Attorney Larry Zerner & Vincent Tylor Extortion Letter

[Matthew Chan]

Following the settlement of Hawaiian Art Network & Vincent Tylor vs. Aloha Plastic Surgery, it appears that Vincent Tylor is going it alone for the moment in his extortion letters. This is the first time in a long while that we have seen Vincent Tylor move forward without the support of Hawaiian Art Network.

Vincent Tylor has hired California attorney Larry Zerner to issue a $5K extortion letter.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/112260702/Attorney-Larry-Zerner-Vincent-Tylor-Settlement-Demand-Letter

As you can see, Tylor has authorized the old-style aggressive extortionate tactics threatening $30K/infringement and $150K for willful damages.

How many times has ELI seen this in the past?  Only the dumb and stupid would pay the $5K without getting a 2nd legal opinion.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

And for your enjoyment here is the first batch of nuggets concerning our newest stock image copyright troll "Skank" Larry Zerner

The below quote is directly from one of his most enlightening blog articles:

Court Rules "Skank" is Not Defamatory: In case you were worrying about being sued for calling someone a "skank," the California Supreme Court has said, "It's okay." In the case of Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp., Jennifer Seelig, one of the losing contestants on the television show Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire, sued San Francisco radio DJ Vincent Crackhorn, as well as the station, for referring to her on the air as a "chicken butt," "local loser" and "big skank." The California Court of Appeals struck down her lawsuit, ruling that the terms mentioned above were simply hyperbole and could not be proven true or false. So, go ahead, call someone a "skank;" you might get punched, but you can't get sued.

and now for the image in question:



IS THIS IMAGE WORTH 5k???

This is a must read article from Zerner himself....apparently he wrote it, but never read it!!

In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. 17 U.S.C. §504(c)(2).

Notice the underlined words.  The statute does not say that for willful infringement, the court must award at least $150,000.  The statute says that $150,000 is the most the court can award for statutory damages, but it’s entirely discretionary.  The court can even award damages as low as $200 if it finds the infringement to be innocent.

But many people assume that I will jump at the chance to represent them on a contingency fee basis, because I will certainly be able to get a jury to award damages of $150,000 The problem is that they are not looking at the case realistically.  Reader, ask yourself this question. If you were on a jury and had to decide statutory damages on a case where the sole infringement was that a photograph was put up on a website, are you going to give that photographer $150,000.  Probably not.  Most likely, you will ask yourself how much damages the photographer actually incurred and base your award on that number.

read the entire skanky article here: http://zernerlaw.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/you-infringed-my-copyright-you-owe-me-150000-um-not-so-fast/

Thens there is this little gem:
"All of these excuses are not only wrong, but they are also potentially costing the photographer tens of thousands of dollars. This article will explain why registering your photos with the Copyright Office has never been easier–and how a registration could mean the difference between getting rich or getting ripped-off."

he said getting rich and getting ripped off in the same sentence!..
http://www.modelmayhem.com/education/photography/282-no-excuses-why-all-photographers-need-to-copyright-their-work

The single case I have found thus far in regards to litigation experience...http://www.scribd.com/doc/81394146/Reply-Mot-Dismiss-DC-Comics-v-Mark-Towle

Homepage: http://www.zernerlaw.com/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/larryzerner?fref=ts
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Zernerlaw

Admitted to Practice in 1991 after a long and "stellar" acting career: http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/155473

Maybe we should hook him up with Timothy McCormack and they can do some videos together! http://www.youtube.com/user/kolshack?feature=results_main

His claim to fame was appearing in a bit role in one of the cheesiest movies of all times.. Friday the 13th part III
Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Zerner

[Matthew Chan]

I think it is tremendously funny how Larry Zerner and Vincent Tylor's extortion letter is threatening using the $30K per infringement and $150K for willful infringement.

And yet Larry Zerner's own blog post tells people how to defend against it!

http://zernerlaw.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/you-infringed-my-copyright-you-owe-me-150000-um-not-so-fast/

Read Larry Zerner's own words.

