VKT Lawsuits

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

This is from Robert over on Copyright Trolls site.

Looks like Vincent K Tylor has been rather busy as of late..worth noting in the below lawsuits, is that Glen Carner owner of Hawaiian Art network does not seem to be involved with these, and also it looks like photographer VK Tylor is showing his young son the ropes and how to become a prolific copyright troll..To bad the kid is going to get a very bad reputation very quickly thanks to his asshole father..

Vincent K. Tylor v. Kailua Realty LTD
http://www.scribd.com/doc/155545423/Vincent-K-Tylor-v-Kailua-Realty-LTD
———————————–
Vincent K. Tylor v. Smart Enterprise Inc.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/155546762/Vincent-K-Tylor-v-Smart-Enterprise-Inc
———————————–
Vincent K. Tylor v. Hawaaiian Airlines, Inc.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/155547253/Vincent-K-Tylor-v-Hawaaiian-Airlines-Inc
———————————–
Vincent K. Tylor & Vincent Scott Tylor v. Rhythm of Life Cosmetics, Inc.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/155547640/Vincent-K-Tylor-Vincent-Scott-Tylor-v-Rhythm-of-Life-Cosmetics-Inc
———————————–
Vincent Khoury Tylor v. Gypsy Guide Hawaii, LLC
http://www.scribd.com/doc/155548276/Vincent-Khoury-Tylor-v-Gypsy-Guide-Hawaii-LLC

[lucia]

Oh my.  A case VKT might deserve to win.

See paragraph 17 on the gypsyguide.com case. The gypsy guide people are accused of (among other things) added their own faked copyright information on  the image!  In 21 they are accused of continuing to use the images after VKT asked them to take them down!

It's also worth noting that in the case of the travel guide, scenery images used to advertise their tours to those specific locations goes well beyond someone posting a decoration at their blog!  It's a business and the scenery is very specific to marketing the business. Using these images in travel guides is one of the 'commercial uses' one would specifically anticipate for images of what are fun travel destinations!  The images aren't just fungible background in this case-- you really want an image of that specific travel destination, you want it to be panoramic, brightly lit etc.   

I know these tend to be all over the place and I generally have little sympathy for VKT. But in this case, I think he's likely to win. And if the facts are al VKT alleges, it's pretty darn hard to sympathize with gypsyguide.com.

[Peeved]

I know these tend to be all over the place and I generally have little sympathy for VKT. But in this case, I think he's likely to win. And if the facts are al VKT alleges, it's pretty darn hard to sympathize with gypsyguide.com.

Agreed. If facts are true regarding the gypsyguide.com case, purposely removing copyright management and replacing it with false copyright management is not condoned. Also not not condoned is "willful infringement" of any kind.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Tylor will have a tough time proving that they removed the copyright info..with so many of his images available for free downloads as screensavers, there is no telling who cropped it out and when.. I also think that by having a copyright notice at the bottom of the site, is not really claiming copyright of the images...i guess it would depend on the judges opinion of this.. Not removing the images is a definitive issue and does show willful intent IMHO

[lucia]

Robert--
I agree it could be very difficult to prove the defendant removed copyright info info could have been removed by another party.   But I think VKT is also alleging they added fake copyright info. If the new images do display the fake info, that's going to look bad. The defendant would have to explain the fake info-- and also explain whether they got permission from the person who claimed copyright.

If the fake info points to the plaintiff (e.g. 'gypsytravel.com' or 'my actual name' etc.) that's going to be insurmountable. 
It would (or will) be interesting to see the defendants response. 

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

the way i read it, they were referring to copyright at the bottom of the site centered in the footer, and not actually added to the image itself..but yes if it was added to the image in any way, that would be very bad indeed. Nice to see you here Lucia...been a long time!

[Peeved]

the way i read it, they were referring to copyright at the bottom of the site centered in the footer, and not actually added to the image itself..but yes if it was added to the image in any way, that would be very bad indeed. Nice to see you here Lucia...been a long time!

