Slashdot Mirror

I found it hard to believe or describe when I visited (in 2004). From one block north, the Forbidden City was obscured by smog on a cloudless day. It otherwise felt like you were smoking all the time.

The attorney's client stated, under oath, he had no evidence to back up his version of events, and no personal knowledge (as to who created the photo). See Appellant's brief, p. 9. They ignored his admission to having no evidence and proceeded with the case. This is not because they "believed him", but if anything they didn't believe him.

Before trial, they even admitted they were not challenging the truthfulness of anything on my website, but still proceeded to trial (and were allowed to do so). Same brief, p. 15.

One of the claims against me was ruled to be "purely speculative" and was dismissed (Id. p. 13). Yet I can't go to trial because there is no hope of showing a "purely speculative" claim lacked probable cause. That's not most people's definition of probable cause.

There's the court costs and disbursements (which are awarded as a matter of course), and the much larger expense, attorney fees, which are only awarded upon motion by a party. Attorney fees are not usually recoverable. But either way, if the other party is broke, you're right -- you can't recover.

One possible option is to bring a claim against SCO's attorneys for malicious prosecution. Such suits are difficult to win if they can argue any reasonable attorney would have considered the claim to have merit.

I'm 10 months into exactly such a suit (Gregerson v. Boris Parker, Bassford Remele, et. al.) against two attorneys and three firms. It also involves copyright; after I produced a certificate of copyright registration (and abundant other proof) they continued to sue me for two years based on a denial of my copyright.

I think much of the argument about infringement being called "stealing" is the fact people use "stealing" rhetorically for lots of things that are understood not to be the literal theft of property. For example:

"You stole my joke!" is not an allegation someone took custody of a piece of paper with a joke written on it. It does not deprive you of still telling the joke (perhaps to lesser effect).

"You stole my girlfriend!" is not an allegation of kidnapping your girlfriend.

"You stole my seat!", etc. etc. I think it's clear that infringement of intellectual property and theft of physical property are very different on many levels. But the word "stole" can be used to loosely refer to infringement (in a rhetorical sense) in a way that's understandable and potentially reasonable.

"A court ordered a corporation to pay me 20K for stealing two of my photos for use in their advertisements". The actual lawsuit was for copyright infringement. Most people will understand the use of "stealing" in that sentence to mean "using without paying the rightful owner the customary fee".

Libel per se, in Minnesota, does not require proof of damages. This hypothetical would also fall under Minn. Stat. 325D.44 DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES.:

A person engages in a deceptive trade practice when, in the course of business, vocation, or occupation, the person:...(8) disparages the goods, services, or business of another by false or misleading representation of fact;...Subd. 2.Proof....In order to prevail...a complainant need not prove competition between the parties or actual confusion or misunderstanding.

I was sued under this statute in 2006 for allegedly misleading members of the public, whom were never identified by name or testified to being misled. It went to trial (I won).

I was sued for defamation after referring to copyright infringement (of one of my photos) using the phrase "intellectual property theft". The judge ruled I had not defamed the other party as "thieves". I take this to mean copyright infringement may be described as intellectual property theft, but that phrase is not the equivalent of calling someone a thief.

(the litigation is still ongoing in Minnesota state court; I brought a malicious prosecution action against the other party's attorneys their law firms)

I was sued for defamation after referring to copyright infringement (of one of my photos) using the phrase "intellectual property theft". The judge ruled I had not defamed the other party as "thieves". I take this to mean copyright infringement may be described as intellectual property theft, but that phrase is not the equivalent of calling someone a thief.

(the litigation is still ongoing in Minnesota state court; I brought a malicious prosecution action against the other party's attorneys their law firms)

I got an email from a stranger in the Philippines asking for help with a document she found on my website. I responded (somewhat begrudgingly), she thanked me. I followed a link to her Geocities homepage in her signature line, and (seeing her photos) began emailing her.

http://www.geocities.com/balene46/Photo_Gallery.html

We've been married four years now.
http://www.cgstock.com/personal/arlene_gregerson ...and have a great toddler.
http://www.cgstock.com/athena

Thanks, geocities.