But many people assume that I will jump at the chance to represent them on a contingency fee basis, because I will certainly be able to get a jury to award damages of $150,000 The problem is that they are not looking at the case realistically.  Reader, ask yourself this question. If you were on a jury and had to decide statutory damages on a case where the sole infringement was that a photograph was put up on a website, are you going to give that photographer $150,000.  Probably not.  Most likely, you will ask yourself how much damages the photographer actually incurred and base your award on that number.

Keep in mind, when Congress wrote the laws regarding statutory damages, they were probably thinking of things like video bootleggers, who could sell tens of thousands of dollars of illegal product, but with no record keeping of these sales, making actual damages impossible to determine.  They were almost certainly not considering the kind of (relatively) small infringements that happen daily on the web.  I’m not excusing this behavior.  Nor do I think these infringements should never draw a lawsuit (although sometimes they should not).  But just don’t assume that every infringement is automatically worth $150,000.

This is simply funny as get out!

Larry Zerner can now join the ranks of Timmy McCormack as the newest member of the MORON CLUB.

Larry, if you must attack with someone using propaganda, it might be a good idea to NOT argue the other side on your blog, you blooming moron.  LOL.

Larry must have a spinal cord injury because his left hand didn't know what the hell is right hand was saying.

Vincent, I see you are getting smarter in your hiring practices. Way to go in checking your hired help.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Something tells me Vincent K. Tylor did not take kindly to Glen Carner's new sanitized,  reasonable demand letter.. He continues to think his images are something special..or maybe he needs to recoup some attorney fees, from the HAM  v Aloha case??? Just speculation on my part, but something tells me that settlement was more of a loss for HAN and Tylor.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

almost forgot about this as well..from a forum post dating back to 2001

"Last year Larry Zerner came as an invited guest for a Friday the 13th gathering, and gave autographs, spoke, etc.
A few weeks ago the name of Screamfest began changing on the website, and all the attending members were stumped seeing the Screamfest name has been removed. Here is what the president of Screamfest wrote as explanation:
As you have all noticed, we have slowly been removing the name "Scream Fest" from the website and advertising. We thought we would give you guys all the information that we can tell you at this time, right from the source. We recently received a cease and desist letter from an attorney named Larry Zerner. You may know him as one of our celebrity guests last year, part of the Friday the 13th Reunion.

Remember the guy you paid $20 to for his autograph? Apparently he is also the attorney for a film festival in Los Angeles, CA. After coming to our show last year, he pretty much went back and trademarked the name "Screamfest", stating that they've been using it longer than us. As of two months ago, their trademark was accepted and, unfortunately, ours was denied. We could go to court and fight it, but Gina and I decided to go on with the name Spooky Empire, and put all our efforts into putting on the best show we can, instead of wasting our time and money on a lawsuit. We also decided not to completely change the name of the show. We felt that it would confuse everyone even further, and it would also feel like we were completely backing down. So you all can call it Scream Fest all you want, we just can't put it on the website or any of our advertisements"

http://www.joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122168

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Mr. Zerner's extortion demand letter reminds me a lot of Timothy McCormick's original letters, very heavy handed with the "This is your one chance to settle before we file suit". I can only hope that we will see another Aloha come along and teach Larry and VKT a lesson, again we don't know the settlement in the Aloha case but it appears as if VKT is a slow learner.

Maybe we can ask Larry to do a blog on the chances of winning a lawsuit over seeded images?

[Oscar Michelen]

Great work again BuddhaPi! If I were mean, I would point out the numerous grammatical errors in his reply affirmation but I am not that kind of person. Anyone responding to this character's letter should just quote from his own article.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Great work again BuddhaPi! If I were mean, I would point out the numerous grammatical errors in his reply affirmation but I am not that kind of person. Anyone responding to this character's letter should just quote from his own article.

Maybe asshat Timothy McCormack can point out the errors...oh wait, nevermind..

