I spent about $7,000 in legal fees for advice on procedure, and estimate my lost income at $35,000. So no, I lost about $20,000. I could have avoided that by simply taking down the web page I was sued over. I have lost that money because I take the first amendment seriously.
I allow free non-commercial use of my photos. I recently authorized a non-profit in Europe to use photos I took at factories in China to raise awareness of harsh factory conditions. They were difficult photos to shoot, and I authorized use free of charge. I have provided images to non-profits at no charge every time I'm asked.
I object only to commercial, for-profit, advertising use of my photos without paying me the standard market rate. It might be like going after pirates who sell DVDs of a movie for profit, but granting permission for all other, non-commercial use.
Somehow I don't think that will affect your position, but I think it's relevant to the issue you raised.
I brought an anit-SLAPP motion. I did so as a motion to dismiss in 2007. Unfortunately, Minnesota's anti-SLAPP statute only applies to speech aimed at favorable government action. I argued my website sought, in part, others to join me in a complaint with the Minnesota Department of Commerce. Judge Montgomery ruled from the bench the anti-SLAPP statute didn't apply. Paying a lawyer $5,000 to do that for me would not have changed anything.
There is an exception if the client's story is an obvious falsehood. And that's a fact question for a jury. If I tell you I didn't steal this photo from your website, I bought if for $850 in cash from a Russian-speaking stranger I met only once in a sauna...and by the way, there is no trace he ever existed on the face of this earth...could a reasonable jury find that is an "obvious falsehood"?
If a reasonable jury could agree that's an obvious falsehood, I am allowed to proceed to trial (under the law). Everyone now agrees the story is a lie -- what changed? There is no new evidence, it's just as bogus when first told as it is today.
The client testified years earlier at deposition he had no evidence to back up his story. That is something his lawyers should have believed. The client also said he was not challenging my copyright. The lawyers decided to challenge my copyright on his behalf despite his truthful statements he had absolutely no evidence to do so.
I personally "believe" everyone in the world stole my car last night. A lawyer cannot take that case based on "believing me". There must be probable cause -- evidence. There was never the slightest hope the claims against me could prevail, which is why one was dismissed as pure speculation.
Not true. Even if you believe your client, you must have evidence. The client in this case admitted, under oath, he had no personal knowledge and no evidence (to back up his contention that "Zubitskiy" created the photo). But the lawyers did NOT believe his statement he had no evidence, like you say they should believe their client, and stop the litigation.
The claim of unjust enrichment against me was not based on ANY testimony from the client, and was dismissed as "purely speculative". Is pure speculation "probable cause"?
The other party tried to quash a subpoena to the phone company. The judge asked at the hearing, "What is your standing? You don't represent the phone company." Their answer: "Well, we have no standing."
The phone company did not object to the subpoena, so they tried to interpose an objection on behalf of the phone company. That is not standard at all, and they lost.
It's willful ignorance because I showed early on that "Michael Zubitskiy" did not exist, and they never so much as opened the phone book to see if he was real.
In Minnesota, they consider the application of law to facts. If a case is dismissed on summary judgment for lack of a genuine dispute, they consider whether the facts on the record amount to a material dispute or not.
One potential error of law they did not speak to: one of the claims against me was dismissed as "purely speculative". Is that ruling by the first court sufficient, under the law, for me to go to trial on a claim it lacked probable cause? If not, then probable cause includes "pure speculation".
Agreed, ain't that the truth. At the same time, there is such a thing as a bogus case. What is the "check" on lawyers who take such cases, victimizing innocent defendants? The ONLY real check is a subsequent lawsuit for malicious prosecution. If there was no fear of such lawsuits, a lawyer can take very comer, swear he has a case, and bring a lawsuit for "looking at me wrong at church".
How about rapists sue their victims for speaking up? If the rapist has $60,000, should lawyers be able to take the case without fear of loosing all that money to a malicious prosecution lawsuit by the victims? How about Mike Nifong? He's being sued for bring a bogus case.
When I had lawyers represent me, I lost 50% of the time. When I represented myself, I've won about 7 out of 8 cases. Plus, I save $100,000 or so in legal fees. At times, the attorneys and judges were less familiar with the law than me, since I'm devoting myself to one area of law, and one case, while they have many.
