Click Official ELI Links
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support | ELI Legal Representation Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.

Author Topic: Vincent K. Tylor vs. Vermont Woods Studios - Round 2  (Read 8392 times)

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Admin-on-Hiatus"
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2764
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
Vincent K. Tylor vs. Vermont Woods Studios - Round 2
« on: August 04, 2014, 03:18:14 PM »
Vincent K. Tylor is back at it again like a dog with a bone.  After the "sudden" dismissal of his prior lawsuit against Vermont Woods by VKT's seemingly non-incorporated, non-registered law firm Woolf, Gafni, & Fowler (WGF), (http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/info-on-woolf-gafni-and-fowler-llp/) VKT has filed suit against them again this time from Hawaii by a familiar name, J. Stephen Street, aka James Stephen Street. jstephenstreet.com. A new name Attorney Dane Kristofer Anderson of andersonlawhawaii.com (no web page comes up for the not-so-great Dane.) is also listed on the complaint.

As a side comment, I am always perplexed by "professionals" who use their first initial but highlight and use their middle names.  It seems these folks hate their first names and chose to half-ass abandon them by using a first-initial instead. Or more likely, as I have seen, it is a ploy "positioning statement" to be "different" and sound "sexier".  I suppose Stephen is a bit better than James (Jim, Jimmy, Jimbo, Jimmybob etc.)


In VKT's first lawsuit against Vermont Woods, VKT desperately tried to connect Vermont Woods to California so that the California court would have jurisdiction.  WGF pathetically tried to assert that because the images were posted on Facebook & Typepad and that Facebook & Typepad were California corporations, thus California had jurisdiction.

Now, VKT has hire J-Steph/Jimbo and the Great Dane to be his "collection agents" in this case.  This time around, the argument is that because Vermont Woods delivered furniture to Hawaii, suddenly Vermont Woods Studios has magically become "Hawaii Woods Studios".  I am so sure that there are many VERMONT Woods Studios customers are suddenly in Hawaii... NOT.

In fact, VERMONT Woods has "so many" customers in Hawaii, they needed to WRITE a "news piece" about it.  Anyone with any sort of business sense KNOWS that when a business goes out of their way to WRITE "news" about DELIVERING something outside their home base, it is an EXCEPTION and ANOMALY, not the norm. I do not know how much business Vermont Woods does outside of Vermont but my guess is that there cannot be that many customers that fall under "Alaska, Hawaii, or international" especially if they are in Vermont. My estimate is that most of the business Vermont Woods generates comes from the northeast U.S.

As far as I am concerned, just because a website SAYS they deliver a product nationwide or internationally does not mean they actually do any SIGNIFICANT business nationwide.

In any case, why are there TWO lawyers signed up to represent VKT?

This is what I see.

James Stephen Street (J-Steph or Jimbo, take your pick.) is an aging 65-year old lawyer presumably collecting Social Security. He left a big law firm he worked at for nearly 30 years. Presumably, he got tired of the daily grind at the big law firm as indicated by his statement on his artsy-fartsy, painting website.

It was with very mixed emotions that I came to the realization in 2007 that I have been painting in oils for 50 years, in the "spare time" I could borrow away, first from school, then from practicing law, raising a family, coaching.... that competed for my time.  Certainly it is a milestone, but there is so much more painting I want to do before I am through.

My art has always been at the core of who I am and what I have longed to be doing.  My desire to create in oils on canvas was born out of the only formal art training I had (at age 8) and has only intensified and become more urgent as the years pass....


Basically, J-Step/Jimbo is saying he pissed away half a century of his life doing everything else but what he really wanted. (Is that supposed to be inspirational and help sell his artsy-fartsy Hawaii paintings?) And he works for nearly 30 years at Rush Moore LLP where he finally decides he wants to do his own thing in 2010 and starts his own law practice at the "youthful" age of 61.  This guy sounds like a real risk-taker to me.  (Gee, let me wait 30 years until the "right time" before I go start my own business. Since I was too much of a coward when I was younger, I will wait to start my own business/law practice/hobby just a few years before I get to collect Social Security.)

And when he does finally gets the cajones at age 61 to finally go out on his own, what does J-Step/Jimbo do?  He finds his way to Glen Carner of Hawaiian Art Network to start collecting 35%-40% commissions from extortion letter victims clients like VKT brings to him.

Now at the youthful age of 65, J-Steph/Jimbo has to be collecting Social Security by now. He is going to need it badly if the quality of his paintings are any indication of his "artistic success".