[Mulligan]

I don't think copyright troll and collection agent Timothy B. McCormack of Seattle would have time to correct the errors in the payment extraction letters coming out of the offices of other lawyers collection agents. Indeed, judging from recent postings here on the forum from other McCormack letter recipients, McCormack and his paralegal trolls like Ashanti A. Taylor still haven't bothered to clean up the mistakes in their current series of form letters.

I don't understand why the legal honchos at Getty Images don't get on McCormack's ass over these unprofessional form letters. If I were paying a big percentage out to some lawyer payment extraction collection agent and calling that person my "outside counsel," you can be damn sure I'd require that the letters going out were at least proofread to a professional standard that would pass muster with someone who had been educated to a seventh grade level, minimum.

But then several of the letters I received from Getty's minimum wage "compliance specialist" have also been riddled with typos and spelling errors, as well as legal representations so egregiously wrong that a tenth grade high school student with a low B average could see through them.

McCormack and the other copyright trolling bottom feeders certainly prove that you don't have to be educated or competent with the English language to earn a living in the payment extraction business.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Damn! I can go work for Getty I finished 9th grade!...or better yet I could probably get myself an online law degree and become outside counsel and collect 30% of zero on my letters!! sounds like a win win for me!

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

When Getty sent their responses to my complaint letters they were also full of errors including getting the name of my company as well as the amount of their claim.  Getty wants 875.00 and in their letter they said 8750.00    You would think they would at least proof read what they sent out, so I guess Timothy is a just a case of monkey see monkey do.

I don't think copyright troll and collection agent Timothy B. McCormack of Seattle would have time to correct the errors in the payment extraction letters coming out of the offices of other lawyers collection agents. Indeed, judging from recent postings here on the forum from other McCormack letter recipients, McCormack and his paralegal trolls like Ashanti A. Taylor still haven't bothered to clean up the mistakes in their current series of form letters.

I don't understand why the legal honchos at Getty Images don't get on McCormack's ass over these unprofessional form letters. If I were paying a big percentage out to some lawyer payment extraction collection agent and calling that person my "outside counsel," you can be damn sure I'd require that the letters going out were at least proofread to a professional standard that would pass muster with someone who had been educated to a seventh grade level, minimum.

But then several of the letters I received from Getty's minimum wage "compliance specialist" have also been riddled with typos and spelling errors, as well as legal representations so egregiously wrong that a tenth grade high school student with a low B average could see through them.

McCormack and the other copyright trolling bottom feeders certainly prove that you don't have to be educated or competent with the English language to earn a living in the payment extraction business.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

amazing how Vincent K Tylor was silent for months on end, as soon as the Aloha case settled he re-appears!! demanding more now than he did before..I'm suspecting more and more that Tylor is attempting to make back some of the money he spent on the last failed lawsuit....

To the OP do some research on this image as I'm fairly certain it is one of those that appear on 100's of wallpaper sites..certainly not worth 3k much less 3 dollars.. Depending on how pissed you are, you could wait and see if they file suit, then pull an Aloha on them and file a counter-suit, but it would be costly and time consuming.. I really find it hard to believe that Tylor hasn't learned his lesson..you might also want to look at the registration, it might be a bulk registration, which "could have issues"...

I guess it's California Entertainment Attorney Larry Zerner's turn to get thrown under the ELI bus..another skank that apears to be greedy and ot care about his reputation..

[Peeved]

Was thinking the same thing regarding Skum Of The Earth coming out of the closet once again.

Looks like looking up the registration number will have to wait till November 13th, as the government sites are down for maintenance right now.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

a few inline comments regarding this BS letter from entertainment attorney Larry Zerner

" As he has never granted your company permission to use his photograph, it has infringed Mr. Tylor’s exclusive rights, in violation of § 501 of the Copyright Act."
I guess skank Larry Zerner is also Judge and jury??

