Legal Head Scratcher: Does Whoever Controls the Shutter Button Control the Copyright?

August 12th, 2014. By LucyC

Don’t think there’s a lawyer on this one (yet) but talk about a case where you really have to figure out when a person is a person (no matter how small?—couldn’t resist…).

So, who saw this coming? The monkey, perhaps? An Indonesian monkey took a selfie with a wildlife photographer’s camera, and it’s raising some interesting copyright law questions, specifically—who owns the image?

David Slater, the British wildlife photographer whose camera was used by the monkey while he was on assignment in 2011, believes that he has ownership of the image. The backstory—he was setting up his camera equipment to photograph a crested black macaque monkey, according to The Huffington Post, when the monkey grabbed Slater’s camera and began taking photographs, including a pretty good selfie.

Of course the selfie is posted online and goes viral (wonder if Monkey has a Facebook page?). Not surprisingly, Slater assumes he owns the copyright to the selfie. Uh, apparently not, according to Wikipedia.

What?

Yes—Wikipedia has posted the picture on its site as well as on Wikimedia Commons, an arm of the Wikimedia Foundation that posts photos that are in the public domain and therefore free to use, the Huff Post reports.  When Slater requested that Wikimedia take the photo down, arguing that the copyright belongs to him, and that he should be paid for the use the photo—every time it’s used—as is normally the case—Wikipedia said—“No”—won’t take it down, can’t make us, the picture belongs to everyone.”

Wait just a banana-picking moment there sunshine…

HuffPo spoke with attorney Josh Bressler, who specializes in intellectual property law. He said the “author” of a photograph is the person who has “contributed the expressive content.”

The nitty gritty, according to Bressler, is that a monkey is not considered a person under the law, and only a person can be an “author.” Legally speaking, only humans and corporations are “people.” Animals, on the other hand, are considered property, not people.

Hence Wikipedia’s stance. Wikipedia spokesperson, Katherine Maher, emailed the following statement to HuffPost:

“We take these assessments very seriously, and researched both sides of the argument. We didn’t think the monkey owned the copyright—instead, our assessment was that there’s no one who owns the copyright. That means that the image falls into the public domain.

Under US law, for example, copyright claims cannot vest in to non-human authors (that is, non-human authors can’t own copyrights). It’s clear the monkey was the photographer. To claim copyright, the photographer would have had to make substantial contributions to the final image, and even then, they’d only have copyright for those alterations, not the underlying image.

Because the monkey took the picture, it means that there was no one on whom to bestow copyright, so the image falls into the public domain.”

But the monkey couldn’t have taken the picture without Slater’s camera—doesn’t that count as a significant contribution? And, btw, if animals are deemed as “property” then where’s the monkey’s owner? Does that person—I guess the island of Sulawesi?—technically “own” the image?

And ok—this gets better—so when you’re out at a bar—it’s happy hour and your sober friend takes pics, on your camera, of you and your bud’s sloshing back a few and making idiots of yourselves, the pics are on your camera—but you, being too drunk to actually take a groupie yourself, didn’t take them. In theory, your sober friend ‘contributed the expressive content’, right? So when the pics go viral via Instagram, do you have any claim to them? Things that make you go hmm…

Well, in this case, Slater reportedly spoke with HuffPost, stating that he is “aggrieved” by the situation and is urging people to stop using Wikipedia. He thinks the editors at Wikipedia “have a communistic view of life.”

“It’s potentially being run by people with political agendas,” Slater said. “The people who are editing it could be a new Adolf Hitler or a new Stalin … They’re using whatever suits their agenda.”

I’d say he’s pissed. As a creator myself, I can’t blame him. In our digital age, where copyright is a very hot commodity and one for which FB and the likes are prepared to risk hefty lawsuits, you have to love the irony here. Copyright is big bucks. So—if the picture belongs to everyone—i.e. the public—does the public also stand to profit by it?

What’s in a Paint Name? Discrimination, Wrongful Termination, Retaliation…and more!

August 6th, 2014. By AbiK

It’s not often that jurisprudence and home decor intersect. After all, let’s face it, one look at most attorney offices will tell you to look elsewhere for interior design inspiration. But this case—brought to us all compliments of a Mr. Clinton Tucker—is sure to rock the very foundation of the home improvement industry (not).