On the far end of the age spectrum, we have a young pup lawyer, Dane Kristofer Anderson whose Hawaii Bar records shows he uses a PO Box as his address. I guess that means his office is located in the section of Hawaii called "Mi Casa Es Su Casa".  Coincidentally, I have the same address in GA except I am not a big-shot lawyer catering to clients.  The Not-So-Great Dane graduated 4-years ago in 2010 at age 27, he is now the "seasoned" lawyer at 31.

It is pretty obvious that J-Steph/Jimbo is Dane's "big daddy" and likely "tutoring" Dane.  BTW, how can a 31-year old lawyer have so little Internet presence?  Even Mr. J-Steph Social Security has a website and a Linkedin page for gosh sakes.

So we have this Hawaii tag-team of J-Steph/Great Dane (the senior citizen and the legal puppy) working together to extort sue businesses worldwide.

It will be interesting to see how this case develops in the days to come.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2014, 05:11:47 PM by Matthew Chan »
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, or epithets. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Admin-on-Hiatus"
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2764
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
Re: Vincent K. Tylor vs. Vermont Woods Studios - Round 2
« Reply #1 on: August 04, 2014, 06:15:44 PM »
I forgot to mention the recent article by the Brattleboro Reformer where they reported the updated on the Vincent Tylor vs. VWS battle.

http://www.reformer.com/localnews/ci_26247454/lawsuit-against-vernon-company-dropped-refiled

From what I know, Vermont Woods doesn't appear to be taking this sitting down and they don't intend to just roll over and get raped by Vincent Tylor.

Now that VKT has filed suit from Hawaii, I believe it is time for Vermont Woods to connect with the folks at Aloha Plastic Surgery, one of the few parties who actively fought back against VKT and not simply settle quietly like a helpless dog.  Aloha Plastic may be able to provide some other Hawaii referrals and strategies that Vermont Woods can use.
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, or epithets. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Admin-on-Hiatus"
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2764
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
Re: Vincent K. Tylor vs. Vermont Woods Studios - Round 2
« Reply #2 on: August 04, 2014, 06:29:08 PM »
One of the strategies I found from 2012 is Aloha Plastic Surgery's move to file a counter-claim against VKT because there was a great deal of suspicion of how VKT operated, the way he submitted his images online years ago, and most importantly, how he comes up with his settlement numbers.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/aloha-plastic-surgery-submits-counter-claim/

VKT regularly takes advantages of victims who unknowingly find his images on free wallpaper websites and the like. In his lawsuit, VKT claims that extortion victims are intentionally cutting out the artist info and licensing info. I find that difficult to believe that so many people would do this.

I suspect there is more to the VKT operation than the public knows.  In my view, the only way to find out and sufficiently defend yourself is to file a counter-claim so that the discovery process is available to the extortion victim.
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, or epithets. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)

  • ELI Defense Team Member
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
    • ExtortionLetterInfo
Re: Vincent K. Tylor vs. Vermont Woods Studios - Round 2
« Reply #3 on: August 05, 2014, 09:33:04 AM »
stop the truck!! You got the first letter in 2010??? This is 2014! the statute of limitations for copyright infringement is 3 yrs.. am I missing something here?? are is there cause for a motion to dismiss right in front of us?
Most questions have already been addressed in the forums, get yourself educated before making decisions.

Any advice is strictly that, and anything I may state is based on my opinions, and observations.
Robert Krausankas

I have a few friends around here..

JLorimer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
    • View Profile
Re: Vincent K. Tylor vs. Vermont Woods Studios - Round 2
« Reply #4 on: August 05, 2014, 10:32:43 AM »
stop the truck!! You got the first letter in 2010??? This is 2014! the statute of limitations for copyright infringement is 3 yrs.. am I missing something here?? are is there cause for a motion to dismiss right in front of us?

I noticed that on my read through this earlier this morning.  I just came back to comment now that I have time. I'm glad I wasn't the only one. 

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Admin-on-Hiatus"
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2764
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
Re: Vincent K. Tylor vs. Vermont Woods Studios - Round 2
« Reply #5 on: August 05, 2014, 01:45:25 PM »
It appears that a correction made to the original post.  The first letter was received in 2012, not 2010.
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, or epithets. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Admin-on-Hiatus"
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2764
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
Re: Vincent K. Tylor vs. Vermont Woods Studios - Round 2
« Reply #6 on: August 05, 2014, 02:19:48 PM »
Another interesting nugget in this case relates to Typepad.  I have an interesting email snippet allegedly from Typepad.

Typepad is a hosted service, so we try to make it difficult for users to remove content on accident. That means that the folders that images are uploaded to via the Insert Image tool are hidden to prevent accidental loss of content. It's a protective measure we've put in place.


