Retired Forums > Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum

VKT Lawsuits

(1/4) > >>

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:

--- Quote from: lucia on July 24, 2013, 01:26:50 PM ---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.

--- End quote ---

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. 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page