Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

Donald J. Trump v. Robert Woodward

Abandon reality, all ye who enter here. *Democracy*Under*Threat*
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Donald J. Trump v. Robert Woodward

#26

Post by northland10 »

I learned all my special legal terms from Mike.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7541
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

Donald J. Trump v. Robert Woodward

#27

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

Thank you!
"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7541
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

Donald J. Trump v. Robert Woodward

#28

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

northland10 wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 9:41 am I learned all my special legal terms from Mike.
He's a regular Black's Law Dictionary! :biggrin:
"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
User avatar
Foggy
Dick Tater
Posts: 9546
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:45 am
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater/Space Cadet
Verified: as seen on qvc zombie apocalypse

Donald J. Trump v. Robert Woodward

#29

Post by Foggy »

Off Topic
When MikeDunford joined Fogbow, he hadn't had a day of law school yet.

But we encouraged him, and look at him now. 8-)
Out from under. :thumbsup:
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14349
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

Donald J. Trump v. Robert Woodward

#30

Post by RTH10260 »

Where would Mike be without exposure to the all mighty Orly Taitz :lol:
User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7541
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

Donald J. Trump v. Robert Woodward

#31

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

That's OUR boy!!!!! :lovestruck:

Our other BOY being FRATER!!!!! :lovestruck:
"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
User avatar
neonzx
Posts: 6120
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:01 am
Location: FloriDUH Hell
Verified: 🤩✅✅✅✅✅🤩

Donald J. Trump v. Robert Woodward

#32

Post by neonzx »

RTH10260 wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 10:06 am Where would Mike be without exposure to the all mighty Orly Taitz :lol:
Well, yeah. With a mentor like Orly on the law, how hard could it be to leap the bar?
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Donald J. Trump v. Robert Woodward

#33

Post by bob »

I like how someone actually answered Mike D.'s question:
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Frater I*I
Posts: 3210
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:52 am
Location: City of Dis, Seventh Circle of Hell
Occupation: Certificated A&P Mechanic
Verified: ✅Verified Devilish Hyena
Contact:

Donald J. Trump v. Robert Woodward

#34

Post by Frater I*I »

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 10:11 am That's OUR boy!!!!! :lovestruck:

Our other BOY being FRATER!!!!! :lovestruck:
I was just a maladjusted youth when I joined here....
"He sewed his eyes shut because he is afraid to see, He tries to tell me what I put inside of me
He's got the answers to ease my curiosity, He dreamed a god up and called it Christianity"

Trent Reznor
User avatar
Luke
Posts: 5587
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:21 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Donald J. Trump v. Robert Woodward

#35

Post by Luke »

Mike's doing a stream about it now. But 44 people are in Leo's Space, competition is fierce.


Lt Root Beer of the Mighty 699th. Fogbow 💙s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jDHZd0JAg
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14349
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

Donald J. Trump v. Robert Woodward

#36

Post by RTH10260 »

I listened into Mikes stream and comments. Not sure if I report his take correctly. Main issue - it cannot be a copyright claim cause the former guy has no copyright on the recordings taken and owned by Woodward. It could be some contractual issue, except that the complaint never mentions such a document. The complaint says that the former guy ought to get "damages", but it never specifies what damages he has. The claim for a certain $$$ amount is not calculated on the price of the current Woodward book and its circulation numbers, but instead takes price and circulation from an earlier work of Woodward as fictive damages. They claim that the gross revenue as sold to the consumer belongs to them. Least not last correct choice of venue is still to be determined, the current court is rather outside of anyones jurisdiction. PS. the judge who got assigned to the case seems to be an octogenarian of Regans choice.
User avatar
Flatpoint High
Posts: 1278
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:58 am
Location: Hotel California, PH523, Galaxy Central, M103
Occupation: professional pain in the ass, voice actor & keeper of the straight face
Verified:

Donald J. Trump v. Robert Woodward

#37

Post by Flatpoint High »

Reality Check wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 9:35 am
Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 9:26 am I hope Mike Dunford posts about this and soon!
Mike had one Tweet on it.
You're welcome.
castigat ridendo mores.
VELOCIUS QUAM ASPARAGI COQUANTUR
User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 4915
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

Donald J. Trump v. Robert Woodward

#38

Post by p0rtia »