That's how I first read it as well which is why I stated "if the facts are true". Trolls have been accusing alleged infringers of "removing copyright management" for a long time and VKT is no exception. Still, even if that accusation is false, it does not help anyone's case to leave the content on the site! Geesh!

[lucia]

the way i read it, they were referring to copyright at the bottom of the site centered in the footer, and not actually added to the image itself..

Rereading, I think you are correct. They are complaining about the copyright symbol on the page. That's not going to be such a big deal them.

Nice to see you here Lucia...been a long time!

Thanks! Been busy!

[Dontstealmy$]

Errr, I might know something about this.  There was no copyright info added to any images.  There is a lot of original content on the site and a general copyright notice.

And as for the ongoing willful use - I have no idea where the the images can be found on the site.

Cropping the copyright info from images: in 2 minutes I can find 10 of the same image with no copyright info on it. And you will find the same images with other copyright markers on them.  How would someone even know who the images truly belonged to?  And with the images widely available on free wallpaper sites it might be naive (in hindsight) to believe they are free. But not unbelieveable and certainly not a sinister act.

It seems that you can just make whatever accusations you want to exaggerate the reality of the situation.

[Aussie Girl]

VKT Lawsuits have jumped the ocean and are now appearing Australia wide! 

[lucia]

It seems that you can just make whatever accusations you want to exaggerate the reality of the situation.

In court VKT will have to prove his case.  If there is no ongoing infringement, the defendant's attorney will presumably simply point that out.  The judge isn't going to simply accept the claim that infringement continues without proof.   (This seems to be a business. My impression is incorporated entities can't defend themsevles; they are required legal representation. )  There is plenty of discussion on this site about VKT's habits resulting in his images quickly leaping to free wall paper sites. Presumably, the defendant will find those and present them-- and also present all the images with copyright information missing.

 (I wrote up something about VKT's methods-- but I'm not sure where it all is. I think it was a discussion with Glen Carner.)

[Dontstealmy$]

Thanks Lucia.  Yes there is a lot of good material throughout the forum and very helpful when first accosted with this whole scheme.

The thing that also stacks in the aggressor's favor is that it is expensive to go to court. This is a money making scheme for the lawyer too.  I believe they take 40-50% of any settlement. All it costs is his time, and with a home based lawyer, they have no overhead.  So I think the filing fee is about $400.  So they have no costs.

As far as I can tell no-one has proven that he is seeding free wallpaper sites. Though its likely, its speculative. So who would take the time and expense to go and defend that?  There is simply no good upside for anyone caught in the trap. From the few conversations I've had, a judge is likely to award the plaintiff and almost worse than that, the legal fees.

[Moe Hacken]

If someone has evidence of the seeding of VKT images, it has not been made public.

We really don't know what happened with Aloha Plastic Surgery since they settled out of court. It did appear that Carner and Tylor threw in the towel, but that's speculative.

APS can not share the sordid details, but hinted that they were pleased with the settlement. Maybe they had something very juicy on Carner/VKT.

It's also interesting that in the aftermath of the APS lawsuit, Carner refined his model to a more reasonable approach while VKT has gone on his own to be even more aggressive with the court filings than in the past.

Some of the lawsuits he files may be justifiable, but his shotgun approach and his ridiculous claim amounts are contemptible. There is little question he is dedicating himself to monetizing his copyrights via legal abuse and extortion, and it appears he is doing it full-time.

Which makes him a Copyright Troll by profession. For he is truly a legend at it, a copyright troll par excellence, a clear nominee for the Copyright Troll Hall of Shame Lifetime Achievement Award.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I believe they take 40-50% of any settlement. All it costs is his time, and with a home based lawyer, they have no overhead.  So I think the filing fee is about $400.  So they have no costs.

Street is NOT a home based lawyer & i would venture to guess his hourly rate is at the least 200.00 per hr, or maybe more, he has held some high positions..thinking they have no overhead would be naive at best..but even the overhead does not justify the amounts he's demanding, he's a greedy slob, Glen Carner might have recognized this and said "no more"....

[Dontstealmy$]

2 more filed by VKT this week.  Including Living Social.