And I did have several lawyers advise me. I just didn't have them write my briefs or make oral argument (represent me on the record).
The corporation's lawyers filed a sales agreement with the court that was signed by a person who did not exist...obviously forged. That's a criminal offense under Minnesota statue. After the notary public lost his commission for having notarized the forged document, they still did not withdraw the document from evidence because it was forged.
The other party claimed I did not create the photo I had a copyright registration for, and his attorneys claimed the real owner was a man the client met in a sauna and paid $850 in cash. This mystery seller had no address, no phone number, and was completely untraceable. When I subpoenaed the phone company for any unlisted phone number for this man, "Micheal Zubitskiy", the other side's lawyers tried to quash the subpoena. This is called "willful ignorance" under the law. The federal judge in the case ruled there was "no credible evidence to support the belief that Zubitskiy existed".
If you bring a suit with no evidence, no personal knowledge of who created the photo, no basis to deny the other party's legal title of ownership, you lack "probable cause". If you didn't know if at first, they had 2.5 years to figure it out. Even after the notary lost his commission for notarizing the fraudulent sales agreement with Zubitskiy, they did not drop their claim he was a real person.
I, for one, do not care about my DNA being private. But, as you wrote, I might care about an abuse (telling me I can't live in my neighborhood because my DNA says my ancestors once lived in a certain part of the world, etc).
The most abused information -- age, race, gender -- is public. We can't keep it private (in a one-on-one personal encounter) if we wanted. The only solution is to reduce unfair treatment based on that information. Why is that not the same with DNA or other personal information (that has public health and scientific uses)?
My DNA can be used to find cures to disease, and I would provide it. I don't want to micro-manage how my DNA benefits science or is arguably mis-used. Unless you grow my DNA into a bullet and shoot it at me, it's not important to me.
Public health is important. Finding a cure for Parkinson's, alzhiemers, diabetes, autism...I really, really, really, really care about those things. If some moron arguably misuses my DNA to learn what-not I just am not interested.
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 used MECC via a teletype terminal around 1978, when I was in fourth grade at Marcy Elementary in Minneapolis. We had to dial the phone and stick the handset into the modem coupler. I don't remember any adults involved, just kids (even then). It was a good early experience of a multi-user system with a dumb terminal.
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".
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)
Last year, I watched my wife become a US citizen. In that moment, I did not see her change from being a victim of American imperialism to being an American imperialist. I saw her cry with gratitude.
Are you a "good" American because you have denounced your country? How is that different from being ungrateful?
I'm proud of, and grateful for, the good things about my country. And there is more good than bad. I disagree with the wholesale condemnation of the US, especially by someone who benefits from living here. I think it's offensive, but being offensive is within your rights (one of the benefits of living in the USA).
The majority of people immigrating from China and Cuba are impressed with the United States, regardless of it's foreign policy. Their native governments engage in unethical, exploitive behavior, too (the US doesn't have a monopoly).
I'm married to an immigrant, and most of our friends are immigrants (from the Philippines, a former US colony). They laugh at America bashing. Having lived in the Philippines myself, the attitude I saw there was "Yankee go home...and take me with you!".
I don't hear of Westerners moving permanently to the developing world because they believe other nations are more noble. I hear some Westerners make wholesale condemnations of their own country while still enjoying the benefits of living there.
I'm grateful to have been born in the West, someplace with clean food and water (my wife grew up in a different world, and is lucky to have survived). I can criticize my government openly, and I do....but I don't completely condemn the country that has given me, my wife, and child a great deal. If the American government or people have taken, they have also given...if they are flawed, they are not alone in being flawed. To ignore that and completely condemn the US is simplistic and (if you are an American) shows a lack of gratitude for benefits you enjoy and so many others do not.
As a reality check, look at the feet of the humans around the world...they are immigrating into America from (e.g) Cuba and China, not the other way around. These people appear to consider the USA to be the lesser evil.
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.
I set up a Google Checkout account a year ago to let clients pay invoices using a credit card. I never promoted it, but in the past few months, more clients have been using it.
I am hoping mindshare grows more, I reluctantly tried PayPal and hated it, but love Google Checkout.
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.