RTH10260 wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 10:30 pm I listened into Mikes stream and comments. Not sure if I report his take correctly. Main issue - it cannot be a copyright claim cause the former guy has no copyright on the recordings taken and owned by Woodward. It could be some contractual issue, except that the complaint never mentions such a document. The complaint says that the former guy ought to get "damages", but it never specifies what damages he has. The claim for a certain $$$ amount is not calculated on the price of the current Woodward book and its circulation numbers, but instead takes price and circulation from an earlier work of Woodward as fictive damages. They claim that the gross revenue as sold to the consumer belongs to them. Least not last correct choice of venue is still to be determined, the current court is rather outside of anyones jurisdiction. PS. the judge who got assigned to the case seems to be an octogenarian of Regans choice.
That's what I heard. Plus two small points that stuck with me: 1) The copyright "law" that TFG is depending on isn't a law, and 2) After they pick a monetary claim out of the air, they say they deserve it all ( because they were joint authors), which contradicts their earlier position that TFG owned the copyright to his answers, and Woodward owned the copyright to his questions (I'm not sure I'm describing the deets correctly, but that's the gist).

I read the filing too. This is my favorite of many BS statements:

"Interview 4 recorded at Mar-A-Lago on December 30, 2019 clearly manifests the understanding between President Trump and Woodward that Woodward’s rights were limited and that the parties intended that the copyright of any recordings would remain with President Trump."

And here's the exchange they say "clearly" shows "the parties intended...copyright of any recordings would remain with" TFG:

Woodward: On the record for the book, unless you—
Trump: For the book only, right? Only for the book.
Woodward: The book only, yeah, I’m not—
Trump: For the book only, right? So there’s no—
Gidley: Right. So there’s no stories coming out, okay.

That's what I'd a stretch.
User avatar
neonzx
Posts: 6120
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:01 am
Location: FloriDUH Hell
Verified: 🤩✅✅✅✅✅🤩

Donald J. Trump v. Robert Woodward

#39

Post by neonzx »

p0rtia wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 7:40 am And here's the exchange they say "clearly" shows "the parties intended...copyright of any recordings would remain with" TFG:

Woodward: On the record for the book, unless you—
Trump: For the book only, right? Only for the book.
Woodward: The book only, yeah, I’m not—
Trump: For the book only, right? So there’s no—
Gidley: Right. So there’s no stories coming out, okay.

That's what I'd a stretch.
Does tfg let anyone complete a sentence/thought?
User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 3125
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2021 10:48 pm
Location: Asgard
Occupation: Aspiring Novelist
Verified:
Contact:

Donald J. Trump v. Robert Woodward

#40

Post by Kriselda Gray »

p0rtia wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 7:40 am And here's the exchange they say "clearly" shows "the parties intended...copyright of any recordings would remain with" TFG:

Woodward: On the record for the book, unless you—
Trump: For the book only, right? Only for the book.
Woodward: The book only, yeah, I’m not—
Trump: For the book only, right? So there’s no—
Gidley: Right. So there’s no stories coming out, okay.

That's what I'd a stretch.
Maybe. I don't know how it works legally, but I could see a jury hearing that as an agreement Woodwork won't use the tapes for anything other than "the book" and seeing an audio book of the tapes themselves as something other than "the book." Also, with his - I presume - lawyer Gidley saying they don't want "other stories" coming out, I can see a jury thinking that just the release of the tapes themselves created another story. If the court let's the jury hear that, the jury might think trump has something there... Maybe. I dunno.
User avatar
Luke
Posts: 5587
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:21 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Donald J. Trump v. Robert Woodward

#41

Post by Luke »

These interviews were from when he was president, so people say his remarks are public domain.
Lt Root Beer of the Mighty 699th. Fogbow 💙s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5jDHZd0JAg
User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 3125
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2021 10:48 pm
Location: Asgard
Occupation: Aspiring Novelist
Verified:
Contact:

Donald J. Trump v. Robert Woodward

#42

Post by Kriselda Gray »

orlylicious wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 8:49 am These interviews were from when he was president, so people say his remarks are public domain.
Ah, didn't know about the public domain part. Yeah, that makes a difference. Thanks for clarifying that!
User avatar
Foggy
Dick Tater
Posts: 9546
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:45 am
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater/Space Cadet
Verified: as seen on qvc zombie apocalypse

Donald J. Trump v. Robert Woodward

#43

Post by Foggy »

Trump: For the book only, right? So there’s no—
Gidley: Right. So there’s no stories coming out, okay.
Hogan Gidley was Trump’s press guy - deputy press secretary in the administration, and then press secretary for the 2020 campaign.

It appears to me that his concern is not an audiobook, but contemporary stories in the Washington Post.

And of course, this exchange does not mention copyright at all, much less a distinction between copyright for a written book vs. an audiobook.