I got an email from a stranger in the Philippines asking for help with a document she found on my website. I responded (somewhat begrudgingly), she thanked me. I followed a link to her Geocities homepage in her signature line, and (seeing her photos) began emailing her.

http://www.geocities.com/balene46/Photo_Gallery.html

We've been married four years now.
http://www.cgstock.com/personal/arlene_gregerson ...and have a great toddler.
http://www.cgstock.com/athena

Thanks, geocities.

Be your own news source...

I have visited Shenzhen twice and posted my photos of Shenzhen. I took photos in public with a large camera/lens with no trouble from the authorities. I was hassled by the shoe-shine scammers and massage parlor hawkers near the Shangri-La hotel in Luohu, but my photos were not sensored by customs and my gear was not stolen/confiscated.

Geek Wins in Court, Remains Dateless. Good for him, but...

Sez the geek:

I'm married to Arlene Gregerson, and expecting Athena Gregerson on March 5th! Sila ay pinaka mahalaga sa akin (they are the most precious to me).

I got the verdict last Friday in a case I tried myself in federal court: Verdict, Gregerson v. Vilana Financial, Inc.

I'm not sure whether to be proud or embarrassed, but I did all my legal research using Google. The only paid service I used was Pacer, and that only for 2-3 cases. I bought one case from LexisNexis (Pinkham v. Sara Lee, 8th US Circuit), which cost $9.00. In the end, I was awarded $19,462 in damages (and I defeated six claims against me).

I found most of what I needed at Findlaw.com, www.law.cornell.edu. Specific state cases for Minnesota were at state.mn.us/lawlibrary/. I went to a law library only one time, and they didn't have what I needed, and I never went back.

I did get advice from an attorney on legal procedure (stuff not in any book). I would have used LexisNexis or West Law if it wasn't so overpriced ($9.00 for one webpage? All because the case was too old to be on Pacer, where it would cost about 18 cents). I'm going to try out this guy's service in the future.

(a full chronology of my case is here http://www.cgstock.com/essays/vilana))

I got the verdict last Friday in a case I tried myself in federal court: Verdict, Gregerson v. Vilana Financial, Inc.

I'm not sure whether to be proud or embarrassed, but I did all my legal research using Google. The only paid service I used was Pacer, and that only for 2-3 cases. I bought one case from LexisNexis (Pinkham v. Sara Lee, 8th US Circuit), which cost $9.00. In the end, I was awarded $19,462 in damages (and I defeated six claims against me).

I found most of what I needed at Findlaw.com, www.law.cornell.edu. Specific state cases for Minnesota were at state.mn.us/lawlibrary/. I went to a law library only one time, and they didn't have what I needed, and I never went back.

I did get advice from an attorney on legal procedure (stuff not in any book). I would have used LexisNexis or West Law if it wasn't so overpriced ($9.00 for one webpage? All because the case was too old to be on Pacer, where it would cost about 18 cents). I'm going to try out this guy's service in the future.

(a full chronology of my case is here http://www.cgstock.com/essays/vilana))

...people are even demonizing those who even bring up privacy as a concern.

I was sued in federal court for violating someone's right to privacy (06-cv-01164, D. Minn). I posted their photo on my website, and they sued to get it removed and get damages. I represented myself, had a trial Nov. 5th, and the verdict was issued last Friday. I won. Yes, I demonize the person who sued me over his exaggerated privacy concerns, which led to a baseless federal lawsuit that tried to quash my free speech rights. Their exaggerated privacy concerns were not harmless.

I've posted about this litigation on Slashdot before, but the verdict is in now so here's the URL again: Gregerson v. Vilana

The plus side of sharing private info on the web: I got to know my wife only after seeing her photo on her geocities page, scoping her out to see what the stranger from the other side of the world, who emailed me asking for a .pdf file, looked like (her formal writing style made her seem middle-aged, but her photo showed she was actually much younger, and we started corresponding).

I posted my own medical information online 10 years ago, which has since helped other patients. I posted info about my late brother's illness, also to help other patients, which it seems to have done. If you reply to this post and attack me over my health problems, or my deceased brother's illness, I don't think that exposes me as a bad person -- it exposes you as a jerk. If you won't hire me because of these things, I -- me, personally -- am OK with that.

...people are even demonizing those who even bring up privacy as a concern.