WTF! Are you kidding me?  To permanently delete files, you have to go through tech support?  This has HUGE negative ramifications for Typepad users. What this means is that even if a user DELETES an image that might infringe a copyright, Typepad DOESN'T ALLOW IT!  The images are still exposed and shown to the public. Only Typead tech support can delete these files with a "backend tool." Deleting an image file on Typepad simply means it is "hidden" from the user as a "protective measure" according to Typepad, NOT truly deleted.

This is actually quite problematic for anyone who wants to be copyright-compliant. I did a Google Search on Typepad and could find no reference to this "undocumented feature".  In fact, Typepad should be avoided until they correct this potentially lethal copyright compliance trap.

In fact, I would say that Typepad could potentially be partially responsible for this or any copyright-related fiasco and the Vermont Woods may want to consider legally subpoenaing them or otherwise compel them to cooperate.

Typepad is endangering all its users by not informing their community of users that when they delete their files, they are not truly deleted.  They are simply "hidden" from their view.  That is a huge misrepresentation on their part that subjects their users to unnecessary and inflated copyright claims for alleged "non-compliance".
« Last Edit: August 05, 2014, 02:57:00 PM by Matthew Chan »
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, or epithets. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

lucia

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 767
    • View Profile
Re: Vincent K. Tylor vs. Vermont Woods Studios - Round 2
« Reply #7 on: August 09, 2014, 09:35:53 AM »
WTF! Are you kidding me?  To permanently delete files, you have to go through tech support?  This has HUGE negative ramifications for Typepad users. What this means is that even if a user DELETES an image that might infringe a copyright, Typepad DOESN'T ALLOW IT!

I think one big issue with typepad here is that any hypothetical infringement after the Typepad user thinks they deleted the image is at least "not willful". Moreover, it is provably "not willful" because they can prove they deleted, and I suspect nearly any judge or jury would read Typepads confusing system and conclude that the defendent took steps to remove the image, thought they had worked, failed but did not know they failed.  We could argue about whether any infringement continued at all-- but even if one argued it did, at that point, the infringement is "not willful".

This matters a lot because if the defendant's infringement is "not willful", the statutory minimum is only $200 and judges do sometimes give statutory minima in copyright cases.

It's also worth noting that the Facebook like in the suit appears to merely be a hotlink of the Typepad link.  Assuming this is so and the Typepad link is not willful, the Facebook one is also not willful because it's really only 1 image on 1 server, not 1 image on 2 servers.   

Jerry Witt (mcfilms)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
    • Motion City
Re: Vincent K. Tylor vs. Vermont Woods Studios - Round 2
« Reply #8 on: August 09, 2014, 03:05:44 PM »
This is the THIRD at-bat for VKT against Vermont Wood. At what point would it be advisable for Peggy to investigate bringing a malicious prosecution counter suit?
Although I may be a super-genius, I am not a lawyer. So take my scribblings for what they are worth and get a real lawyer for real legal advice. But if you want media and design advice, please visit Motion City at http://motioncity.com.

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Admin-on-Hiatus"
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2764
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
Re: Vincent K. Tylor vs. Vermont Woods Studios - Round 2
« Reply #9 on: August 09, 2014, 03:39:01 PM »
Jerry has a good point. How many times can VKT use different legal representatives and attack Vermont Woods over an alleged single incident? How many radically different arguments can VKT make on jurisdiction?  It appears to be an abuse of the federal judicial system and copyright enforcement systems.
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, or epithets. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

Greg Troy (KeepFighting)

  • ELI Defense Team Member
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1859
    • View Profile
    • Yeah, We Do That.
Re: Vincent K. Tylor vs. Vermont Woods Studios - Round 2
« Reply #10 on: August 10, 2014, 12:24:27 AM »
Agreed, they may have a case and if so Vermont could file a counter suit.
Every situation is unique, any advice or opinions I offer are given for your consideration only. You must decide what is best for you and your particular situation. I am not a lawyer and do not offer legal advice.

--Greg Troy

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Admin-on-Hiatus"
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2764
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
Re: Vincent K. Tylor vs. Vermont Woods Studios - Round 2
« Reply #11 on: August 21, 2014, 02:38:50 PM »
I will say this for Vermont Woods, they are a feisty bunch and despite overwhelming odds they are not afraid of putting it out there, getting their hands dirty, and getting publicity.  The newspaper article, enrolling DieTrollDie and FightCopyrightTrolls through Twitter, EFF's comments are incredibly impressive.

The one thing I truly admire and the reason I am a STRONG advocate and supporter of the Vermont Woods case is because they are a shining example of resourcefulness. IN fact, unlike the copyright thugs, Vermont Woods welcomes publicity and the attention and credibility that comes with it. They know when they are being legally bullied into an unreasonable settlement.