If this is the most they have to support a claim that Woodward knew he couldn't publish an audiobook using the tapes he recorded, that's hugely persuasive and I'm sure they'll get the whole $49 million.
Out from under. :thumbsup:
User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 4915
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

Donald J. Trump v. Robert Woodward

#44

Post by p0rtia »

Kriselda Gray wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 8:44 am
p0rtia wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 7:40 am And here's the exchange they say "clearly" shows "the parties intended...copyright of any recordings would remain with" TFG:

Woodward: On the record for the book, unless you—
Trump: For the book only, right? Only for the book.
Woodward: The book only, yeah, I’m not—
Trump: For the book only, right? So there’s no—
Gidley: Right. So there’s no stories coming out, okay.

That's what I'd a stretch.
Maybe. I don't know how it works legally, but I could see a jury hearing that as an agreement Woodwork won't use the tapes for anything other than "the book" and seeing an audio book of the tapes themselves as something other than "the book." Also, with his - I presume - lawyer Gidley saying they don't want "other stories" coming out, I can see a jury thinking that just the release of the tapes themselves created another story. If the court let's the jury hear that, the jury might think trump has something there... Maybe. I dunno.
I have no clue, either, but Mike D pointed out several times that TFG has no copyright at all on the tapes. Or the book.

He also pointed out that "stories" refers to newpaper/magazine articles. There's also a part in there where TFG arguse that CD's audiobooks and recordings are "derivitive" products, whereas in fact they are just different packaging of the same product. And on and on.

I don't think this is ever, ever gonna reach a jury.
User avatar
much ado
Posts: 1381
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:42 pm
Location: The Left Coast

Donald J. Trump v. Robert Woodward

#45

Post by much ado »

I can see why Woodward would avoid a written agreement. He held all the cards legally. I written agreement would only restrict his rights, which seem to be essentially unrestricted without something in writing.

It's hard to understand why Trump would not want something in writing. He should have known that Woodward's book would not be sympathetic. What was he thinking?

Oh yeah, that's the problem...
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17654
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Donald J. Trump v. Robert Woodward

#46

Post by raison de arizona »

much ado wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 1:23 pm I can see why Woodward would avoid a written agreement. He held all the cards legally. I written agreement would only restrict his rights, which seem to be essentially unrestricted without something in writing.

It's hard to understand why Trump would not want something in writing. He should have known that Woodward's book would not be sympathetic. What was he thinking?

Oh yeah, that's the problem...
tfg doesn't like putting anything in writing, and I mean ANYTHING. It constrains him from being able to Make Shit Up, which is his primary modus operandi.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
much ado
Posts: 1381
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:42 pm
Location: The Left Coast

Donald J. Trump v. Robert Woodward

#47

Post by much ado »

raison de arizona wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 1:37 pm
much ado wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 1:23 pm I can see why Woodward would avoid a written agreement. He held all the cards legally. I written agreement would only restrict his rights, which seem to be essentially unrestricted without something in writing.

It's hard to understand why Trump would not want something in writing. He should have known that Woodward's book would not be sympathetic. What was he thinking?

Oh yeah, that's the problem...
tfg doesn't like putting anything in writing, and I mean ANYTHING. It constrains him from being able to Make Shit Up, which is his primary modus operandi.
Yep, that's the reason. Forgot about that. There seem to be downsides to that strategy, though.
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5596
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Donald J. Trump v. Robert Woodward

#48

Post by northland10 »

This is the perfect storm of Trump's bad character traits.

1. He won't put anything in writing because it prevents him from changing the story later or wiggling out of an agreement (he may think everything is transactional, but he is allowed to break the deal on his own whim).

2. Famous reporter wants to interview him, which he thinks will stop the voice of his father telling him he's a loser. That overrides any voice that might mention, "dude, this guy already helped take down one President who liked to dabble in illegality."
101010 :towel:
User avatar
busterbunker
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:46 pm

Donald J. Trump v. Robert Woodward

#49

Post by busterbunker »

jcolvin2 wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 1:41 am
MN-Skeptic wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 10:50 pm IANAL.

Isn't this basically just a contract dispute?
Yes. While I am a lawyer, this is not my area of the law. That being said, this suit appears to have far more merit than many of the suits filed by Trump over the last few years. Cf. RICO complaint against Clinton, Comey, et al. Of course, I have not seen the defense’s position so I may be completely off base. Trump may not win, but at least his position is plausible on its face, not just crazy lawfare.
I would like to respectfully disagree. No. While I am not a a lawyer, this is my area of the law. I'm a copyright creator/holder. I have a very good working knowledge as this is my bread and butter. I learned the ropes from some of the foremost lawyers who practice in this area. My opinion is that this lawsuit has no merit whatsoever.

