|
nm posted:Speaking as a public defender, we are overworked, but that means we have experience. We're better, on average, than 90% of the losers on the private bar -- we actually want to do this. poo poo, 800 people applied for my job (we had 3 openings). We get the best (well, I slithered in). We can be appointed in anything that could send you to jail. A misdo 242 is exactly that. (It's late) YOUR attorney the ONLY person you can tell your bad stuff to, we keep our mouths shut. (Or lose our license) e: new page
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 06:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
nm posted:Seriously "We just want to hear your side of the story" starts 95% of interviews that send people to prison. They're not all guilty. We really need to post David Simon's essay on this from Homicide in the OP. The one in this (hopefully functional) link. http://books.google.com/books?id=uw...utput=html_text. It's long, so I will summarize: if you are a suspect, it is literally never in your interest to speak with police without your lawyers presence and advice. Also, I work at a giant law firm. For white collar criminal work, I would hire them. For misdemeanor criminal stuff? I would wish I could hire a PD. Most private defense attorneys are poo poo, and most PDs in most jurisdictions are every bit as good as the lawyers I work with day to day who bill at 500+ an hour. Kalman fucked around with this message at 07:00 on Mar 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 06:54
|
|
|
Kalman posted:We really need to post David Simon's essay on this from Homicide in the OP. The one in this (hopefully functional) link. http://books.google.com/books?id=uw...utput=html_text. It's long, so I will summarize: if you are a suspect, it is literally never in your interest to speak with police without your lawyers presence and advice. Chiming in to say so many times I've come across cases where the judgement hinges on the fact the defendant said something stupid he shouldn't have without his lawyer around just to tell his side of the story. The worst ones are that finish with "... that's all I wanna say boys I'd like to get a lawyer" when they've already just booked themselves room and board for the next few years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 07:16
|
|
|
Exactly one year ago (almost to the minute!)...
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 08:10
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:He should definitely get in touch with his lawyer, but I doubt he should be looking to get the terms of the divorce altered now they're financially severed. That ship's almost certainly sailed. More likely is that her lies about his behaviour coupled with her infidelity and, most importantly, her neglecting to mention that fidelity, give him multiple avenues to seek remedy for economic loss caused by whatever terms of the divorce would have been different if these facts had come to light. They wouldn't be different, the UK is weird because while our conditions for a divorce are a mix of fault and no-fault, divorce settlements are all approached from a 'no fault' perspective. A 50/50 split of assets after what was presumably a fairly long marriage is what you would expect no matter what. Fairness, measured by the yardstick of equality, is the rule. Also Broken Things if your mother was having an affair then she was unhappy in the marraige. Nothing there necessarily changes or contradicts anything she alleged against your dad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 10:57
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Also Broken Things if your mother was having an affair then she was unhappy in the marraige. Nothing there necessarily changes or contradicts anything she alleged against your dad. Hate to break it to you, but some people really can be happy in their marriage---or any other relationship---and still cheat on their partner. That's not to say Broken Things's mother was lying about being unhappy in this specific case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 12:03
|
|
|
ibntumart posted:Hate to break it to you, but some people really can be happy in their marriage---or any other relationship---and still cheat on their partner. That's not to say Broken Things's mother was lying about being unhappy in this specific case. Yeah well, court doesn't care. We legally severed you and split your assets 50/50. You are now expected to move on with your life and be happy, no judge cares or wants to hear about how your failed relationship happened to be even more failed than you thought it was. It changes none of the realities of needs and equality that were used to calculate the division of assets. e: and by 'you' I mean the OP's dad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 12:32
|
|
|
Thank you, Smudgie Buggler and Alchenar. My father's made an appointment to see his lawyer as a just-in-case meeting. My other post was worded poorly; I don't mean that my mother wasn't unhappy at all, rather that the unhappiness she gave as her reason for the divorce stemmed from spousal abuse rather than the marriage in general, which was really pretty unfair on my father. Again, thank you for the advice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 13:02
