Vincent K Tylor strikes again

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

just stumbled upon this..

http://vermontfurnitureblog.com/vincent-k-tylor-lawsuit/

http://vermontfurnitureblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/letter-from-Woolf-Gafni-Fowler-attorneys.pdf

http://vermontfurnitureblog.com/copyright-trolls-loose/

[stinger]

Robert, first and third links go to - page not found.  Ranger-fever might be clouding your judgement (or typing skills(or both)).

As for the second link, "methinks they doth protest too much."

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Robert, first and third links go to - page not found.  Ranger-fever might be clouding your judgement (or typing skills(or both)).

As for the second link, "methinks they doth protest too much."

No, my judgement is not clouded, the Rangers are kicking ass, be grateful the Hawks won't have to loose to them, after LA dismantles them.. the links in question have been removed by the person that posted them.. visit the eli FB page, I guess her "lawyer" advised her to do so...

[Janus]

That is an excellent piece Peggy - well done!

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

Great article Peggy. It's interesting that all the people that once represented VKY are no longer involved with him. Seems they disappear right about the time it becomes clear that there is an inordinate number of VKT images on free image web sites and very, very few of these sites have been contacted to remove them.

Are you working on getting the venue moved back to Vermont?

Best of luck.

[lucia]

I was also wondering about getting the venue moved to Vermont.  I don't know anything about jurisdiction, but it seems odd for this to be heard in California.  It ought to be inconvenient for everyone all around.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Very good article Peggy. please keep us posted.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I thnk the venue issue will be an uphill battle for Tylor.. facebook may be located in california, but they are covered by DMCA and they also have servers all over the world much like google..who's to to say this this image was even on a server in california??

[Matthew Chan]

The Vermont Reformer newspaper called me for an interview about VKT and copyright extortion in general.  I had plenty to say.

Thanks for your support everyone.  We are working several avenues.  Unfortunately this is looking like it's going to be a long, drawn-out process.  If anyone would like to share evidence that VKT submitted photos to one of these websites please contact me at [email protected]

Not in my wildest dreams would I ever imagine myself fighting a battle like this.  So helpful to have your support.  Thanks again!

[Peeved]

Article stated that, "I immediately took the photo down and called VKT to explain," wrote Farabaugh.

That statement and "immediate action" along with back and forth negotiations, shows the alleged infringement was NOT "willful"! YET...after trying to extort her for $12,000, UP from the original $9,500, VKT filed a $150,000 lawsuit shortly thereafter...the MAXIMUM AMOUNT allowed for "WILLFUL" infringement!

I am thinking of a few selective adjectives here!

[DavidVGoliath]

...after trying to extort her for $12,000, UP from the original $9,500, VKT filed a $150,000 lawsuit shortly thereafter...the MAXIMUM AMOUNT allowed for "WILLFUL" infringement!

I am thinking of a few selective adjectives here!

That's not unusual for a copyright lawsuit where a work has been timely registered; if you were filing any kind of suit where there's a cap on potential damages, your counsel would seek the maximum in the petition... though it will always be up to the courts to decide on the level of any damages awarded, which will be based on multiple factors which, naturally, will include the arguments put forth by counsel for both the plaintiff and defendant.

I completely understand that seeing a legal petition referencing $150,000 - or multiples of that figure - is going to make people's heads spin a bit... but, when a claim reaches that point, it's a binary choice: sue for actual damages (often difficult to establish) or statutory damages (let the courts decide)?

[Peeved]

Thank you DavidVGoliath for that most insightful explanation of what is not considered "unusual" for copyright "trolls" when it comes to filing suits.

Note: (sacrcasm)

[Matthew Chan]

Questions that Peggy might have her lawyer ask are:

1. Show and prove what price and volume of ACTUAL sales VKT has made, not some fictional, arbitrary value pulled out of thin air.  If he has photos that show sales of $50, that will help demonstrate what the true market value of the image is.  What resolution and format does he sell at?  If VKT shows very low sales AND a "low" price (anything under $200 such as for innocent infringements), guess what? Judges might be swayed to the lower end of the spectrum.

2.  The lawyer needs to ask about all these FREE VKT wallpaper websites?  How did those come about?  And WHY are they out there?  Are there prominent disclaimers?

3. What is the damages for alleged infringement on a Facebook site?  Facebook may be on the Internet but Facebook is actually "closed site".  How many users could actually view the infringed photos?  Generally, Facebook users have to actually "like" either a page or a personal account to view such images.  And just because photos are on a Facebook page or personal account, they don't automatically show on everyone's timeline.  Hypothetically, if 10 people actually saw them, does that warrant a $10,000 statutory damages award? What is the formula here?

As a non-lawyer and if I had to represent myself, there are numerous questions that I would prepare to ascertain what the value of the infringement award to be.  Generally speaking, fighting the infringement claim is not good use of time.  However, a good use of time is to show that the value of the infringement comes close to "de minimus".

Just thinking out of the box late at night....

[DavidVGoliath]

The lawyer needs to ask about all these FREE VKT wallpaper websites?  How did those come about?  And WHY are they out there?  Are there prominent disclaimers?

This part bothers me the most; I can't conceive of any photographer - especially those that are protective of their work to the point of filing suit over alleged misappropriation - simply allowing the unchecked propagation of their images via "free wallpaper" sites.

It especially stretches credulity that, having gone to the trouble of timely registering their work, they're "happy" to see it shared around the internet via means which they realistically have no control over, save for filing a takedown notice or content removal request for sites that abide by such messages.

I'll say this much: if VKT, or any other photographer, were to be found to be deliberately placing their work on such sites in the hope that someone will eventually commit an infringement... they deserve to have the book thrown at them to the fullest extent that the law will permit.

At the very least, I'd expect their copyright registrations to be invalidated for any images they've claimed infringement of via such a vector, as well as any and all pending or in-progress cases thrown out. I would imagine that would also mean it would be "open season" on them via the civil courts (at least) for any past court actions or settlements, as their actions would equate to malicious prosecution and abuse of process.

[JLorimer]

What does it take to be allowed to comment on vtdigger.com?  I left a comment that was factual and did not flame any party there.  It has not shown up, while others continue to post rude things one after another.