I was sued in federal court for violating someone's right to privacy (06-cv-01164, D. Minn). I posted their photo on my website, and they sued to get it removed and get damages. I represented myself, had a trial Nov. 5th, and the verdict was issued last Friday. I won. Yes, I demonize the person who sued me over his exaggerated privacy concerns, which led to a baseless federal lawsuit that tried to quash my free speech rights. Their exaggerated privacy concerns were not harmless.

I've posted about this litigation on Slashdot before, but the verdict is in now so here's the URL again: Gregerson v. Vilana

The plus side of sharing private info on the web: I got to know my wife only after seeing her photo on her geocities page, scoping her out to see what the stranger from the other side of the world, who emailed me asking for a .pdf file, looked like (her formal writing style made her seem middle-aged, but her photo showed she was actually much younger, and we started corresponding).

I posted my own medical information online 10 years ago, which has since helped other patients. I posted info about my late brother's illness, also to help other patients, which it seems to have done. If you reply to this post and attack me over my health problems, or my deceased brother's illness, I don't think that exposes me as a bad person -- it exposes you as a jerk. If you won't hire me because of these things, I -- me, personally -- am OK with that.

It is much easier (and cheaper) to spell out user licenses and sue for breach-of-contract than it is to get anyone on copyright infringement and actually have it be worth your time to pursue.

I agree, and brought several claims successfully in small claims court under a breach-of-contract argument. But in one case, the defendant's attorney argued that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over anything related to copyright, and the case was dismissed without prejudice to re-file in federal court.

They then sued me for defamation, and I filed a federal copyright lawsuit against them. It went to trial in November (Gregerson v. Vilana). This brilliant move cost them as much as >$100,000 in legal fees, on top of whatever the judge awards me (I'm still waiting for the verdict). I represented myself, with procedural advise from an attorney (still quite expensive).

They tried to claim the photo wasn't mine, they even forged a sales agreement and claimed a non-existent person took the photo. This went nowhere, with the court finding the photo was mine based on my copyright registration (and perhaps eyeballing the disputed photo and the original on my website).

I believe there will be a better system in the future, but I don't know what it will look like. As one example from history of a different approach, some great works of art were created during the depression under the WPA Federal Art Project, all public domain (artists were paid without having to sue).

A corporation took a photo from my website (cgstock.com) and used it in an entire ad campaign (phone book, brochures, newspaper). I saw it, they refused to pay, then sued me for defamation when I wrote about it on my website ( http://www.cgstock.com/essays/vilana ).

The case went to trial in federal court November 5th, 2007 (case 06-01164, District of MN -- my copyright infringement claim and multiple counterclaims over me "disparaging" them...it was a bench trial and I'm still waiting for the judge's ruling).

I explicitly permit non-commercial use of my photos -- personal web pages, schools, etc. (I require a photo credit, but I would not sue over it). But I greatly object if you are making money from my work, you HAVE A BUDGET to pay me, but are cutting me out of the loop to inflate your profits while I'm earning nothing.

There are excessive penalties for copyright infringement where the infringer does not seek to profit, but (speaking subjectively) I would like the corporation that stole my photos (two photos, actually), lied about it, forged evidence, and tied up in court since 2005, to pay "a billion dollars"...not just a token amount, or a few hundred. The risk of getting caught has to be a deterrent, which (for this company) it was not.

(licensing photos largely relies on professionalism and the honor system; if a local bank tells me they are going to use my photo in 1,000 brochures, I assume they are not using it in a TV campaign, billboards, and 100,000 brochures -- if so, the damages should outweigh the benefit of lying).

I guess this relates to the change in copyright law (to address P2P) that equated infringement without a profit motive = infringement with a profit motive.

I am defending myself (also pro se) against similar claims over my own gripe website/blog. My litigation has gone on two years+ now. The other side dropped their defamation claim, and I won summary judgment on their claims of trademark infringement and unjust enrichment. They have three remaining claims -- appropriation of name and likeness, deceptive trade practices, and interference with contractual relations (they don't want me to use the name and photo of the guy who sued me, and they to hold me liable for comments visitors to my site posted)

The whole thing started when I saw a photo from my website in a full-page phone book ad. The company sued me for defamation when I wrote about their unauthorized use of my image. I have three copyright claims against them. The trial should take 2-3 days. Details are here: Gregerson v. Vilana Financial, Inc.

for not acquiring a model release before putting his image out for commercial use.

NO, it's NOT the photographer's fault (writes a photographer).

