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

[Apteryx Owenii]

What if its a photo OF a monkey?

Monkey has no ownership, nor does Monsarrat, based on being photographed. The ridiculous case I was mentioning was one where a monkey was the one to 'take' a selfie and PETA is trying to award the monkey the copyright. It is predicated on caselaw that the copyright goes to the one using the camera, not the owner or subject (which speaks to how ridiculous it is for Monsarrat to be taking the legal actions he is)

http://www.businessinsider.com/davi...y-selfie-court-case-is-broke-2017-7?r=UK&IR=T

Spoiler: an :offtopic: quote from the article

There's also the question over whether Peta has identified the correct monkey. Slater claims the macaque in the photograph is a female, and it a completely different age to the six-year-old Naruto Peta is representing."I'm bewildered at the American court system," Slater told the Guardian. "Surely it matters that the right monkey is suing me."

 

[Null]

An update as of 7/18.

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

Filed & Entered: 07/18/2017
Scheduling Conference

 

[HG 400]

"Parties do not agree to ADR at this time."

auuuuuuugh yeah

 

[AnOminous]

Yet another exciting legal development, where people agree to maybe get together and do something in a few months, after the continuance, and the continuance after that!

This, though, is a magnificent curbstomp: https://kiwifarms.net/attachments/38-main-pdf.250264/

Very, very nice.

How nice it is for Jonmon to be litigating right next door to one of the many locations of the Randazza Law Group.

 

[Null]

Yet another exciting legal development, where people agree to maybe get together and do something in a few months, after the continuance, and the continuance after that!

I'm shocked at how much of litigation is just the parties continuing to do nothing of note because they still can't agree on shit. You'd imagine dispute resolution being handled by courts would be more up to the court.

also:
"First, it must be noted that although Plaintiff claims copyright in the alleged work"
not "alleged claim", "alleged work". intentional. lol

 

[AnOminous]

I'm shocked at how much of litigation is just the parties continuing to do nothing of note because they still can't agree on shit. You'd imagine dispute resolution being handled by courts would be more up to the court.

also:
"First, it must be noted that although Plaintiff claims copyright in the alleged work"
not "alleged claim", "alleged work". intentional. lol

The placement of the adjective was, I can assure you, entirely intentional.

 

[LulzKiller]

 

[AnOminous]

View attachment 264348

Well, here's the Rule 26 disclosure.

It's packed with dox if anyone's interested.

 

[Apteryx Owenii]

So here's what happened. Court decided that Monsarrat filed his lolsuit too late to be considered for copyright infringement.
https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20180402c45

Oops!

 

[Null]

So here's what happened. Court decided that Monsarrat filed his lolsuit too late to be considered for copyright infringement.
https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20180402c45

Oops!

Mail Returned Wed 11:11 PM
Mailings of court's 8/14/20178 rulings to Brian Zaiger Returned as Undeliverable. Mailings sent to both Lafayette Hotel, Room 111, 116 Lafayette Street, Salem, MA 01970 and 4 Davis Street Apt. 3, Beverly, MA 01915. (Putnam, Harold)


lol

 

[Null]

Out of curiosity, I looked up how this ended. It turns out that Monsarrat waited so long to file, the statute of limitations had passed since the "discovery" of the infringement and there was no statute under which relief could be sought.

 

[Maltninja]

Like so many cases, it ends with a whimper.

 

[AprilRains]

He does seem to have succeeded in getting his ED entry taken down though.