. It’s the same person. So, you can’t get around the confusion. DP created a character named Jesse Jane around a specific actress. They own the rights to that name and character. She can’t continue to be that character unless she wants to license the name from DP. That’s the way it works. A film studio can’t do a Batman movie or a Hulk movie or a Superman movie without licensing the character from Marvel. Again, that’s just the way it works.

  29. @cpanzram

    Big flaw ….each of the examples you offer is about a different entity vs this one person who agreed to perform under the name Jesse Jane exclusively for DP for a contracted term and to leave the name behind if she left DP.Jesse can use the name as long as she is willing to pay the stipulated post contract term price.

    The individual known as Jesse Jane agreed to PERFORM a role until such and such date….role ended and now she is free to move on to her next gig using whatever new name or role branding she chooses.

    Perhaps this ‘contract’ issue will help clear up confusion about ‘performer choice’ when it comes to condoms etc. as long as stakeholders are the ones setting the terms via contracts the performers really have no choice except to sign or not sign on the dotted line.

  30. I found a typo below a picture mocking typos. I liked the juxtaposition and pointed it out. Mike decided to go on to list several different reasons why the typo was supposedly on purpose. I don’t see what is wrong with anything I did.

  31. But that isn’t what Mike claimed. He claimed they had trademark on “Jessie Jane” and other performers couldn’t use that. So again, where does that end? Is “Jess Jane” usable in the industry? How far can you go claiming on a name?

  32. It is not a flaw. Jesse Jane did not create Jesse Jane. DP created Jesse Jane. If you look up Jesse Jane on IAFD, what you find is that the first appearance of Jesse Jane is in a DP production. So, Cindy Taylor is an actress playing a role that was created, promoted, marketed and, yes, trademarked by DP. DP owns that character name.

    If Jesse, like Stoya as an example, had performed under the name Jesse Jane and had her own Jesse Jane website prior to her DP contract, she could probably continue to perform under that stage name – unless she contracted otherwise. But that is not the case here. The character of Jesse Jane is a DP creation. They’re not saying that Cindy Taylor can’t continue to perform – she can. She just can’t perform as the character Jesse Jane. And trying to call herself Jessie Jane, rather than Jesse Jane, doesn’t solve the problem. If she, or Jules, want to use the Jesse Jane character, they can license it from DP.

    Again, this is not complicated. It’s just business as usual when it comes to the creation of characters, trademarks and licensing.

    So ….. to Erik’s question – can another character perform under the stage name Jesse Jane, the answer is no. By the way, that could even extend to whether a new actresses real name is Jesse Jane and she decides to act under her real, God-given name. Over the years, McDonald’s has successfully sued any number of fast food restaurants operated by people whose last names were McDonald.

  33. The flaw goes back to folks acting like this blog is a court of law where these issues are formally resolved.

    And…….erik2690 is still asking a blogger “How far can you go…” Which is no different than ‘where does it end’ I wonder if he needs a drivers ed booklet to believe the red octagon signs posted on corners mean STOP cuz some people get away with Slight Tap On Peddle.

    If I didn’t think it would just confuse matters more I’d shout…ever hear of Prince?

  34. Lets put this in terms that Eric might understand. “Barney” is a trademarked character. YOU, Eric, cannot make a cartoon about a purple dinasour singing “I love you, you love me.” Somebody owns Barney, not you. I hope that by showing you an example that you are familiar with it makes it easier for you to understand, or shall you continue to play ring around the rosie?

    Have you ever seen any firefighters talk to a small child,,,,they always squat down to get eye level with the kid,,,thats what we have to do with Eric here.

  35. Where are you viewing firefighters talking to children? “Eric” literally has no connection to my name or username. Is it that hard to see the bolded letters lol? Again you used an example that is not analogous to what Mike claimed. He claimed a different name “jessie Jane” was trademarked b/c they have a trademark on “Jesse Jane”. No one has yet to say where that line ends, “Jess Jane”, “Jesse Janie”? Where is the line? Your Barney snarky example makes no sense. I’m not talking about a copy, I’m talking about trademarks on things based on ‘similar’ name and how far that expands. When someone is debating other people and you jump in to snark and give bad examples it doesn’t come off great.