I like that they are leveraging the ELI information and work prior Hawaiian Art Network victims went through. I like that they have an "all hands on deck" approach to this. It is exactly what I would do.  I believe in an "all hands on deck" approach and to whip out every resource I can to defend myself.  It is people like Vermont Woods that inspire me personally and help advocate for them in ways few people can.

No matter how it all turns out, the Hawaiian Trio, VKT/Jimmy Stevie Street/Dane "young pup" Anderson will know they have been in a bloody fight. They may force a settlement and ultimately silence Vermont Woods but I have been paying close attention to this case and their tactics.

The Hawaiian Trio will continue on this even when the Vermont Woods matter is ultimately resolved.  They have no idea how they opened a Pandora's box by going after Vermont Woods. It wasn't enough that Woolf Gafni got caught by ELI for not even being a legitimately registered law firm.  But VKT managed to sucker "Social Security collecting" Jimmy Stevie Street and his puppy Dane to take the arrows for VKT.  I am always amazed how these outside lawyers are willing to take these arrows for a commission. That shows their financial desperation. But I am guessing Social Security is simply not enough to live on. After all, it took 30-years of working for a large law firm before putting up their own shingle and half a century to find a true calling.  Pathetic, obnoxious people.

I think that the Hawaiian Trio is a bit more obnoxious than HAN ever was.  At least HAN and Glen Carner was never that litigious.  I now have a lot more respect for Glen in comparison. He didn't waste money and energy in litigation. The Hawaiian Trio will leave a legacy of hated people in its wake as the digital content industry continues to be commoditized.  Most photographers will be starved out of business and that is a fact.  The State of Hawaii can be immensely proud of the Hawaiian Trio.

IN fact, I highly recommend that Vermont Woods write complaints letters to the Governor, Senators, Congressmen, and Mayor of Hawaii and explain how the VKT situation attempts to entrap others and take advantage of Hawaiian scenery that others allowed him to take.  Nothing to lose and everything to gain.  I would send those SAME letters to all the TV, radio stations, and newspaper.  For less than $1/piece including envelope, photocopies, and postage, Vermont Woods can reach a bunch of political VIPs very inexpensively.  Hawaii is a small state and therefore a small community. The chances of success are much higher than most other states. There can't be that many parties in Hawaii. $100 will go a long way to changing the dynamics very quickly to Vermont Woods side.

The Hawaiian Trio are a terrible embarrassment to Hawaii and should be ashamed for their copyright extortion and copyright thuggery. It represents Hawaii very poorly. I would use those EXACT WORDS.

And let us not forget, VKT is teaching his son the ropes of the filthy business of copyright thuggery they are in. Like father, like son. I guess the boy photographer enjoys the publicity that inevitably comes with lawsuits.

If the Hawaiian Trio manage to get some kind of judgement against Vermont Woods, I might have to post links on ELI how to be judgment-proof. In fact, they should start doing a Google search. That information exists.

Like Getty & Masterfile, the Hawaiian Trio can take pride incurring legal fees with an noncollectable judgment.

I am rooting for Vermont Woods. No matter how it all turns out, they will have gained a ton of friends and allies.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2014, 02:47:14 PM by Matthew Chan »
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, or epithets. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

Peeved

  • Guest
Re: Vincent K. Tylor vs. Vermont Woods Studios - Round 2
« Reply #12 on: August 21, 2014, 11:10:45 PM »
Oh cool..another educational forum dedicated specifically
to Hawaiian demand letters and Vincent K Tylor lawsuits.

Robert

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Vincent K. Tylor vs. Vermont Woods Studios - Round 2
« Reply #13 on: November 05, 2014, 07:52:23 AM »
It seems they got beat down.  Noticed her stuff was removed, and that certain posts are being removed here and now Oscar posted that message that seems like some settlement agreement. I tried to contact her to ask her what was going on and she isn't responding anymore.

That happened with Aloha Plastic Surgery.  That guy was wanting all kinds of information, really active then suddenly he was gone and got all short and rude responding to a status check.  Used everyone for information and then couldn't be bothered to even be polite and say "thanks for checking and for your time, sorry but I can't talk about it." 


JLorimer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
    • View Profile
Re: Vincent K. Tylor vs. Vermont Woods Studios - Round 2
« Reply #14 on: November 05, 2014, 10:50:37 AM »
It seems that those who settle are forced into silence. I have reached out to between 10 and 20 others who had Sanders lawsuits. Not a single one has ever responded.

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Official ELI Help Options
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support Call | ELI Defense Letter Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.