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.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Matthew Chan

Pages: 1 ... 120 121 [122] 123 124 ... 154
1820
Legal Controversies Forum / Permitted Discussion Topics
« on: December 29, 2011, 05:08:12 AM »
This discussion board was created to allow discussions of legal controversies, cases, and lawsuits that go beyond the scope of stock photo settlement demand letters. Some permitted discussions include: copyright trolls (non-stock photos), patent trolls, and trademark trolls. There are many cases and controversies that are simply so outrageous or incredible, they are worth sharing and discussing. 

Non-stock photo related posts that are in the main Getty Images Forum will be moved into this forum.

1821
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Legal Fund
« on: December 27, 2011, 06:28:28 PM »
I can't do a long reply right now but I have good news.

I got off the phone with Oscar and he likes the idea of filing an amicus brief given the right set of circumstances.  Oscar is familiar with them and open to the idea of doing one. However, much of it will be determined on HOW the defending attorney answers to the complaint.

Regarding monies and a legal fund, Oscar appreciates the gesture but will not accept any monies for an amicus brief. He would do it "pro bono" because he felt strongly about it.

It looks like amicus briefs might be the subject of a future ELI video update for Oscar and I to discuss.

1822
To minimize the PACER fees, it is best to determine what documents you need/want through Google first before going into PACER.  PACER is not where you want to do casual searches obviously.  But good info people are digging out.

1823
Lettered sent me a stunning idea most of us have not thought of regarding the HAN lawsuits.

His idea was to have the ELI community file an amicus brief on those cases. Because the central idea of an amicus brief is so important, I started an entirely new thread regarding the possibility of ELI filing amicus briefs in the future.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/index.php/topic,2441.msg4249.html#msg4249

Thanks Lettered for making me work this holiday weekend.  :p

1824
Getty Images Letter Forum / Breaking new ground with Amicus Briefs
« on: December 24, 2011, 03:13:35 PM »
I am always impressed by the ideas that come out of the ELI Community.  Long time Friend of ELI, Lettered, has come out of hibernation :-) recently and sent me an idea that was just stunning.

His idea was that someone in the ELI Community could file an amicus brief on the HAN lawsuit cases (but potentially any other future relevant lawsuit / cases). At the moment, I know very little of the requirements to make this happen.  

According to Wikipedia:

"An amicus curiae ... is someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information to assist a court in deciding a matter before it. The information provided may be a legal opinion in the form of a brief (which is called an amicus brief when offered by an amicus curiae), a testimony that has not been solicited by any of the parties, or a learned treatise on a matter that bears on the case. The decision on whether to admit the information lies at the discretion of the court. The phrase amicus curiae is legal Latin and literally means "friend of the court".


I took the liberty to find what a sample amicus brief looks like.  Lo and behold, I found one regarding Righthaven vs. Hoehn by the RIAA & AAP. Many of you know ELI has also been following the Righthaven lawsuits saga this past year. It is also helpful that EFF (who we consider a digital ally) reported on this recently.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/12/riaa-and-aap-file-amicus-brief-righthaven-appeal

That post has the RIAA & AAP amicus brief.  We have also uploaded it to our Scribd account:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/76432585/RIAA-AAP-Amicus-Brief-on-Righthaven-vs-Hoehn-appeal

There are obviously other amicus brief samples on the web. However, this one is close to home.

I will be contacting Oscar to see what his thoughts are on the possibility of our filing an amicus brief in the HAN lawsuits.  Many of us agree that poor handling of the defense in those cases could have negative consequences for all of us. (Although I suspect ultimately, HAN would prefer to settle them out of court.)

As always, I look forward to the feedback and comments to all the brilliant minds within the ELI community.



1825
Oscar and I mentioned this in our Christmas Eve edition of the ELI Video Update.  I am officially making the recommendation that Friends of ELI sign up for their own free account to get access to PACER.

I am making the request for two reasons: 1.) it allows the members of ELI community more direct access to court documents 2.) more members can search and extract valuable documents than Oscar and I can possibly think of.

Downloaded PACER documents can generally be posted anywhere for reporting and sharing purposes without concern because they are in the public domain.

To quote http://pacer.gov:

"Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) is an electronic public access service that allows users to obtain case and docket information from federal appellate, district and bankruptcy courts, and the PACER Case Locator via the Internet. PACER is provided by the federal Judiciary in keeping with its commitment to providing public access to court information via a centralized service."

It costs nothing to sign up but it allows you access to the world of federal court documents.

To quote Pacer.gov regarding costs AFTER signing up the account:

"Access to court documents costs $0.08 per page. The cost to access a single document is capped at $2.40, the equivalent of 30 pages. The cap does not apply to name searches, reports that are not case-specific and transcripts of federal court proceedings.

By Judicial Conference policy, if your usage does not exceed $10 in a quarter, fees for that quarter are waived, effectively making the service free for most users."

If there are relevant documents important to the ELI community (such as the HAN lawsuits), we would be willing and able to upload them to our official account in Scribd.com.

1826
Lettered,

I am guessing he is not terribly worried about his name being associated with HAN. Many of us suspect that he "seeds" the Internet with "free wallpaper" images to entrap people. As far as we are concerned, there seems to be some funny business going on.

You do bring up a good point that there is the potential for a counter-suit.  If it were me, I would be asking why he is giving away the images for "free" only to turn around and extort them into paying several thousand dollars if they use them on a website.  It may not win them the case but it can seriously mitigate any outrageous damages HAN may be seeking.

Now that a lawsuit has been filed, you can bet there will be many more eyeballs following this.

1827
Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Hawaiian Art Network Lawsuit Collection
« on: December 24, 2011, 06:16:10 AM »
I downloaded the court documents (Complaints & Exhibits) from PACER of the 3 outstanding Hawaiian Art Network lawsuits. I have not yet read the complaint or exhibits in detail.

http://www.scribd.com/my_document_collections/3402361

Moku-aina Properties, Aloha Plastic Surgery, and Outrigger Lodging Services are all being sued.

Please note that Vincent Tylor is a co-plaintiff in all 3 cases.  Hawaiian Art Network is filing as a co-plaintiff, not the sole plaintiff.  It appears that Righthaven lawsuits and the Getty vs. Advernet case has gone into effect by compelling the original copyright holder (Vincent Tylor) be named as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, not simply relying on the stock photo company (HAN) to file a lawsuit.

If HAN had filed as the sole plaintiff, there would be no question HAN would be challenged whether they had standing to sue would be called into question. By including Vincent Tylor (original copyright holder/owner) as a co-plaintiff, it seems HAN has covered themselves on that front.

Let the analysis and critiques begin!

1828
Getty Images Letter Forum / New ELI Video Update for Christmas Eve 2011
« on: December 24, 2011, 04:22:20 AM »
I am happy to report that Oscar and I took an hour to do a very special Christmas Eve update for the ELI community.  It is entirely good news!



This ELI video update is especially important for those involved with Getty Images. This should make you happy as Oscar and I discuss the resolution of Getty vs. Advernet which is posted here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/75525341/Getty-v-Advernet-Decision-Southern-District-of-NY

More announcements to come as we head into 2012.

Matthew

1829
Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: My 1st Copyright Letter
« on: December 20, 2011, 01:07:19 PM »
The $75 has to be a typo. Can that really be right?  No one has ever heard of such a small settlement amount.


1830
Zvulony & Co. website can be found at http://zvulony.ca

Slick website and they appear to be a bit more savvier on the social media and web presence front.

Pages: 1 ... 120 121 [122] 123 124 ... 154
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.