Commercial use includes EDITORIAL use, such as articles, textbooks, etc. which requires no model release. You are actually talking about only one form of commercial use, advertising use, in which case the PUBLISHER, not the photographer, needs a model release (the photographer is usually the one who obtains a release, but it's for the benefit of anyone who publishes the photo in an ad). A release helps the publisher prevail if a lawsuit for appropriation of likeness is brought (violation of a person's right of publicity).

There is a pervasive belief in the myth that:

1. All "commercial" use is advertising use and requires a model release. Most commercial use of photos is actually editorial, and no model release is required (non-commercial use refers to personal use such as making a copy for yourself).
2. A photographer is liable for what other people do with his photos.
3. A release means you won't be sued (no, it only means you are more likely to win a lawsuit; anyone can sue for anything, unfortunately).

If you publish a photo, YOU are liable, not the photographer or whoever gave you the photo. As an example, a person may sell you a photo he didn't take, you publish it, and the true photographer then sues YOU, the publisher, for copyright infringement.

Real life example: I am suing a corporation for copyright infringement right now, after they published a photo of mine in their photo book ad (without my knowledge or consent). They claim a photographer named "Michael Zubitskiy", who they got the photos from, is liable, and they produced a signed and notarized sales agreement with him. The court ruled that they, the publisher, have strict liability, nobody else. Under the logic that the photographer is to blame, and I had to sue Michael Zubitskiy, I would have a problem -- Zubitskiy is a fictional person the corporation made up (see if you can find him, I've offered a reward). No, my claim is against the publisher (as the court has ruled).

If a person was in my photo, they would ALSO sue the publisher, not alleged provider of the photo (Zubitskiy, who doesn't exist) or me (who never consented to or knew about the advertising use of the photo). The details of this litigation are here: Gregerson v. Vilana case no. 06-cv-01164 D. Minn. (I'm not a lawyer, I'm representing myself in court)

A person aggrieved for the publication of a photo must sue the publisher. That publisher could then sue whoever provided the photo if there was a paid contract to buy certain permissions of use for the photo.

Australian Defamation Laws are ridiculously powerful.

A failed restaurant recently successfully sued a major newspaper for a negative review in the Australian High Court.

I'm defending myself (and my website) at trial in federal court in two months (November, 2007) against "deceptive trade practices" and "interference with prospective contractual relations" (a defamation claim was dropped).

My webpage criticizes a corporation that published my stock photos without permission and refused to pay the licensing fee. The federal court ruled last month that they were, in fact, guilty of infringement. Yet the court is still allowing their claims against my webpage to proceed, apparently based on comments posted by other victims of the same corporation (which, under the Section 230 of the CDA, I'm not liable for anyway)

Next month is the TWO YEAR anniversary of the claims against me. Nothing on my webpage is specifically cited as factually untrue, no evidence the webpage is false has been produced, yet we are still going to trial -- ?!?. Although I expect to prevail, I'm not sure this is hugely better than the Australian case (which I read about previously and is pretty bad). I'm pro-se, doing this on my own (my webpage with a chronology). If I had a lawyer, my costs might be over $100,000 by now.

I've posted about my case here even though it could lead to MORE claims against me as I truly in my heart believe in freedom of speech, and I won't concede to a "chilling effect" because of baseless, SLAPP lawsuits.

I have blocked anoymizer access to my BBS for several years. It was only used by abusive posters to block their identity.

I agree, Unipeak was used to post a threatening comment on my webpage about litigation I'm involved in, apparently by the other party in the lawsuit:

date:2006-07-01
ip:207.234.209.125 Unipeak, anonymous proxy used by Andrew Vilenchik
name:Anonymous
comment:Chris, be aware I\'ve heard Andrew has relations with Russian mafia. I would be very careful.
Winning the case may not mean $$ for you.

I have blocked anoymizer access to my BBS for several years. It was only used by abusive posters to block their identity.

I agree, Unipeak was used to post a threatening comment on my webpage about litigation I'm involved in, apparently by the other party in the lawsuit:

date:2006-07-01
ip:207.234.209.125 Unipeak, anonymous proxy used by Andrew Vilenchik
name:Anonymous
comment:Chris, be aware I\'ve heard Andrew has relations with Russian mafia. I would be very careful.
Winning the case may not mean $$ for you.

