Jonathan Monsarrat v. Brian Zaiger (2017) - Copyright dispute against Encyclopedia Dramatica. Dismissed with prejudice for being filed years after being made aware of infringement.

  • Twórca wątku Twórca wątku Null
  • Data rozpoczęcia Data rozpoczęcia
  • 🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Status
Nie jest otwarta na dalsze odpowiedzi.
Null

Null

Ooperator
kiwifarms.net
Dołączono
14 Lis 2012
1:17-cv-10356-PBS
Monsarrat v. GOTPER6067-00001 et al
Patti B. Saris, presiding
Date filed: 03/02/2017
Date of last filing: 07/13/2017

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/20759456/Monsarrat_v_GOTPER606700001_et_al


Filed & Entered: 03/02/2017
Complaint

1-main.pdf
1-1.pdf
1-2.pdf


Filed & Entered: 03/02/2017
Report on the filing/termination of copyright case

09517932318.pdf


Filed & Entered: 03/03/2017
Notice of Case Assignment


Filed & Entered: 03/03/2017
Summons Issued

09517933106.pdf


Filed & Entered: 03/20/2017
Order


Filed & Entered: 04/04/2017
Order of Recusal

09517991720.pdf


Filed & Entered: 04/04/2017
Notice of Reassignment


Filed: 04/20/2017
Entered: 04/21/2017
Order on Motion for Order

09518025765.pdf


Filed & Entered: 04/26/2017
Affidavit of Service

09518032381.pdf


Filed & Entered: 05/01/2017
Affidavit of Service

09518041840.pdf


Filed & Entered: 05/03/2017
Terminated: 05/10/2017
Motion for Discovery

15-main.pdf
15-1.pdf
15-2.pdf


Filed & Entered: 05/10/2017
Order on Motion for Discovery

09518060508.pdf


Filed & Entered: 05/23/2017
Request for notice of default

09518087694.pdf


Filed & Entered: 05/23/2017
Notice of Appearance

09518089154.pdf


Filed & Entered: 05/23/2017
Notice of Appearance

09518089157.pdf


Filed & Entered: 05/23/2017
Terminated: 05/30/2017
Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer
Summary: Zaiger's attorney's first motion requests a time extension to respond, claiming that Zaiger is a layperson and he needed the original time grant just to find an attorney.

20-main.pdf
20-1.pdf


Filed & Entered: 05/23/2017
Corporate Disclosure Statement

09518089164.pdf


Filed & Entered: 05/25/2017
Notice of correction to docket made by Court staff


Filed & Entered: 05/26/2017
Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
Summary: Jonathan Montsarrat drops all defendants from the lawsuit except Zaiger.

09518094356.pdf


Filed & Entered: 05/26/2017
Answer to Complaint
Summary: This is the first substantive motion by Zaiger's attorney. It contests all claims and countermotions that Monsarrat is a vexatious litigant and knowingly committing perjury by submitting before the court a frivolous DMCA complaint that the attorney alleges he should have, and did in fact, know was not a valid complaint.

09518095336.pdf


Filed & Entered: 05/26/2017
Opposition to Motion
Summary: Jonathan Monsarrat (a cunt) and his lawyer (also a cunt) attempts to throw out the entire answer to complaint given by the attorney, saying that the fact zaiger has never been in court before and was seeking out counsel, quote: "does not allow an inference that he carelessly neglected the deadline, must less constitute the requisite minimum "convincing explanation as to why the neglect was excusable." "

25-main.pdf
25-1.pdf


Filed & Entered: 05/30/2017
Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer


Filed & Entered: 05/31/2017
Terminated: 06/05/2017
Motion to Strike

27-main.pdf
27-1.pdf
27-2.pdf


Filed & Entered: 05/31/2017
Opposition to Motion
Summary: "Plaintiff’s counsel describes his own motion as “silly” and “wasteful” (Dkt. No. 27 at 2; Dkt. 27-1 at 2). Defendant concurs with this characterization."

