ExtortionLetterInfo Forums

Retired Forums => Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum => Topic started by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) on May 22, 2014, 01:37:03 PM

Title: Vincent K Tylor strikes again
Post by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) on May 22, 2014, 01:37:03 PM
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/
Title: Re: Vincent K Tylor strikes again
Post by: stinger on May 22, 2014, 03:27:51 PM
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."
Title: Re: Vincent K Tylor strikes again
Post by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) on May 22, 2014, 06:47:32 PM
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...
Title: Re: Vincent K Tylor strikes again
Post by: Janus on June 03, 2014, 03:42:52 PM
That is an excellent piece Peggy - well done!
Title: Re: Vincent K Tylor strikes again
Post by: Jerry Witt (mcfilms) on June 03, 2014, 11:21:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: Vincent K Tylor strikes again
Post by: lucia on June 04, 2014, 03:42:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: Vincent K Tylor strikes again
Post by: Greg Troy (KeepFighting) on June 04, 2014, 08:04:25 PM
Very good article Peggy. please keep us posted.
Title: Re: Vincent K Tylor strikes again
Post by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) on June 05, 2014, 11:33:06 AM
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??
Title: Re: Vincent K Tylor strikes again
Post by: Matthew Chan on June 06, 2014, 11:32:40 AM
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 Peggy@VermontWoodsStudios.com

Not in my wildest dreams would I ever imagine myself fighting a battle like this.  So helpful to have your support.  Thanks again!
Title: Re: Vincent K Tylor strikes again
Post by: Peeved on June 16, 2014, 03:39:20 PM
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!
Title: Re: Vincent K Tylor strikes again
Post by: DavidVGoliath on June 17, 2014, 05:37:53 AM
...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)?
Title: Re: Vincent K Tylor strikes again
Post by: Peeved on June 17, 2014, 02:31:58 PM
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)
Title: Re: Vincent K Tylor strikes again
Post by: Matthew Chan on June 18, 2014, 01:19:29 AM
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....
Title: Re: Vincent K Tylor strikes again
Post by: DavidVGoliath on June 18, 2014, 08:06:38 AM
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.
Title: Re: Vincent K Tylor strikes again
Post by: JLorimer on June 20, 2014, 04:54:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: Vincent K Tylor strikes again
Post by: Matthew Chan on June 21, 2014, 01:24:43 AM
It is easy for people to be self-righteous until they get smacked in the head. I promise you that some of these people will come running to ELI for help the minute they are on the receiving end of the stick.

Most people don't understand or appreciate what we do on ELI until they get a letter and start bouncing around dealing with non-ELI people.  What we do and share here is pretty unique.  People think it is all about any ol' lawyer responding to any ol' infringement claim.  People who think that will get TREATED and dealt with the very same way.

You have a mission you need to achieve defending against VKT.  Ignore the non-supporters who don't get it.  Stick to a powerful community and people who "get it". If you have attackers there, then stay away from there.  Stay here where you will get the support you need to defend your case.

I'm getting slammed up here in Vermont.  http://vtdigger.org/2014/06/16/vermont-business-owner-says-hit-copyright-troll/
Check out the comments
Title: Re: Vincent K Tylor strikes again
Post by: Peeved on June 21, 2014, 01:51:22 AM
Agree with Matthew and I was thinking the very same thing regarding the "non-supporters" and as Matthew put it "attackers". I hope that none of them ever "accidentally" rear-ends anyone one day, causing only a scratch of damage, only to have the other party claim "injury" and sue them for big bucks! Ya...that karma lady can be a real bitch! That's right..I said "LADY".

Also agree that those "non-supporters" will never "get" the fact that "trolling" is a BUSINESS PLAN and has little to do with the protection of intellectual property. "Non-supporters" also do not "get" that this forum is not about being "against" the right to protect ones intellectual property. Quite a few ELI contributors are artists and photographers themselves, but I digress...