The motion to dismiss Geller's bad suit cites "Gregerson v. Vilana", a defamation/copyright lawsuit I'm a party to (I'm the Plaintiff, Gregerson). www.eff.org/legal/cases/sapient_v_geller/sapient_m otiontodismiss.pdf. It's cited as a minor point in the memorandum on page 22, about fair use being an affirmative defense versus a basis for dismissal. My case is described on my page: Gregerson v. Vilana

A magistrate judge ordered me to turn over all email requested by the other side in a federal civil lawsuit. This included email to my parents and my wife which discussed my feelings about the case, possible legal strategy, family member's health, etc.

I have come to understand that, in a civil case anyway, anything you document is discoverable (with the exception of communication between youself and an attorney and youself and an expert witness). I argued that the email was not relevant, but the courts are usually inclined to allow the other side to see it and decide for themselves. The other side got to pour over 500+ emails that have absolutely no relevant information.

details are here:vilana financial

I'm in federal court now defending against a defamation per se lawsuit over comments I wrote on my website. Summary judgment motions are scheduled for August. I contacted a lawyer, but I have been representing myself.

Anyone know Michael Zubitskiy? I was sued when the other party published a photo from my website and I wrote about it. They said the photo was really taken by Michael Zubitskiy, a Russian-speaking man they met in a health club sauna. This corporation claims they later paid Zubitskiy $850.00 in cash for a CD-ROM with some photos, but have lost the CD and Zubitskiy's contact info.

The case was filed in 2005 and my website was under a restraining order for the first week. In the past two years, nobody has located any trace of this Michael Zubitskiy (no health club membership, driver's license, address, credit record, unlisted number, etc.). I have long since produced the certificate of copyright registration for my photo, and a second photo I discovered the other party had published.

They are suing me for a million dollars. They have a sales agreement signed by Zubitskiy, but their employee who notarized it surrendered his notarial comission to the attorney general in a consent decree to avoid a hearing on misconduct. If it's helpful to compare the difference between small claims and federal court, there is a detailed chronology of events at the link below. I believe people should speak up, as you can be sued at any time for anything anyway.
details: vilana financial

I have been sued for defamation by a Russian businessman after I wrote a webpage that criticized him. One of my witnesses claimed the Russian threatened his life. A commment was later posted on my website using an anonymizing web proxy saying the businessman was in the Russian Mafia, and implying if I win in court I might loose my life.

I issued a federal subpoena for an IP trace to find out who made this threat. It went to Affinity Internet, who is the ISP for Unipeak, an anonymizing web proxy. I later learned Unipeak was the source of the comment threatening me, but Unipeak didn't have any valid contact information and their website says they keep no traffic logs.

Further research showed the Russian, Andrew Vilenchik, was a user of Unipeak. See Vilenchik's anonymous comments.

My local police are now involved, my neighbors keep an eye on my house, and my wife and extended family are very upset about this threat, which we take seriously.

Whoo hoo! Hooray for anonymity! By all means, terrorize, threaten, steal, and engage in represehsible and illegal conduct with anonymity and impunity. I choose not to lie, cheat, or steal, but I tell the truth without anonymity and I face any consequences. By comparison, every criminal and scumbag wants anonymity.

A full description of the Lawsuit is online

I have been sued for defamation by a Russian businessman after I wrote a webpage that criticized him. One of my witnesses claimed the Russian threatened his life. A commment was later posted on my website using an anonymizing web proxy saying the businessman was in the Russian Mafia, and implying if I win in court I might loose my life.

I issued a federal subpoena for an IP trace to find out who made this threat. It went to Affinity Internet, who is the ISP for Unipeak, an anonymizing web proxy. I later learned Unipeak was the source of the comment threatening me, but Unipeak didn't have any valid contact information and their website says they keep no traffic logs.

Further research showed the Russian, Andrew Vilenchik, was a user of Unipeak. See Vilenchik's anonymous comments.

My local police are now involved, my neighbors keep an eye on my house, and my wife and extended family are very upset about this threat, which we take seriously.

Whoo hoo! Hooray for anonymity! By all means, terrorize, threaten, steal, and engage in represehsible and illegal conduct with anonymity and impunity. I choose not to lie, cheat, or steal, but I tell the truth without anonymity and I face any consequences. By comparison, every criminal and scumbag wants anonymity.