But I’m ahead of myself so let’s back things up a bit…

Clinton Tucker is a former Benjamin Moore employee who has filed a complaint in Essex County Court (NJ) alleging that the paint company fired him after he repeatedly complained about the “despicable and racially insulting paint colors called ‘Clinton Brown’ and ‘Tucker Chocolate.'” Tucker Chocolate, for those who don’t have a bedside copy of “Paint and Coating News“, is a paint color in the Benjamin Moore historical Williamsburg collection. In the filing, Clinton Tucker refers to himself as an African-American homosexual male—btw, fwiw—and he’s seeking damages for discrimination, retaliation and a hostile work environment.

Without going too deeply into this one, it sounds like a classic “you say ‘to-MAY-to’, I say ‘to-MAH-to'” type of case—you know, where it’s a matter of individual perception. After all, Clinton Brown sounds more to me like the shade of something Hillary (as in Clinton, as in the more caucasion-looking woman who may be running for President) would’ve asked Ralph Lauren to whip up in silk faille for some fete or soiree in the State Dining Room.

But no, Clinton Tucker, being African-American, apparently sees this quite differently—almost as if the Benjamin Moore design team named the Clinton Brown shade with only Mr. Tucker himself in mind! And of course, that same team looked no further than Mr. Tucker for the inspiration in naming their other brown color, “Tucker Chocolate”—coincidence? Hell no—and it HAD to be a racial slur…Never mind that the Williamsburg collection also has a Tucker Orange and Tucker Gray…where’s a gray-haired octogenarian filing a paint name discrimination suit when you need him/her?? Where the heck is the AARP on THIS one, huh??

Oh wait a minute—was that Tucker thing some sort of theme? Why yes it was—for a certain St. George Tucker. THIS Tucker (1752-1827) wound up in Virginia (funny, that’s where Williamsburg is!) by way of Bermuda to become a lawyer (who knew?). Here’s another funny thing—according to just about every online source that was checked for this post, St. George Tucker ‘urged for the abolishment of slavery’. Yes, he authored a pamphlet, “A Dissertation on Slavery: With A Proposal for the Gradual Abolition of It in the State of Virginia“.

So here’s the plot line for this lawsuit so far: Benjamin Moore develops a wide range of paint colors under the umbrella “Williamsburg”. In it, there are at least three colors named after, or in honor of, St. George Tucker—a seemingly respectable Virginian. While St. George Tucker—a would-be abolitionist—is rolling in his grave, a modern-day Clinton Tucker (no known relation to St. George) is suing Benjamin Moore claiming that the paint named for a white pro-abolition dude was actually some inside joke (ha-ha) meant as a racial slur. Are you still with me?

Well, perhaps the real story here is this excerpt from the filing that was re-printed at Courthouse News:

“Tucker claims that “despite his value, accomplishments and productivity for the company, the plaintiff was repeatedly denied opportunities for promotion and growth by BM due to his race” and that “despite spending countless hours in the office, the plaintiff was only getting paid for a 40-hour week…Tucker claims that Benjamin Moore eventually wrongfully terminated him in March 2014, but “retained Tucker’s two white, blonde-haired and blue-eyed subordinates.”

According to Tucker’s LinkedIn profile, he started at BM in June 2011—so he was there for 2 years, 9 months. And, according to a recommendation he received (see below), he actually had been promoted. The recommendation also makes you wonder if those “countless hours” were required, or just Tucker’s regular M.O…

“Clinton is the guy you want on your team when you need results. NO is just not an option. He will dig deep for data and map out a solution or track down an answer while jumping hurdles to do it. As part of the Digital Marketing team he brought a deep analysis of our data that we hadn’t seen before that drove results across all of our digital properties. His expertise in eCommerce helped set the stage for future growth and Clinton demonstrated leadership qualities well deserving of the promotion he received.” – Lisa Sharp, Digital Manager at SRSoft, who previously indirectly managed Clinton at BM

Regardless, if this has any legs, I’m thinking of letting my friend—the one who consistently robs the cradle, so to speak—know that she may have to find a lawyer and file a discrimination suit…Benjamin Moore also has a paint named “Cougar Brown”.

 

Crazy Sh*t Lawyers See: How Not to Launch a Hollywood Lawsuit…

August 5th, 2014. By LucyC

We’ve had it! The lawyers defending—or not—Michael Egan III—who filed a sexual abuse lawsuit against “X-Men” director Bryan Singer—want out. And they’ve got their court date—August 6^th.  Can’t blame ’em when you consider how much this one’s been in the media; when you win a case on the front page of the news, you win big–not so when you’re realizing the front page news might be that your client didn’t prevail… So, attorneys Jeff Herman and Mark Gallagher claim they no longer speak with their client—except through a new lawyer. Yup, that would make things difficult. So, sometimes you just have to cut your losses.