Slashdot Mirror
I spent about $7,000 in legal fees for advice on procedure, and estimate my lost income at $35,000. So no, I lost about $20,000. I could have avoided that by simply taking down the web page I was sued over. I have lost that money because I take the first amendment seriously.
I allow free non-commercial use of my photos. I recently authorized a non-profit in Europe to use photos I took at factories in China to raise awareness of harsh factory conditions. They were difficult photos to shoot, and I authorized use free of charge. I have provided images to non-profits at no charge every time I'm asked.
I object only to commercial, for-profit, advertising use of my photos without paying me the standard market rate. It might be like going after pirates who sell DVDs of a movie for profit, but granting permission for all other, non-commercial use.
Somehow I don't think that will affect your position, but I think it's relevant to the issue you raised.
I brought an anit-SLAPP motion. I did so as a motion to dismiss in 2007. Unfortunately, Minnesota's anti-SLAPP statute only applies to speech aimed at favorable government action. I argued my website sought, in part, others to join me in a complaint with the Minnesota Department of Commerce. Judge Montgomery ruled from the bench the anti-SLAPP statute didn't apply. Paying a lawyer $5,000 to do that for me would not have changed anything.
There is an exception if the client's story is an obvious falsehood. And that's a fact question for a jury. If I tell you I didn't steal this photo from your website, I bought if for $850 in cash from a Russian-speaking stranger I met only once in a sauna...and by the way, there is no trace he ever existed on the face of this earth...could a reasonable jury find that is an "obvious falsehood"?
If a reasonable jury could agree that's an obvious falsehood, I am allowed to proceed to trial (under the law). Everyone now agrees the story is a lie -- what changed? There is no new evidence, it's just as bogus when first told as it is today.
The client testified years earlier at deposition he had no evidence to back up his story. That is something his lawyers should have believed. The client also said he was not challenging my copyright. The lawyers decided to challenge my copyright on his behalf despite his truthful statements he had absolutely no evidence to do so.
I personally "believe" everyone in the world stole my car last night. A lawyer cannot take that case based on "believing me". There must be probable cause -- evidence. There was never the slightest hope the claims against me could prevail, which is why one was dismissed as pure speculation.
Not true. Even if you believe your client, you must have evidence. The client in this case admitted, under oath, he had no personal knowledge and no evidence (to back up his contention that "Zubitskiy" created the photo). But the lawyers did NOT believe his statement he had no evidence, like you say they should believe their client, and stop the litigation.
The claim of unjust enrichment against me was not based on ANY testimony from the client, and was dismissed as "purely speculative". Is pure speculation "probable cause"?
The other party tried to quash a subpoena to the phone company. The judge asked at the hearing, "What is your standing? You don't represent the phone company." Their answer: "Well, we have no standing."
The phone company did not object to the subpoena, so they tried to interpose an objection on behalf of the phone company. That is not standard at all, and they lost.
It's willful ignorance because I showed early on that "Michael Zubitskiy" did not exist, and they never so much as opened the phone book to see if he was real.
In Minnesota, they consider the application of law to facts. If a case is dismissed on summary judgment for lack of a genuine dispute, they consider whether the facts on the record amount to a material dispute or not.
One potential error of law they did not speak to: one of the claims against me was dismissed as "purely speculative".
Is that ruling by the first court sufficient, under the law, for me to go to trial on a claim it lacked probable cause? If not, then probable cause includes "pure speculation".
Agreed, ain't that the truth. At the same time, there is such a thing as a bogus case. What is the "check" on lawyers who take such cases, victimizing innocent defendants? The ONLY real check is a subsequent lawsuit for malicious prosecution. If there was no fear of such lawsuits, a lawyer can take very comer, swear he has a case, and bring a lawsuit for "looking at me wrong at church".
How about rapists sue their victims for speaking up? If the rapist has $60,000, should lawyers be able to take the case without fear of loosing all that money to a malicious prosecution lawsuit by the victims? How about Mike Nifong? He's being sued for bring a bogus case.
When I had lawyers represent me, I lost 50% of the time. When I represented myself, I've won about 7 out of 8 cases. Plus, I save $100,000 or so in legal fees. At times, the attorneys and judges were less familiar with the law than me, since I'm devoting myself to one area of law, and one case, while they have many.
And I did have several lawyers advise me. I just didn't have them write my briefs or make oral argument (represent me on the record).
