Retired Forums > Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum
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.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version