The backstory—31-year old Egan is accusing Singer of sexually abusing him during trips he took to Hawaii in 1999, when he was 17. Singer has denied the allegations, and filed a motion to dismiss, scheduled for September 9.  FYI—Egan has dropped similar lawsuits he filed against other entertainment figures—so precedent’s on Singer’s side. Adding to the defense attorney’s frustration must be the fact that Egan can’t seem to get his story straight on this lawsuit either, with old depositions coming up that would seemingly negate his charges. Specifically, a deposition given by Egan 10 years ago (11/24/03) as part of a lawsuit also alleging sexual abuse, given under penalty of perjury, where he stated he hadn’t been included on a trip to Hawaii in 1999. Hmm…so, first question that comes to mind – how did the alleged sexual abuse take place ? Virtually? Oh wait—1999 predates “virtually” as we understand it today. Egan also claims Singer abused him in Encino California, which Singer is also denying. According to Buzzfeed, which published part of the deposition, when asked about the Hawaii trip, Egan said “Never had any trips outside the continental US, no.” This, after the attorney who was asking the questions even said to INCLUDE Hawaii, Alaska and the Caribbean as part of the “continental U.S.” So we’re taking a bit of a broad, loosey-goosey definition of “continental” here folks…. Jeff Hermann, trying to do his job, told Buzzfeed that his client may have not have understood the question at the time. “I’m not sure how he interpreted the continental United States,” Herman said. “I’m not sure what he’s talking about specifically here.” Well, if he doesn’t know, then they are in trouble. Hermann reportedly also confirmed with Egan’s mother, Bonnie Mound, and Egan that he had in fact traveled to Hawaii. But Egan said in the deposition that he had not traveled to Hawaii because his mother would not approve of it. What? “Any trip that I ever asked to go anywhere within any far amount of distance to Mexico, any of those my mom would say no and pretty much lock the door and not let me go,” he said at the time. “She didn’t want me going anywhere outside the United States, really.” Well, I’m confused. But as far as abuse goes—it would seem the legal system is taking the brunt of it. PS—as this one winds its way to its likely conclusion, another defendant in the sexual abuse cases, former TV executive Garth Ancier, has filed a malicious prosecution action against both Egan and Herman; stay tuned…

Alleged Robber Sues his Victims for Violating his Civil Rights

July 28th, 2014. By LucyC

C’mon now—you simply cannot make this stuff up. You can’t help but think of “Green Eggs and Ham”, too as you’re thinking about the plaintiff attorney who may have been approached about the pleasure of taking on this baby…”Would you, could you…take on this case?” So here goes…

If at first you don’t succeed…and Nigel Sykes surely has nothing to lose by trying. He apparently doesn’t have an attorney…he’s just filed his fourth complaint against the officers of the Delaware Police department and Seasons Pizza restaurant alleging his civil rights were violated during his attempted robbery of the pizza place. Yep. HIS rights during HIS attempted robbery.

The 23-year old convicted felon is currently serving out his 15-year sentence for robbery and attempted robbery. It seems that in addition to attempting to rob Seasons, he was also linked to 8 other robberies in the area. But I digress.

The subject of Sykes lawsuit is his treatment at the hands of the restaurant employees and the attending police officers. The story goes that on November 30, 2010 Sykes entered Seasons Pizza located in Wilmington, Delaware, armed with a gun. But he hadn’t banked on the employees swinging into action.

According to his complaint, “The defendant handed me $140.” Then, it all went to hell in a handbasket. Sykes alleges he was grabbed by one of the employees as he tried to leave the store. “After a short struggle, the defendants successfully obtained the handgun from me,” the complaint states. “That is when the assault began.”

Sykes alleges the employees punched and kicked him and poured hot soup over his body. Ouch—that’s really gotta hurt. For $140? I don’t think so.

“I was unarmed and defenseless and had to suffer a brutal beating by all the employees of Seasons Pizza,” Sykes wrote. He also claims he was eventually knocked unconscious during which time he was assaulted by three responding Newport Police officers. Vigilantism or responding to a threat? Would depend on which side of the courtroom you’re on, I’m guessing.

In a complaint filed in February 2011, without an attorney, Sykes that he was knocked unconscious at least twice by Seasons’ employees at the restaurant, then tasered several times by the responding police officers. He also alleged that he was led to a police vehicle where he was punched in the stomach and head then slammed against the trunk.