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Also, I work at a giant law firm. For white collar criminal work, I would hire them. For misdemeanor criminal stuff? I would wish I could hire a PD. Most private defense attorneys are poo poo, and most PDs in most jurisdictions are every bit as good as the lawyers I work with day to day who bill at 500+ an hour.  White collar crim really is a different animal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 15:26
|
|
|
I was recently accused of copyright infringement for the following "grumpy cat" design despite me not believing they have any legal reason to do so. I've created the design and while it plays homage to both hello kitty and grumpy cat the design is significantly different from either to stake that legal claim. Am I right in thinking this? http://nozomionline.com/dumb/Nope%20Kitty%2002.jpg I'm about to respond to the lawyer who served the notice so I wanted to see what you guys felt I should mention in the letter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
Jet Ready Go posted:I was recently accused of copyright infringement for the following "grumpy cat" design despite me not believing they have any legal reason to do so. 1) Consider not replying until they decide to proceed or tell them to direct all further correspondence to your attorney, do not offer or admit anything to them. 2) Who is the owner of the copyright are you allegedly infringing? If it's hellokitty ltd. you might have way more trouble than if it's someone that owns a cat since they have infinite lawyers. 3) Did you trace their drawing or something, or do they think they have a copyright on "any and all grouchycats"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 18:55
|
|
|
Jet Ready Go posted:I was recently accused of copyright infringement for the following "grumpy cat" design despite me not believing they have any legal reason to do so. ^^^ This is all correct, and also, what jurisdiction are you in and what jurisdiction are they in*? The test is going to be whether your work is substantially similar to theirs, but "substantial similarity" means different things in different places. * note that where the case might be tried, and thus what test applies, may not necessarily be either
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
After performing some crackerjack legal research, I have discovered the grumpy cat. Grumpycat.com has a copyright infringement reporting form here. So it's possible that somebody reported you, and that's just a form letter they send out to everyone without even really considering if it's actual infringement. Collecting on infringement threats is a lucrative business. Given their aggressive approach, I bet they make as much on protecting their copyright as they do on actual grumpy cat coffee mugs and poo poo. Can we see a redacted version of the cease and desist letter? Take out anything personally identifying. It'd be funny to see a grumpy cat legal letter. But also it probably contains information about their actual copyright claim that would help pinpoint whether they're full of horsecrap.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:1) Consider not replying until they decide to proceed or tell them to direct all further correspondence to your attorney, do not offer or admit anything to them. 1. It was just a take down notice served to my host. My host complied and directed me to get in touch with the grumpy cat lawyers to have it restored. I won't be responding until I get a better handle on my rights. 2. It was a take down notice served by the lawyers from the grumpy cat owners. 3. Did not trace any image from grumpy cats and to my knowledge they have nothing similar to this on their website for their cat. I did not get the specific wording to why it was taken down. It seems they want to claim they own the rights to an upset kitties everywhere. 4. The law firm is in California and I am in New York. Jet Ready Go fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Mar 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 19:19
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:Can we see a redacted version of the cease and desist letter? Take out anything personally identifying. It'd be funny to see a grumpy cat legal letter. But also it probably contains information about their actual copyright claim that would help pinpoint whether they're full of horsecrap. Sure. It's sparse on the details though. I'm leaving the details of the law firm un redacted as I think that's okay. I redacted the grumpy cat guys information as well as my own. I also apologize posting from my phone so I don't know if the format will be all broken looking. --------------------------------- We are writing to inform you that we received an [e-mail, letter, fax] claiming that the following designs are an infringement of intellectual property rights. We have deactivated the design, product or products that include these designs. When you agreed to our Terms of Service you stated you were the owner of all usage rights to the content and/or design, in particular rights concerning trademark, copyrights, patents, licenses and or other usage rights. Could you please provide us with documentation confirming that you are in possession of these rights? We can activate the product upon receipt of satisfactory documentation. For further information you are welcome to contact the party that sent us this email at: [Name and address of grumpy cat guy redacted] admin@grumpycats.com cc: Kia Kamran Esq. - Tune Law 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024-3519 kia@tunelaw.com
