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: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court  (Read 38449 times)

stevep

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
« Reply #90 on: April 01, 2011, 01:22:53 PM »
This is the entry from today's status hearing: Status hearing held on 4/1/2011. Status hearing set for 5/25/2011 at 09:00 AM. It is ordered that Mr. Riddick appear personally or through counsel at the 5/25/11 status hearing

Oscar Michelen

  • ELI Legal Warrior
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1301
    • View Profile
    • Courtroom Strategy
Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
« Reply #91 on: April 07, 2011, 10:34:41 PM »
Looks like court gave him one last chance

SoylentGreen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
« Reply #92 on: May 17, 2011, 06:54:42 PM »
Yes, like many others, I'm anxiously awaiting the resumts of this.  It's pretty interesting.

Much has been made of "copyright infringement" in the case of Bernina vs Riddick.
However, isn't the quesion before the court actually whether or not Riddick damaged Bernina's business?
That is, even if Bernina had infringed on Riddick's copyright, that didn't give Riddick the right to seek compensation through his alleged threats and malicious actions.

I'm not sure if the readers here are familiar with some of Bernina's history;

"In the embroidery world, no company has led that charge like Bernina, which owns several embroidery and sewing-related companies, including Great Notions, an online catalog of digital designs. Bernina organized the short-lived Embroidery Software Protection Coalition (ESPC), a group of several companies that went after alleged copyright abusers in 2005 and 2006. The proliferation of pirated designs around the Internet, often sold on sites such as eBay and Etsy, has deflated profits for companies that produce and sell them legitimately."

http://www.stitches-digital.com/article/Intellectual+Property+Copyright+Is+Might/587572/56485/article.html

It's quite ironic to see Bernina on the other side of the issue, given the above information.


S.G.


stevep

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
« Reply #93 on: May 27, 2011, 08:28:06 AM »
Sounds like Imageline and Riddick (defendants) and going to lose this case. This is the docket entry from yesterday:

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, May 25, 2011:
MINUTE entry before Honorable Milton I. Shadur:Status hearing held on
5/25/2011. Plaintiff's filings as to default are due on or before 6/6/11. Defendant Riddick's
response is due 6/20/11. Plaintiff is to submit a proposed order regarding default as to the
corporate defendant. Status hearing set for 6/28/2011 at 08:45 AM.Mailed notice(srn, )

Digitizer3k

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
« Reply #94 on: June 05, 2011, 04:11:31 PM »
The 6/1/2011 filing is "Not electronically available".  Some from Feb 2011 and some from Sept 2010 were also not electronically available.  Any idea why that would be? 

http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/illinois-northern-district-court/61976/bernina-of-america-inc-v-imageline-inc/official-court-documents/

Thanks!

D3K 

tansmitty

  • Guest
Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
« Reply #95 on: June 29, 2011, 02:23:27 AM »
So there was supposed to be a hearing on the 28th. Anyone know what happened?

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Admin-on-Hiatus"
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2763
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
« Reply #96 on: June 29, 2011, 02:58:29 AM »
SG,

The news media hasn't picked up on it because they tend to focus on something more "tangible" as a lawsuit.  Threatening to file a lawsuit is not the same as threatening to beat up someone although psychologically may have the same impact.  I also think that the news media hasn't yet picked up on it because it has not yet critical mass and it has to hit the "right person".

It is sort of like Righthaven hitting Brian Hill who is mildly autistic, hobby blogger on disability.  The media loves to report stories when a big corporate bully tries to disproportionately and overwhelmingly attack or beat down a weaker and much less sophisticated opponent. It is a rallying cry and call to arms.

Getty Images has been careful so far to not go there. Riddick himself really is a low-capitalized, under-funded small-timer trying to talk a big game.

Regarding you being like me on fighting back?  LOL. I guess I will take that as a compliment. I really don't like conflict but I learned many years ago that not everyone plays by the same rules. Hence, learning the art of the defensive fighting is an important skill. I agree with you. Even if I lost the fight against Getty (had that come to be), they would have worked very hard for it and there would be scars and fallout of all kinds.

Last thing, you say we are popular.  It is not hard to be popular when you are the only organized game in town with real names and faces attached to it.  :-)

Matthew


I'm surprised that some of the news media hasn't picked up on the "extortion letter" schemes yet.  I'm tempted to approach a few news-magazine style shows, and I'd love to see some cameras and a reporter stop by the offices of Getty, Masterfile, or whatever dank swamp Riddick lives in.

I'm a lot like you, I think.  I can tell you that when a situation like yours arose, I fought them every step of the way like an immovable object.  Of course, there's always a possibly that they could have won, but they would have had to go through every single step of a very annoying and torturous route, and I made that clear.  I'd never just "give" them anything just because I got few letters and calls.  They should "prove their case", and if they can't actually go to court, then they can't be very confident in their position.

You and Oscar have definitely set up a great resource!!  There's nobody else to turn to; nobody else took the time to do it.  How many people have stopped having so many sleepless nights after coming to the site - we may never really know.  But, it's probably a significant number of people. No wonder the site's so popular.  Thank you!!

S.
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.

stevep

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
« Reply #97 on: July 01, 2011, 09:06:02 AM »
In a Final Default Judgement signed by the Federal Court Judge on June 28th, Riddick has lost the case. It is stated that he owes damages to Bernia (to be yet defined), must pay Bernia's costs and attorney fees, and most interestingly states "Imageline, Inc. does not have any protectable rights in any of the underlying images contained in the Copyright Registrations. Furthermore, the Copyright Registrations are invalid copyright registrations."  !!!


Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Admin-on-Hiatus"
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2763
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
Re: Riddick and Imageline sued in Federal Court
« Reply #98 on: July 02, 2011, 04:30:00 PM »
I think this is one of the situations where Imageline did more damage to the stock photo industry through setting a new precedent than help.

This sends a clear message to would-be-plaintiffs that they better have their paperwork in order before they make these claims.  Both Righthaven and Imageline has shown that judges will not be fooled or tolerate bogus copyright transfers simply for the purpose of filing lawsuits. Also, they expose themselves to countersuits, repayment of defendant legal fees, and other potentially punitive measures.

Matthew
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.

 

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.