09518101784.pdf


Filed: 06/05/2017
Entered: 06/06/2017
Order on Motion to Strike

09518111824.pdf


Filed & Entered: 06/09/2017
Notice of Scheduling Conference

09518118424.pdf


Filed & Entered: 06/13/2017
Answer to Counterclaim

09518123731.pdf


Filed & Entered: 07/10/2017
Terminated: 07/13/2017
Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

09518165805.pdf


Filed & Entered: 07/11/2017
Joint submission

33-main.pdf
33-1.pdf


Filed & Entered: 07/11/2017
Notice (Other)

09518168476.pdf


Filed & Entered: 07/11/2017
Terminated: 07/13/2017
Motion for Leave to File

35-main.pdf
35-1.pdf
35-2.pdf


Filed & Entered: 07/13/2017
Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief


Filed & Entered: 07/13/2017
Order on Motion for Leave to File

09518173467.pdf


Filed & Entered: 07/18/2017
Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting

38-main.pdf
38-1.pdf

Filed & Entered: 07/18/2017
Scheduling Conference
 

Załączniki

Ostatnio edytowane:
I hope you didn't pay for any of this bc Sue Brasko's hosting it all on her blog as it comes out and has been for weeks.
 
This can basically be summed up as:

Zaiger: (via his lawyers) Fuck off Monsarrat. You're wasting mine and the court's time with a bullshit lawsuit. Go away.
Monsarrat: *AUTISTIC LEGAL SCREECHING*
Zaiger: *FACEPALM*
 
legal.PNG


Get the fuck outta here he wants a $150,000 in damages for this? Also, how is that even copyrighted!
 
I would care more if Encyclopedia Dramatica was browseable. For fucks sake, the place has been unuseable for years at this point. Used to be fun too.
 
cuddle striker powiedział(a):
but he didn't design that, he's suing over the photo of him in the shirt.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
A photograph can be copyrighted, but $150,000 is the maximum one can gain from statutory damages. Copyright infringement can be broken up into statutory damages and actual damages. If you can prove infringement cost you money, you can sue for whatever that is. If the infringement just happened, you can sue for what are called statutory damages, so long as you can prove the infringement actually impeded upon your market for the property. Statutory damages can go up to $30,000 for all infringements claimed. If the infringement was deliberate, i.e. you're intentionally trying to steal someone else's work to make money, it can go up to $150,000 per work.

He is claiming the maximum possible amount for this and he is directly blaming Zaiger for it. His case is bullshit in several ways.

First, you can't sue a service provider for statutory damages as far as I know, you have to sue the person responsible for the infringement.
Second, the work was used fairly and infringed no market. Fair use is an absolute defense against copyright infringement claims.
Third, there is no way he can prove that ED intentionally infringed on his market deliberately. His claim does not work for many, many reasons, not the least of which being he made no attempt to mediate with ED before filing the lawsuit.

@AnOminous might know better but based on what limited understanding I have of the federal rules of civil procedure, I'd give them a legal ultimatum under Rule 68 which would be either: drop the case with prejudice, or we will go after you for every penny we can. If they reject that Rule 68 Judgement Offer and then go on to achieve less favorable results than the offer presented, he becomes liable for attorney fees accumulated after the offer was ignored. The fact they didn't offer a Rule 68 makes me his attorney is suggesting they not bother giving him the opportunity to back out and just motion for sanctions and their own set of damages against him.
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
Null powiedział(a):
@AnOminous might know better but based on what limited understanding I have of the federal rules of civil procedure, I'd give them a legal ultimatum under Rule 68 which would be either: drop the case with prejudice, or we will go after you for every penny we can. If they reject that Rule 68 Judgement Offer and then go on to achieve less favorable results than the offer presented, he becomes liable for attorney fees accumulated after the offer was ignored. The fact they didn't offer a Rule 68 makes me his attorney is suggesting they not bother giving him the opportunity to back out and just motion for sanctions and their own set of damages against him.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...

So what you're saying is that ED has more or less decided "Fuck all of you AND the entire army of horses you rode in on"?
 
cuddle striker powiedział(a):
but he didn't design that, he's suing over the photo of him in the shirt.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...

And in the US, at least, copyright on a photo falls to whomever took the photograph- not the subject (unless otherwise transferred).

:offtopic:...unless a monkey took the photo. Then court battles are needed.
 
Status
Nie jest otwarta na dalsze odpowiedzi.
Wstecz
Top Na dole