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 19:25
|
|
|
Grumpy Cat Inc. did file a trademark application on a design on Jan. 31, 2013. quote:The color(s) white, beige, brown, black, green, pink is/are claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of the head and neck of a white feline with brown and black ears. The cat has green eyes with black pupils. Surrounding each eye of the cat is an irregular shaped circle consisting of brown, black and beige fur. The cat has white fur above its nose and surrounding its mouth. Its nose and mouth are outlined in pink and black. The cat's mouth is in a frown. Surrounding the mouth are white whiskers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
My cats eyes are blue. I would also describe the color as white and tan. Also it's a cartoon. Isn't that good enough?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 19:40
|
|
|
Jet Ready Go posted:We are writing to inform you that we received an [e-mail, letter, fax] claiming that the following designs are an infringement of intellectual property rights. OOOk. So it looks like you use a vendor to produce your stuff, like a website that makes t-shirts or posters or something. And that website has cut you off, similar to a youtube DMCA complaint. Your vendor has asked for copyright documentation, or alternatively an agreement with grumpycat to use your cartoon. So your choices are to copyright your cartoon, or negotiate a license price with grumpy cat. And that probably just boils down to one choice. The attorney for your vendor doesn't care about arguments one way or another. They don't care about close calls or cat eye color. They simply want to avoid being sued by anybody. I only know enough about intellectual property to be dangerous, so my layperson suggestion is to just file for a copyright on your cartoon. That documentation is probably the only thing that will satisfy your vendor. Then if grumpycat disputes your copyright, they can do so through the normal copyright objection process of voodoo magic or however it works.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:Grumpy Cat Inc. did file a trademark application on a design on Jan. 31, 2013. If I have a cat with similar features and post it in a cat posting thread, will I get sued or would the cat and I get sued, or just the cat?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
Kalman posted:We really need to post David Simon's essay on this from Homicide in the OP. The one in this (hopefully functional) link. http://books.google.com/books?id=uw...utput=html_text. It's long, so I will summarize: if you are a suspect, it is literally never in your interest to speak with police without your lawyers presence and advice. I've always been a little curious as to how they determine whether you can have a PD. It's supposed to be if you can't afford an attorney yourself, right? Since different lawyers charge different ammounts and trials can go for varying amounts of time, how does the court determine whether you can afford an attorney?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 23:43
|
|
|
Jet Ready Go posted:My cats eyes are blue. I would also describe the color as white and tan. Also it's a cartoon. Isn't that good enough? The copyright claim made against your vendor/provider has nothing to do with the trademark, the thing you quoted here is completely irrelevant. Your vendor just basically wants for you to positively prove that you are the owner of what you say you own so that if they get sued they can say "NUH HUH" and point them at you. chemosh6969 posted:If I have a cat with similar features and post it in a cat posting thread, will I get sued or would the cat and I get sued, or just the cat? Getting sued for looking like a celebrity and infringing their copyright would be hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 23:48
|
|
|
Sefer posted:I've always been a little curious as to how they determine whether you can have a PD. It's supposed to be if you can't afford an attorney yourself, right? Since different lawyers charge different ammounts and trials can go for varying amounts of time, how does the court determine whether you can afford an attorney? Around here, you fill out a Pauper's Affidavit. As a practical matter, if you're a pauper, that is, you've got nothing, you get a PD. If you have a car or a house, or a bank account with a positive balance, no PD. Here, it is rare for someone who was able to make bond to get (or keep) a PD - maybe one out of 75 or 100, and none who paid more than $2000 to make bond.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:The copyright claim made against your vendor/provider has nothing to do with the trademark, the thing you quoted here is completely irrelevant. Your vendor just basically wants for you to positively prove that you are the owner of what you say you own so that if they get sued they can say "NUH HUH" and point them at you. Will I really need top get my design copyrighted or trademarked in order to sell it? Isn't there less a dire way?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 00:41
|
|
|
Jet Ready Go posted:Will I really need top get my design copyrighted or trademarked in order to sell it? Isn't there less a dire way? No. Just to get that vendor to allow you to. (Your design is copyrighted already, you would just register it at the copyright office.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 00:49