It's not a contract dispute as there is no contract. One mechanism Trump could have employed to claim authorship is work for hire. This would have required a written agreement. I have an entire box of work-for-hire agreements from Viacom (and its subsidiaries) which is named in this lawsuit. I obtained a settlement from another network when they violated the terms of a work for hire agreement. In absence of such an agreement, the copyright is retained by the author.

This lawsuit is based upon a redefinition of derivative work which is entirely fictitious. It appears here:
Defendants have converted the audio not only into an audiobook but also into derivative works, including a CD, paperback, and e-book—again, all at the expense of President Trump and without accounting to him.
Second instance:
On November 11, 2022, Paramount, SSI, and Woodward released a CD version of the Audiobook. On January 17, 2023, SSI and Woodward released a paperback and e-book version of the Audiobook (the CD, paperback, and e-book collectively are referred to herein as “Derivative Works”).
And 29 more times subsequently. Even a quick glance at Wikipedia should explain that "the CD, paperback, and e-book" do not meet the definition of derivative work in any way whatsoever.

Nearly every jury and most judges have little understanding of copyright law. which leads to the first rule of copyright fight club: "never litigate - always settle." Both parties are rolling the dice if they go to trial. But this is a case that could be dismissed with a fly swatter. This lawyer's attempt to obfuscate the law is intentional.

Seems as if this lawyer has ran into some previous trouble:

https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2 ... 0101153259
However, Garson has hit some litigation snags recently.

These setbacks include a “Lehman Brothers” trademark case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, upheld a ruling in favor of Barclays Capital Inc. and against his client, Tiger Lily Ventures Ltd., as well as a separate malpractice lawsuit in New Jersey.

The SCE Group Inc. filed the legal malpractice lawsuit against Garson and his brother under a New Jersey statute allowing any person who suffered an ascertainable loss resulting from the unauthorized practice of law to seek actual damages and treble damages for costs incurred as a result of such activity, according to the New Jersey Law Journal’s Charles Toutant.

An SCE attorney described the contract as a “very non-standard, not particularly well-drafted document,” with provisions unfavorable to the company, according to the lawsuit. SCE claimed that Garson billed them for his brother’s work in drafting the agreement, in which he justified, “in sum and substance, ‘anybody in the world can write a contract.’”

SCE sued for $5 million in compensatory damages. Garson, on Tuesday, called the lawsuit “frivolous.”
Pot meet kettle.
jcolvin2
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:56 am
Verified:

Donald J. Trump v. Robert Woodward

#50

Post by jcolvin2 »

busterbunker wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 3:49 pm My opinion is that this lawsuit has no merit whatsoever.

It's not a contract dispute as there is no contract. One mechanism Trump could have employed to claim authorship is work for hire. This would have required a written agreement. I have an entire box of work-for-hire agreements from Viacom (and its subsidiaries) which is named in this lawsuit. I obtained a settlement from another network when they violated the terms of a work for hire agreement. In absence of such an agreement, the copyright is retained by the author.

This lawsuit is based upon a redefinition of derivative work which is entirely fictitious.
I do not disagree with you regarding derivative works, i.e. that the release of an audiobook or a Braille version of the book would have been within the scope of the agreement.

However, I think the following contentions are potentially meritorious:
(1) Trump gave the interviews (and consented to the interviews being recorded) with the understanding that Woodward would use them solely as a basis to write a book;
(2) With respect to the interviews themselves, Trump can be viewed as the performer, and only gave a limited license to Woodward. Trump did not give a license to use the interviews for any other purpose than the writing of Woodward's book;
(3) In addition to writing a book, Woodward and SS also released the approximately eight hours of the interviews; and
(4) The release of the interviews was beyond the scope of the license.

If Trump had challenged what Woodward had written as being a misstatement of what Trump had said during the interviews, I am confident that Woodward could have released at least portions of the recordings in order to contest Trump's claim, because this would have been within the scope of writing a book based on interviews.

I have taught classes in law school where the school captures my lectures on video. I provided my students with permission to view the video in the event they miss class or want to review what I have said. If either the law school (or my students) were to market a video of my collected lectures (which would be foolish as there is exists no universe in which there is a market for jcolvin2 pontificating on Criminal Tax Fraud :biggrin: ), I believe that I would have a cause of action against the law school for going beyond the scope of the license provided.
Post Reply

Return to “The Big Lie & Aftermath of The Former Guy”