A full description of the Lawsuit is online

I agree. There's a difference between the legal definition of "theft" and the general use of the term. We might say someone "stole my seat", "stole my girlfriend", "stole my joke", "stole my job", or "stole my song". None of these imply the criminal definition of theft, that someone broke into your house and ran off with your joke or your girlfriend.

It's kind of inflamatory, and it's certainly rhetoric to call unauthorized use "theft". But it's meaningless to point out it's not really "theft" under the law (which is a state law and can vary from state to state anyway).

Judge Mark Wernick of Minnesota District Court ruled as such in a lawsuit filed against me for calling a corporation's use of my photo in their phone book ad "intellectutal property theft". They claimed defamation because they didn't break into my house and steal the photo (they just swiped it from my website). They did not prevail on that point, although the case isn't resolved yet (Vilana Financial's copyright infringement).

I've learned the threshold is soo high, courts will essentially do nothing. I'm in the second year defending myself against a defamation lawsuit over a webpage I wrote saying one of my photos was published without my permission. The party suing me (Vilana Financial) filed (with their complaint) a sales agreement showing they bought the photo from Michael Zubistkiy, who they claim under oath is the true photographer.

I have proof the photo is mine, including the certificate of copyright registration. Also, there is no Michael Zubitskiy. They claim they paid him in cash, but did not get his contact information and lost the photo he gave them (and all copies). My investigator and their investigator cannot find anyone in the USA by that name -- no address, credit record, work history, or even welfare history or an unlisted phone number.

I have a certificate of copyright registration, the original digital file, out-takes from the same photo shoot, proof of prior publication on my website, and proof I sold the photo to a local magazine prior to their use of the image. They have nothing but this sales agreement with a signature. Knowing all this, the other party claimed, under oath, that the photo is not mine, but Michael Zubitskiy is the true photographer.

They supposedly met him at a health club, and upon subpoena, the club said they have no record of Zubitskiy. It's clear this is a fictional person, but what's more, even if he did exist, he did not take the photo -- I did. So I filed a motion for sanctions with all of the above evidence 15 months ago; the judge cancelled the hearing, saying it was premature and should wait until after the trial is over. Full story: www.cgstock.com/essays/vilana.html

So I would not count on the courts to spot even an obviously absurd and improper claim. Everyone knows it's my photo, yet I'm 18 months into this litigation.

Yes, I called their bluff and they sued me. A photo from my website was published in the Twin Cities phone book inside cover. The corporation that used it refused to pay a licensing fee, and I wrote about it on my website. They threatened to sue me for defamation, arguing the photo was not mine, but taken by Michael Zubitskiy (a fictional person). I have a certificate of copyright registration for the photo, and did not remove the webpage. They sued me for defamation, and it's safe to say it's blown up in their face.

I later brought my own action for copyright infringement in federal court, trial is set for November. They first sued me in August of 2005, and I was in court just yesterday (I'm litigating "pro se", representing myself). Yesterday's hearing was because they wanted email between myself and an attorney I hired to get legal advice from, which is obviously protected by lawyer-client confidentiality.

The full story is here:
http://www.cgstock.com/essays/vilana.html

That's a logical argument, but copyright law (in the US) has strict liability -- if you infringed, you infringed. Although there is an allowance for "innocent infringement" (you genuinely didn't know you were infringing), that affects the amount of damages...but not the fact you infringed.

So if you told someone in 2005 they were infringing, and they continued anyway, and you waited to sue until 2007, you take away their ability to reduce the damages by claiming innocent infringement.

I believe copyright infringement, in this regard, is comparable to the theft of physical property -- if someone is stealing gold bars from your garage for many years, and you overlooked it for years before you sued, they still owe you for everything they stole. If you believe there is a different legal standard, I would be interested in your source. I'm the Plaintiff in a copyright case over a photograph of mine right now.

I'm a photographer with a copyright suit against a corporation who has counterclaimed defamation (see my website's page about Vilana Financial). Part of their counterclaim was over insulting comments posted on my website by third parties.

This came up in oral arguments when they sought a preliminary injuction to remove my website. The federal judge (Ann D. Montgomery, District of Minnesota) was already aware, without any input from me, Vilana could not make a claim against me over comments posted by a third party. They tried to shoe-horn it in by saying I allowed the comments, or I had a "supervisory role". The judge didn't give that any merit.