|
|
|
Jet Ready Go posted:Will I really need top get my design copyrighted or trademarked in order to sell it? Isn't there less a dire way? The vendor is telling you to prove that you have the rights to sell it, so do that and you're good to go. Filing for a copyright would probably be the cheapest and easiest way, although they might also accept some sort of sworn declaration/affidavit/whatever. You're not fulfilling a legal requirement here, you just need to convince the person at the vendor that is managing this legal threat that you're in the right. Even if you do prove that you own the copyright/rights, they could still tell you that they're not going to sell your product because your documentation is insufficient. And you might still get sued by the grumpycat people in the end anyways.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 00:55
|
|
|
I understand. How would you suggest I approach the lawyer to find out what exactly the alleged infringement was for?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 01:42
|
|
|
Jet Ready Go posted:I understand. Your question suggests you don't. The lawyer and your hosting company don't care and don't want to get involved in your dispute. They just need to cover their own rear end because they don't want to get sucked into this dispute. At the point where you are at now you just need to assert in some meaningful way to your hosting company that you have a right to the image that you are using. Most easily by filing a copyright.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 01:48
|
|
|
Not to sound daft, but I don't see why contacting the lawyer who served it... just to ask him about it... is me not understanding anything? I want to know what about the design they felt they owned so I can (possibly) make amends to the design and get a copyright or provide a written statement claiming it as my own. Was it because I referred to it as a grumpy looking cat? Then I'll change the name to upset cat. Don't mistake me for being stubborn, I'm legitimately asking, what is wrong about asking for more information? My design was barely up for an hour before it was taken down, I have a hard time believing they stumbled upon it because it was too popular. I have a feeling they had web crawlers searching for the terms grumpy and cat and pouncing on any stores that had it automatically. Jet Ready Go fucked around with this message at 03:05 on Mar 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 03:01
|
|
|
I offer this as a general statement; I have no background in intellectual property. But for anyone who thinks "what's the harm in contacting the other attorney?" As a "for instance," contacting the lawyer lets them know that -- even if they didn't do things properly -- you have actual notice of the allegations of infringement. A few months down the road, (after you've been sued) your lawyer wants to assert some notice-related defect to get this kicked right off the bat. But that can't happen because you've already acknowledged receipt of their demand. By contacting them, you're saying that yes, you're the same Jet Ready Go they wanted to sue, and yes, you received the notice they sent and yes, you knew what they were alleging in the letter. "Judge, even if we didn't do things properly, JRG clearly knew what was going on because they called us, so ignore our failure to follow procedure." The fact is you don't know what harm it could do in contacting their attorney. That doesn't make it harmless, it makes it a trap into which you're walking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 03:10
|
|
|
Don't contact the potential opposing party's lawyer. The letter from the vendor is so unspecific as to be useless, and if I was a copyright troll sending out mass amounts of letters like this, I would probably reply to your email with a threat saying that you could be liable for blah blah blah unless you settle for our very generous offer of $5000. The letter you got from the vendor has nothing to do with the grumpycat people, it is a letter from the vendor saying "hey prove to us that you own the IP rights to your thing and we'll put it back up". That is all you have to do. This does not involve the grumpycat people in any way (until they sue you). Consider asking the vendor for a copy of the communication from grumpycat. The name is not really copyrightable, that would potentially be a trademark that you are infringing. ^^^^ Look up willful infringement. If you contact the opposing lawyer, you're explicitly telling them that you know that you might be infringing. The penalties for willful infringement are way more severe, since you're basically admitting that you knew that there was a possibly good chance you were infringing but you did it anyways. EAT THE EGGS RICOLA fucked around with this message at 03:12 on Mar 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 03:10
|
|
|
This is presumably the mark you're allegedly infringing. The agent of record here is the same lawyer cc'ed on your letter, so the vendor likely got a threat from him and cc'ed him to let him know that they complied with his letter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 03:23
|
|
|
Okay that's fine. That sounds valid. I just wanted to know because so far it was only like DONT BE STUPID and up until this point I didn't know why. Thanks to everyone that responded.
