Fogbow

I learned all my special legal terms from Mike.

Thank you!

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!

Where would Mike be without exposure to the all mighty Orly Taitz

That's OUR boy!!!!!

Our other BOY being FRATER!!!!!

RTH10260 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 31, 2023 10:06 am Where would Mike be without exposure to the all mighty Orly Taitz

Well, yeah. With a mentor like Orly on the law, how hard could it be to leap the bar?

I like how someone actually answered Mike D.'s question:

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

Our other BOY being FRATER!!!!!

I was just a maladjusted youth when I joined here....

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

These interviews were from when he was president, so people say his remarks are public domain.

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!

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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."

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.

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 ), I believe that I would have a cause of action against the law school for going beyond the scope of the license provided.