  36. I’ve got an idea for you EriC,
    Why dont you make a video, maybe pull down your diapers and shove a few things up your ass, post it on Pornhub, and call yourself Jessy Jane, or something like that, and see if DP doesnt send a takedown notice,,,then post it again and call yourself Jessie Janie, and see what happens. Then you will know the limits to which you can go.

    Then put on your little purple dinasour outfit and molest your “Tickle Me There” Elmo doll, but make sure your leak proof Pampers are on nice and tight, you wouldnt want to make a mess.

  37. @BT

    You don’t instantly get all like names when you register one or have rights to them. Of course Jules Jordan can’t use that name for the original Jesse Jane or one like it due to the obvious intentional infringement, but if you wanted to give a model the name “Jessie Jane” and have her be a young black woman DP couldn’t do much because they don’t own that name. They could sue, but would they win? There isn’t enough of a confusing similarity. Would it be a stupid move on the part of a company other than DP? You bet, but DP doesn’t own that name. Look up famous cases of trademark disputes. You can have a like name in the same business and not win if you don’t already own it.

  38. @eric,
    regarding talking to children. Getting down to their eye level is a long taught technique for the likes of firefighters, police, and medical personel. It helps calm the child, instead of having a big person in a uniform looking down on them. As the head of the phlebotomy department for a major lab for several years, I always taught this technique tomy employees. Often times the first thing mom or dad says is “This wont hurt” and the only word that kid hears is ‘hurt’.

    But you get down to their level, speak calmly, dont use words like hurt, or needle, or pain, and you talk the child thought it, just like I am doing right now with you. Now here’s your lolipop and have a nice night.

  39. Anybody rember Vanessa Williams, the Miss America whose nude photos showed up. Previos to her becoming famous an actress had had alreay registered that name with SAG, and it was also her real name. When this Vanessa came along she had to call herself Vannessa L. Williams but eventually she bought out the other girl who was not famous at all,,,,,but she got paid for that name.

  40. @lurking

    DP does not own the name “Jessie Jane”. I can start a crocheting company called “Jessie Jane” and claim the trademark. If I started one called Digital Playground they could sue seeing as they own that one.

    PS. Can you crochet? Great benefits and vacation time.

  41. @cpanzram

    The discussion related to the individual who signed a contract with DP that includes some clause giving DP ownership of the name Jesse Jane. SHE could expect to be sued for breach of contract and trademark infringement if SHE tried to use the name Jessie (with an I) Jane.

    The scenarios you’re trying to knit are as close to the original statement context as the chances I’d be looking for a job from from you.

  42. @mikesouth

    Perhaps a post letting the world know “Eric” is up for grabs as a screen name since @erik2690 claims has no connection to the bolded letter of his name. Phonetics of Erik vs Eric are a bit ironic given where this started. 🙂

  43. That isn’t what this was about though. You are molding the argument to fit your narrative. Mike said Digital had a trademark claim on the name “Jessie Jane”. Do you agree and if so where does that line end? Is Jessi also not allowed? Jess?

  44. Why are you trying to give a paragraph answer to one sentence? Especially after writing another answer just to insult me. You honestly seem angry and annoyed by a discussion that you inserted yourself into. Calm down bud. You still weren’t able to answer the question of what names Digital has claim over, despite trying to come in sounding like an expert. What’s your thing with Barney? That’s weirding me out lol.

  45. According to an old article I found it says ..
    “Jesse Jane is a trademark of Digital Playground, Inc. And all rights are reserved worldwide.”
    It doesn’t say Jessie Jane or any other version is trademarked just Jesse Jane.

  46. So Erik is right. Mike wrote in his post..
    “Digital Playground owns the trademark and the name Jessie Jane”
    That’s wrong. Digital Playground owns the trademark and the name Jesse Jane not Jessie Jane.

  47. I didn’t even notice this comment where CPanzram did the patent search until after I made my comment. So CPanzram is also right. DP owns Jesse Jane not Jessie Jane

  48. @erik2690

    The fact that she dropped the Jane vs using Jessie Jane, Jessy Jane or any other creative spelling and my experience back up the original statement that DP trademarked Jesse Jane and own or would claim ownership of Jessie Jane as well.

    Considering the fact that she has the vested interest I’ll also assume she sought appropriate contract advice to (resolve or) prevent the contract fit falls she didn’t like.