On the other hand, I'm still spending two years in court to defend saying something long-since proven to be true -- that Vilana published my photos in the phone book without my knowledge or permission.

Yes, $20.00 would help, if I combine it with money from other donors. I will email if I can arrange that and I create a PayPal account. I may not be able to arrange it this time going over, but I will eventually.

The only physical delivery of aid after Yoyang (Dec. of 2004) was by U.S. Marine helicopter, I was there to document it and took hundreds of photos:

• US Marines Loading Relief Supplies
• US Marines Loading Relief Supplies
• US Marine Helicopter Taking Off in The Philippines
• Marine Helicopter and Crew, Mountains in Luzon

Public opinion in China and the Philippines, that they were victimized by Japan and not the USA in WWII, is not based on historical ignorance, but what those victims personally witnessed and experienced themselves -- being brutalized by Japan, their loved ones being murdered.

Japan's WWII agression in the Pacific was not merely a few degrees worse than American conduct, that characterization is an insult to those victims (such as civilians in Nanjing and Manila, and POWs in Bataan). They experienced something wholely diffent at the hands of the Japanese than they did the US, this is a historical fact (e.g. American soldiers were not trained that anyone who surrenders is not a human being, and it's OK to kill them). There were profound differences in national goals, the soldier's mindset, and resulting conduct. The Chinese still occasionally protest over Japanese WWII atrocities, not American WWII atrocities.

My wife lived as a foriegn worker in Japan for three years, working in a factory 12 hours a day, 6 days a week (no overtime pay was required by Japanese labor laws), living in a company-provided apartment with 11 others. She learned that a Filipina who marries a Japanese is not able to become a Japanese citizen (racism?). Those and other policies don't make it seem like Japan has reformed it's traditional belief in racial superiority (by way of comparison, Americans, not being homogonous, cannot have a collective national belief in racial superiority if they wanted to).

Yes, $20.00 would help, if I combine it with money from other donors. I will email if I can arrange that and I create a PayPal account. I may not be able to arrange it this time going over, but I will eventually.

The only physical delivery of aid after Yoyang (Dec. of 2004) was by U.S. Marine helicopter, I was there to document it and took hundreds of photos:

• US Marines Loading Relief Supplies
• US Marines Loading Relief Supplies
• US Marine Helicopter Taking Off in The Philippines
• Marine Helicopter and Crew, Mountains in Luzon

Public opinion in China and the Philippines, that they were victimized by Japan and not the USA in WWII, is not based on historical ignorance, but what those victims personally witnessed and experienced themselves -- being brutalized by Japan, their loved ones being murdered.

Japan's WWII agression in the Pacific was not merely a few degrees worse than American conduct, that characterization is an insult to those victims (such as civilians in Nanjing and Manila, and POWs in Bataan). They experienced something wholely diffent at the hands of the Japanese than they did the US, this is a historical fact (e.g. American soldiers were not trained that anyone who surrenders is not a human being, and it's OK to kill them). There were profound differences in national goals, the soldier's mindset, and resulting conduct. The Chinese still occasionally protest over Japanese WWII atrocities, not American WWII atrocities.

My wife lived as a foriegn worker in Japan for three years, working in a factory 12 hours a day, 6 days a week (no overtime pay was required by Japanese labor laws), living in a company-provided apartment with 11 others. She learned that a Filipina who marries a Japanese is not able to become a Japanese citizen (racism?). Those and other policies don't make it seem like Japan has reformed it's traditional belief in racial superiority (by way of comparison, Americans, not being homogonous, cannot have a collective national belief in racial superiority if they wanted to).

Yes, $20.00 would help, if I combine it with money from other donors. I will email if I can arrange that and I create a PayPal account. I may not be able to arrange it this time going over, but I will eventually.

The only physical delivery of aid after Yoyang (Dec. of 2004) was by U.S. Marine helicopter, I was there to document it and took hundreds of photos:

• US Marines Loading Relief Supplies
• US Marines Loading Relief Supplies
• US Marine Helicopter Taking Off in The Philippines
• Marine Helicopter and Crew, Mountains in Luzon

Public opinion in China and the Philippines, that they were victimized by Japan and not the USA in WWII, is not based on historical ignorance, but what those victims personally witnessed and experienced themselves -- being brutalized by Japan, their loved ones being murdered.