The corporation's lawyers filed a sales agreement with the court that was signed by a person who did not exist...obviously forged. That's a criminal offense under Minnesota statue. After the notary public lost his commission for having notarized the forged document, they still did not withdraw the document from evidence because it was forged.
The other party claimed I did not create the photo I had a copyright registration for, and his attorneys claimed the real owner was a man the client met in a sauna and paid $850 in cash. This mystery seller had no address, no phone number, and was completely untraceable. When I subpoenaed the phone company for any unlisted phone number for this man, "Micheal Zubitskiy", the other side's lawyers tried to quash the subpoena. This is called "willful ignorance" under the law. The federal judge in the case ruled there was "no credible evidence to support the belief that Zubitskiy existed".
If you bring a suit with no evidence, no personal knowledge of who created the photo, no basis to deny the other party's legal title of ownership, you lack "probable cause". If you didn't know if at first, they had 2.5 years to figure it out. Even after the notary lost his commission for notarizing the fraudulent sales agreement with Zubitskiy, they did not drop their claim he was a real person.
I, for one, do not care about my DNA being private. But, as you wrote, I might care about an abuse (telling me I can't live in my neighborhood because my DNA says my ancestors once lived in a certain part of the world, etc).
The most abused information -- age, race, gender -- is public. We can't keep it private (in a one-on-one personal encounter) if we wanted. The only solution is to reduce unfair treatment based on that information. Why is that not the same with DNA or other personal information (that has public health and scientific uses)?
My DNA can be used to find cures to disease, and I would provide it. I don't want to micro-manage how my DNA benefits science or is arguably mis-used. Unless you grow my DNA into a bullet and shoot it at me, it's not important to me.
Public health is important. Finding a cure for Parkinson's, alzhiemers, diabetes, autism...I really, really, really, really care about those things. If some moron arguably misuses my DNA to learn what-not I just am not interested.
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 used MECC via a teletype terminal around 1978, when I was in fourth grade at Marcy Elementary in Minneapolis. We had to dial the phone and stick the handset into the modem coupler. I don't remember any adults involved, just kids (even then). It was a good early experience of a multi-user system with a dumb terminal.
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.:
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)
Last year, I watched my wife become a US citizen. In that moment, I did not see her change from being a victim of American imperialism to being an American imperialist. I saw her cry with gratitude.
Are you a "good" American because you have denounced your country? How is that different from being ungrateful?
I'm proud of, and grateful for, the good things about my country. And there is more good than bad. I disagree with the wholesale condemnation of the US, especially by someone who benefits from living here. I think it's offensive, but being offensive is within your rights (one of the benefits of living in the USA).
The majority of people immigrating from China and Cuba are impressed with the United States, regardless of it's foreign policy. Their native governments engage in unethical, exploitive behavior, too (the US doesn't have a monopoly).
I'm married to an immigrant, and most of our friends are immigrants (from the Philippines, a former US colony). They laugh at America bashing. Having lived in the Philippines myself, the attitude I saw there was "Yankee go home...and take me with you!".
I don't hear of Westerners moving permanently to the developing world because they believe other nations are more noble. I hear some Westerners make wholesale condemnations of their own country while still enjoying the benefits of living there.
I'm grateful to have been born in the West, someplace with clean food and water (my wife grew up in a different world, and is lucky to have survived). I can criticize my government openly, and I do....but I don't completely condemn the country that has given me, my wife, and child a great deal. If the American government or people have taken, they have also given...if they are flawed, they are not alone in being flawed. To ignore that and completely condemn the US is simplistic and (if you are an American) shows a lack of gratitude for benefits you enjoy and so many others do not.
As a reality check, look at the feet of the humans around the world...they are immigrating into America from (e.g) Cuba and China, not the other way around. These people appear to consider the USA to be the lesser evil.
I am also "as old as time".
I turned 40 on 9-9-9.
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. ...and have a great toddler.
http://www.cgstock.com/personal/arlene_gregerson
http://www.cgstock.com/athena
Thanks, geocities.
I set up a Google Checkout account a year ago to let clients pay invoices using a credit card. I never promoted it, but in the past few months, more clients have been using it.
I am hoping mindshare grows more, I reluctantly tried PayPal and hated it, but love Google Checkout.
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.