    Once again…what are you trying to prove by debating something that doesn’t affect you and if it did could only truly be resolved in a court of law?

  49. Again for the 20th time, where is the line on that? Jess Jane? Jessi Jane? And how is that line decided? Mike claimed they owned the trademark on the name “Jessie Jane” as well. Your argument doesn’t hold too much water, as far as thinking Jesse would be a secondary option to “Jessy Jane”. Her name is established enough that I almost think the first name would be as much of a priority. So I’m not sure that proves much. When you are in a back and forth debate and responding to me asking ‘why are you debating’ is pretty silly. Why are you debating me? See it gets a bit circular to act like you have some high ground as you participate in the debate.

  50. @erik2690

    if you seriously want to know GO ASK AN ATTORNEY.

    Now I seriously want to know …WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TRYING TO PROVE?

  51. @Commonsense

    Please explain why if Erik is ‘right’ why Jesse dropped the Jane.

    Why Jules Jordan who didn’t fall off the pumpkin truck yesterday and her other advisors in a place to know much better than two anonymous commenters who haven’t stated a single qualification aren’t insisting she add an ‘I” and keep the jane?

  52. @lurking: I am just stating a FACT that Jesse Jane is a trademark of digital playground not Jessie Jane as mike stated in his post. it’s right here in black and white..

    everything you have stated so far is just YOUR OPINION. you have not provided any PROOF of anything you are saying to be TRUE. now, You could be right could be wrong.. IDK… but, until you provide PROOF of what you are so sure you are right about… than I am going to stick with my fact and anonymous opinion…

    By the way, you are nothing more than an anonymous commenter who says is not associated with this industry in any way, yet you continue to act like an expert on it.

    you just love to throw your so called “qualifications” and “know it all attitude”. in peoples faces desperately looking for praise and to be told how much smarter you are than the rest of us.. well I got news for ya… I don’t know you from adam and you are no more qualified than I or anyone else on here in your opinions… your “qualifications” mean zip..

    I have also proved a few times that you have been wrong a number on some things you have stated to be facts. pretty sure Michael Fattorosi could back me up on that one… 😉

    so again, until you can provide PROOF, instead of all words and OPINION on what you are so sure you are right about.. than I am going to stick with my fact and anonymous opinion on this one. I hope that’s ok with you not that I care what you think…

    ps.. most people in this industry aren’t the brightest so what you stated about why this and why that in your comment means nothing… provide the PROOF.

  53. I honestly don’t have a good answer. The parameters of our debate seem pretty clear, Mike said Digital owned “Jessie Jane”. No one can find evidence of that and I want to know if Digital owns that just by virtue of “Jesse Jane”, how far does that extend. It seemed like what we were arguing about was pretty clear, so I don’t know what you are asking. This is a back and forth conversation you keep engaging in, so to act stumped as to what I’m doing engaging in it seems pretty silly. To be more concise I’m not trying to prove anything I guess, engaging in a debate as are you.

  54. After “Jesse Jane” can’t get that exact name, why do you assume that “Jesse” isn’t her next choice? Why would she rather have “Jessie Jane” than “Jesse”? The spelling might be more important to her than the having the full name being homophonically the same. She’s well enough established that “Jesse” in porn would be presumed to be her. So you seem to be leaping again and saying because you think “Jessie Jane” or “Jessi Jane” would be her next choice then it must be true. That logic again leads back to how far Digital’s reach goes from just owning the one name? “Jess Jane”? That idea kinda has to be defined for this point of ‘tangential/homophonic ownership’ to make sense.

  55. Wash, rinse, repeat. Wash, rinse, repeat. Ring around the rosie. Duck, duck, goose. One fish two fish red fish blue fish, Sam I am, I do not like green eggs and ham.

    Can we please drop this. The one last place where there is any kind of real discussion about this industry and this is what it is reduced too, AGAIN. lol ONLY IN PORN

  56. You right pieces that could certainly be considered nitpicking. You responded to the critique and then changed your reasoning several times.

  57. Making another comment is not how you stop it. You just cease the back and forth and it dies out. You aren’t required to read the replies on week old posts. Only on by commenter jilted lololololol

Leave a Reply