"you are responsible for any infringing act on your website regardless of your intent."
By the definition of the law this may be true, but any sane judge would take into account how the image came to be on the site ( 3rd party developer, intern, etc..) this is such crap it's not even funny!

"In the event of a lawsuit, Mr. Tylor would also be entitled to all of his attorney’s fees and costs, which can easily run into the tens of thousands of dollars."
Yup, maybe Attoreny Larry Zerner should ask Vincent K Tylor just how much he spent when Aloha Plastic Surgery unexpectedly filed a counter suit against him..

"Mr. Tylor has retained my firm to file a lawsuit against  for this copyright infringement."
You and a long list of other skank lawyers that have all since disappeared including but not limited to:
Peter T. Holt - Attorney
Brandon S. Sand - Attorney
Gil Zvulony - Attorney - Zvulony and Company
Julie Stewart - Attorney -Blackline Entertainment Law & The Trademark Shop
Aldrich Law Firm - Attorney - Russell Aldrich
Jeffrey L. Kominsky - Attorney -  Conrad & Scherer
Ivan Kopas - - Attorney -  Conrad & Scherer
Christian Philip Martinen - Attorney - CPM Creative
I'll be adding washed up has been actor turned lawyer Larry Zerner to this list as well


"After carefully reviewing the scope of the infringement, the egregiousness of your company’s actions, and the lost revenue from your failure to properly license the photograph, ....."
Larry Zerner pulled the amount of $3000.00 right out of his ass, like a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat! "Scope of infringement" now there's a new phrase we haven't heard before...very creative I must admit.The only  "lost revenue" here is Vincent K Tylor's inability to be a businessman, I mean he sells his prints for as little as 10.00 including shipping!! What does that say about the value of his images?? not much would be my guess

"This settlement is based upon a) the damages my client has incurred from your failure to properly compensate him for the use of the image"
HorseHockey! These "damages" would have to be proven in a court of law...good luck with that!

"b) the chances of a jury awarding a significant amount of statutory damages for willful infringement against  (which should certainly have known better)"
Entertainment Lawyer, and has been actor Larry Zerner also can add "physic" to his resume.

"c) the attorney's fees that would be expended on ' behalf should this case go to trial"
again how much did Vincent K Tylor spend on the aloha case?? just say'in

"If you carry insurance, now is a good time to contact your carrier to determine whether copyright infringement is covered under your policy (many policies cover it as an “advertising injury”)."

Not to mention, it would be an easy payday for the both the troll and trollee..

I'm already really warm and fuzzy here, I think a few more posts are in order and maybe even a graphic or 2..perhaps a brand new meme???

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Thanks for the reply Robert. I thought it was pretty insane myself. This portion of my website was created by a student. Goes to show you no good deed goes unpunished. I'm not so much pissed as much as it is a hassle. Should he try and take it to trial any thoughts?

Here's the thing when it comes to actual suits / trials....one just never knows how they are going to turn out, how long it will take, how much it will cost..ect... "Entertainment" Attorney Larry Zerner may proclaim to have an idea, but don't be fooled he hasn't a clue as every case is different.. I'll give you some thoughts on VK Tylors last attempt at this which is well documented in the forum.

In the Hawaiian Art Network, VK Tylor vs.Aloha Plastic Surgery fiasco, they filed suit and it is my belief they they fully planned and hoped that Dr. Pasquale would quickly settle rather that get dragged into court..They NEVER thought that he would file a counter suit, thus sucking them into it for the long haul.. The records are sealed, but I have no doubt that this little venture cost VK Tylor a good chunk of change, I also suspect that VK Tylor isn't all that "wealthy" in terms of cash, and we all pretty much think he is morally bankrupt, but I digress..Not being an attorney I'm not in a position to give legal advice, but if it were me I know exactly what I would do if it went to a suit being filed.. I might lose in the long run, but I can almost guarantee that VK Tylor would not "win"...and also keep in mind that even if one loses, that doesn't always mean any money is exchanged..