Japan's WWII agression in the Pacific was not merely a few degrees worse than American conduct, that characterization is an insult to those victims (such as civilians in Nanjing and Manila, and POWs in Bataan). They experienced something wholely diffent at the hands of the Japanese than they did the US, this is a historical fact (e.g. American soldiers were not trained that anyone who surrenders is not a human being, and it's OK to kill them). There were profound differences in national goals, the soldier's mindset, and resulting conduct. The Chinese still occasionally protest over Japanese WWII atrocities, not American WWII atrocities.

My wife lived as a foriegn worker in Japan for three years, working in a factory 12 hours a day, 6 days a week (no overtime pay was required by Japanese labor laws), living in a company-provided apartment with 11 others. She learned that a Filipina who marries a Japanese is not able to become a Japanese citizen (racism?). Those and other policies don't make it seem like Japan has reformed it's traditional belief in racial superiority (by way of comparison, Americans, not being homogonous, cannot have a collective national belief in racial superiority if they wanted to).

Yes, $20.00 would help, if I combine it with money from other donors. I will email if I can arrange that and I create a PayPal account. I may not be able to arrange it this time going over, but I will eventually.

The only physical delivery of aid after Yoyang (Dec. of 2004) was by U.S. Marine helicopter, I was there to document it and took hundreds of photos:

• US Marines Loading Relief Supplies
• US Marines Loading Relief Supplies
• US Marine Helicopter Taking Off in The Philippines
• Marine Helicopter and Crew, Mountains in Luzon

Public opinion in China and the Philippines, that they were victimized by Japan and not the USA in WWII, is not based on historical ignorance, but what those victims personally witnessed and experienced themselves -- being brutalized by Japan, their loved ones being murdered.

Japan's WWII agression in the Pacific was not merely a few degrees worse than American conduct, that characterization is an insult to those victims (such as civilians in Nanjing and Manila, and POWs in Bataan). They experienced something wholely diffent at the hands of the Japanese than they did the US, this is a historical fact (e.g. American soldiers were not trained that anyone who surrenders is not a human being, and it's OK to kill them). There were profound differences in national goals, the soldier's mindset, and resulting conduct. The Chinese still occasionally protest over Japanese WWII atrocities, not American WWII atrocities.

My wife lived as a foriegn worker in Japan for three years, working in a factory 12 hours a day, 6 days a week (no overtime pay was required by Japanese labor laws), living in a company-provided apartment with 11 others. She learned that a Filipina who marries a Japanese is not able to become a Japanese citizen (racism?). Those and other policies don't make it seem like Japan has reformed it's traditional belief in racial superiority (by way of comparison, Americans, not being homogonous, cannot have a collective national belief in racial superiority if they wanted to).

As a personal example, photos of mine were published in the local phone book (in a corporate advertisement) without my permission. When the corporation refused to compensate me, I wrote about it on my website. They then sued me for defamation.

Do I have the certificate of copyright registration for my photos? Yes. Then why would they sue? If nothing else, it means public criticism against them will cost you years in court. This case is very simple, I've long since proven the photos they published are mine, yet the case has been in court for 18 months now. See: Vilana Financial.

The correct URL is: www.cgstock.com/essays/vilana.html

I am being sued in federal court for publishing a man's photo (along with his name). See:
www.cgstock.com/essays/vilana.html

He's a mortgage originator, and he forged a sales agreement, and I'm warning others about him on my website (e.g. consumer speech). He dropped an earlier claim of defamation (what I wrote about his is true), but he's raising the same objection as you -- I can't publish his photo without permission. I disagree.

Who gets to decide what I publish? For the most part, me, and it is a difficult decision. How could someone else make that decision for me better than me?

I would agree it's morally wrong (not legally wrong) to publish someone's photo (with their name) without permission WHEN you have no reason (it's not newsworthy) AND you suspect they object. Many people, myself included, have no objection, and society can't suspend the freedom of the press to avoid offending those who want to keep their faces and names off the web. Keeping names off the web runs contrary to information wanting to be free. It sounds like a giant high-school yearbook, or a giant phone book that has photos...in other words, there may be some problems, but it doesn't sound overly troublesome.