Title: Re: Vincent K Tylor strikes again
Post by: lucia on June 21, 2014, 02:19:33 PM
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.
Same thing happened to me.  I posted descriptions of where VKT's images appear and so on.
Title: Re: Vincent K Tylor strikes again
Post by: Greg Troy (KeepFighting) on June 21, 2014, 05:33:30 PM
I agree with Matthew's comments.  Stick around as there is not only support here but a wealth of knowledge as well.
Title: Re: Vincent K Tylor strikes again
Post by: Oscar Michelen on June 22, 2014, 10:43:04 PM
Peggy: I will review the info you sent me Monday and get back to you asap. I also could not post a comment on the site btw
Title: Re: Vincent K Tylor strikes again
Post by: Matthew Chan on June 23, 2014, 02:16:05 AM
Don't make this more difficult than it has to be.  You are caught up in terminology and overthinking this.  Anyone can give anyone else money for any reason.  Having said that, if you want to have people contribute money to you to help in defeating VKT, this is not a complicated procedure. It can be as simply as sharing your email address for Paypal contributions.  However, to actually receive contributions, there are other things you will likely have to do.

Most of the people on ELI know you have a legitimate lawsuit against you filed by VKT. You have had a newspaper article written about you and your case.  You have written blog posts about your position and your case. You have laid a lot of the groundwork to credibly show that you are not soliciting money trivially or without reason.

Asking for financial help is probably one of the most difficult things normally self-sufficient people with pride can do.  Trust me, I know.  I don't like asking for help. It isn't easy but sometimes you have to be open to allow others to help you.  If you want someone to help you, your job is to NOT make it complicated.  Make it simple and make it compelling.

Tell people your situation and story, lay out your case, tell people what you are trying to achieve and what the money will be used for.  Seeing VKT get defeated would make many people happy.  Paypal is one of easiest ways to transfer money to another person on the Internet.

If and when you decide to not overthink and overcomplicate this, you will post such information, your case, your story, etc. on your blog/website and then invite others who may be interested to do so.  It isn't like you will be raising tens of thousands of dollars.  You will be lucky to get a few hundred dollars contributed to help you.  This little bit of money does not even come close to what you are reading and thinking.

Don't make it hard for people to help you. And give people a compelling reason to do so.  Find a way to give back in exchange for contributions.  It can be regular updates, personal emails, gratitude, etc.  Using creativity and imagination can go a long way.

Thanks so much for your support, everyone.  The case is progressing.  Matthew suggested we set up a legal defense fund.  I haven't found much information about IRS requirements or forms.  This seems like overkill - not really a fit for me (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_defense_fund).  I guess we could just set it up on paypal.  Any suggestions?
Title: Re: Vincent K Tylor strikes again
Post by: lucia on June 23, 2014, 12:23:38 PM
Peggy: I will review the info you sent me Monday and get back to you asap. I also could not post a comment on the site btw
It turns out vtdigger requires commenters to include both first and last names. Their stated reason is that this makes things more civil. It's not clear to me that it would. Among other things, I don't know how they can check whether someone uses their real name.  But if you only wrote 'oscar', that could be an issue. (That said, you usually use your full name. So, who knows?)
Title: Re: Vincent K Tylor strikes again
Post by: JLorimer on June 23, 2014, 02:15:28 PM
I used my full name.  No dice.  I had a friend try as well.  He used his full name and left an even simpler comment.  Still no dice.  It is nice to see yours got through lucia.
Title: Re: Vincent K Tylor strikes again
Post by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) on June 23, 2014, 03:59:52 PM
Lucia's comment was not the only ELI user that was able to post...I have very strong suspicions that Martin Mcneil is also an ELI visitor and user..
Title: Re: Vincent K Tylor strikes again
Post by: lucia on June 24, 2014, 04:11:26 PM
I had trouble posting this morning. I wanted to share a bit of response to the vtdigger site

Quote
she should read the 9th circuit decision regarding willful infringement and product and having to go to where the plaintiff has a business or resides or does business.