“They handcuffed me behind my back,” Sykes wrote. “I was aroused from my state of unconsciousness only to realize that I was handcuffed and being tasered. I was tasered a total of three consecutive times while handcuffed.” Racial slurs are also alleged.

That complaint was dismissed in May, 2011, but Sykes filed a second amended version in July 2013, having pled guilty to the attempted robbery. That complaint was also dismissed without prejudice. So, in February 2014, he filed the latest version naming Seasons Pizza, the Newport Police Department and three officers rather than the Delaware State Police as defendants. He also alleges in this version that he was denied medical care at the scene despite the presence of paramedics. Nice.

He was seeking compensatory damages, claiming he continues to suffer the effects of the beating, including bruises, headaches, contusions and burns. Specifically, $100,000 from the Newport Police Dept, $60,000 from the three officers, $100,000 from the pizza joint, and $120,000 from six employees at Seasons.

On April 17, the court dismissed the claims made against the Newport Police Dept and one of the officers… but the court has allowed Sykes to proceed on the assault claims against Seasons and its employees, as well as the claims of excessive force brought against two other Newport officers.

This ought to be interesting…

Heart Doc on Receiving End of ‘a Fib’ with NYC Strippers

July 21st, 2014. By LucyC

This could be fun gig—depending on which side of the courtroom you represent. It involves all the good stuff—sex, drugs, fraud—and even some rock and roll.

It’s a lawsuit brought by a New Jersey doc—a cardiologist at Robert Wood University Hospital—Zyad Younan, just 41-years old and busted. Well, taken to the cleaners more like. Seems when it comes to matters of the heart, he may be a bit more book-smart than street-smart…

Dr. Younan allegedly got done in by a group of girlies who falsely presented themselves as sisters and cousins—and who showed him a good time, which cost him $130K. Oh yes my friends, that old ploy. While he’s presumably not disputing he was up for the party, he is disputing the price, and claims he can’t even remember any of what happened. The lawsuit alleges the girls drugged him during their frivolities. That’s sucks (pardon the pun), so no good memories at all out of this one.

The backstory, a 26-year old brunette bombshell, Karina Pascucci, who claimed to be a “nursing major” but in reality is a former bartender with a couple of years community college under her skirt, made cozy with the good doctor in Manhattan last fall.

“She claimed to be a nursing student who had recently moved back to New York to pursue her education,” the bachelor cardiologist claims in his recently filed lawsuit. According to the lawsuit, Pascucci, “the RN-in-training,” pursued the doctor fervently, joining him for a Van Morrison concert at Madison Square Garden and three dinners in Manhattan for “what [Younan] believed were dates.”

Younan claims he did not get suspicious when Pascucci showed up with her gorgeous “cousin” Samantha, and “sister” Kimberly. Really? Like, he didn’t even think to Google any of them? According to the lawsuit, there were other striking women who joined them on the outings as well. OK, I am having a wee bit of difficulty believing he was so believing—although I get the biology behind it.

“Unbeknownst to Younan, Karina along with Marsi, Samantha, [another woman named] Roselyn and Scores [the jiggle joint where the girls work] agreed to participate in a scheme to defraud and steal money from Younan and others by luring them into supposed romantic relationships, then drugging and taking advantage of them by obtaining their credit cards and charging unauthorized amounts,” the lawsuit says.

It took American Express to wake Dr. Younan up. Hey, membership has its privileges. And thankfully AMEX raised that little, “gee, doc, are you sure those purchases are legit?” red flag as it helped kick off an 8-month investigation into the swindling strippers’ M.O.

According to the New York Post, Younan confronted Pascucci, who allegedly tried to blackmail him with video footage of the doctor at Scores. Hey, a girl’s gotta make a living.

But the doc wasn’t having it, according to the lawsuit, despite the best efforts of Samantha Barbash, another alleged ringleader, who tried to persuade Younan to pay the bill, saying, “I thought you were a god? Why would you not wanna pay your bill?” in a Nov. 26, 2013, text message. (New York Post)

A third member of the girl group, Marsi Rosen, sent a message a day later saying, “This isn’t the Zyad I know and love. It’s the holidays babe these poor girls need there [sic] $, have a heart.”

The doctor shot back, “I don’t need to speak with swindlers.” Well done! That’s telling them.

At the moment, Younan is seeking unspecified damages from Pascucci, her colleagues and Scores. And in a crazy twist, the club is suing Younan for the $135K in unpaid bills, which Younan says are false bills.

So, pick your side and lawyer up…. know which one I’d choose.