Do you mean she should read this:

"The Ninth Circuit’s model jury instructions on the law of willfulness define a willful infringement as one where the plaintiff proves the following two elements: “1. The defendant engaged in acts that infringed the copyright; and 2. the defendant knew that those acts infringed the copyright.” 

http://onellp.com/blog/ninth-circuit-jury-instructions-on-willful-copyright-infringement-need-updating/

If that's the 9th circuits definition of "willful" the defendants infringement is not willful and the judge and jury might knock the assessement down to $200. It's not even willful if we go to the stricter definition in the linked article-- because getting and from a site that is one of many tat advertises it as licensed for free is not 'reckless disregard' or 'willful blindness'. 

Quote
why were they able to find it still archived on her site 2 years later?
I'm guessing. But reading first: note that the image listed as (2) cases in VKT's complaint is really one image hosted at typepad.  It's very easy for a user to think they have deleted an image in a typepad post when they have not deleted it.  A typical user will select the image, click "delete" and believe they have deleted it.  As far as most Typepad users are aware, they have deleted. Unfortunately, Typepad programmers have organized things to be confusing:
See:
http://help.typepad.com/delete-manage-images.html
Title: Re: Vincent K Tylor strikes again
Post by: JLorimer on July 30, 2014, 09:52:15 PM
From what I have read, it still seems like Hawaii is the wrong place to file.  Others here know better than I do.  I think it needs to be filed in your state though.
Title: Re: Vincent K Tylor strikes again
Post by: lucia on July 30, 2014, 11:08:03 PM
Ordinarily. But there is that Washington Shoe case in the 9th circuit. It's only precedential value is in the 9th circuit-- but that's where Hawaii is.  So, the argument is because infringement was willful (due to images still being on Typepad) they venue can change to the copyright holder. That might work in Hawaii where the copyright holder works, it probably would not have worked in California.

It's going to be important for Peggie's lawyers to have a look at the argument in the recent shoe case and also point out that the links still being on Typepad do not constitute willful infringement because Peggy took down her links, but Typepad is the one who did not take down the links based on her request. Note: the Facebook don't look like a separate hosted image. That looks like a hyperlink to the Typepad server. So there was nothing to take down from Facebook because nothing was there.

He'll need other arguments for why any violation was not aimed at WA, but in particular, the fact that Typepad has this weird screwy system will need to be brought forward early rather than later.

Title: Re: Vincent K Tylor strikes again
Post by: Matthew Chan on August 09, 2014, 03:35:58 PM
Yes, ELI does excellent organic SEO!  The nice thing is everything we do Google absolutely loves because we don't resort to bullshit trickery, black-hat or grey-hat tactics.  No need to adjust and change how we do things unlike so many questionable SEO operations.  I have always insisted on focusing on producing, generating, and encouraging relevant and legitimate discussions and the content comes naturally.

There is nothing forced about ELI's discussions.  They simply ebb and flow organically depending on what is going on and Google loves us and rewards us for it.

What I will absolutely take credit for in 2008 is making the decision to launch an open discussion forum where Oscar and I did not elevate ourselves and write articles for others comment on.  We are one of the many users here engaging in open conversation.

I know many people would prefer if we wrote definitive articles on the ELI blog but the fact of the matter is, it is far easier to write and generate organic, relevant content this way, than writing articles.

And if someone wants to take a screenshot of my post, let's make sure we get the ENTIRE context captured, not a quote fragment or this one reply post.  And to those people who are trying to shut me up, I have a First Amendment right to share my opinions with everyone.  If someone doesn't like our content, they need to stop visiting and reading ELI.  Simple as that.
Title: Re: Vincent K Tylor strikes again
Post by: Greg Troy (KeepFighting) on August 10, 2014, 12:27:22 AM
If someone doesn't like our content, they need to stop visiting and reading ELI.  Simple as that.

And stop doing unethical things, then would wouldn't have to report on their actions.