Jet Ready Go fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Mar 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 03:23
|
|
|
Jet Ready Go posted:Not to sound daft, but I don't see why contacting the lawyer who served it... just to ask him about it... is me not understanding anything? Their lawyer's job is not to help you make a non-infringing version. You are not his client. Why would he give you free legal advice? Their professional obligation is to represent their clients interests, and will take the most expansive view of the mark possible. As a rule of thumb, copyrights represent specific works and trademarks represent brand identities. Generally speaking, a copyright on your specific drawing will not protect you in court if that drawing infringes on their trademark. However, a copyright may be sufficient to convince the host that you own the right and reinstate your store. edit: sorry- not trying to dogpile; posted before I saw your response. in a well actually fucked around with this message at 03:30 on Mar 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 03:28
|
|
|
I've no interest in this specific cat, I just want an upset looking kitty on a shirt. Now with even more reason to be upset! ^^ no absolutely fine. I came here for answers and I'm glad no one skimped on the details. When I asked for clarification it was in earnest and I didn't take anyone posting here as being aggressive or angry. Thing is, some of this stuff does seem stupid. I mean, between us... speaking as people... you might assume just asking a question would have been okay. But, this is not so anymore huh? Jet Ready Go fucked around with this message at 03:34 on Mar 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 03:31
|
|
|
You're not asking a person, you're asking a lawyer who is failing in their professional obligation if they don't do everything they can for their client, and in this case that means taking you to the cleaners and/or making sure that your work that might dilute their trademark never sees the light of day. If this lawyer gives you advice which weakens his client's position, they are being neglectful to their client. The problem is that without knowing for sure what they are accusing you of infringing, you don't know if you're going to be able to change your "grumpy cat" listing to "mildly unhappy fat lemur" to get around infringing on their exact mark only to turn around and get hit with a copyright infringement suit. Basically you're in a position that sucks to be in for someone that isn't a company with resources to look into this properly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 03:38
|
|
|
Essentially, you have two options moving forward. 1) You say "oh well" and do nothing. Your design stays down. Grumpy Cats Unlimited, PLLC can still sue you for the infringement. But they are very unlikely to, because they already got what they wanted. 2) You do the legwork and tell your vendor, "no, actually you screwed up, this cat belongs to me," and you present them--your vendor, not Grumpy Cat's lawyer--with your evidence. Maybe they don't put your design back up, in which case see option 1. Or maybe they do put your design back up. So now you're selling your design and you're happy--meanwhile, the vendor is telling Grumpy Cat's lawyer, "okay, we've fulfilled our DMCA obligations, we wash our hands of Jet Ready Go." Now the ball is in Grumpy Cat's court. They can either A) go after you directly, or B) let it slide. No one here can tell you which route Grumpy Cat will go for. So the question becomes, do you like less risk or more risk?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
Im just going to introduce more significant changes to the design. I think you're forgetting it's still my design and this image never appears on their website, I don't think they had much of a case in the first place. The design didn't claim it was THE grumpy cat (although I did mention the cat being grumpy.. It was a description of the cat not the name of the cat), i drew it and did not steal any designs from their website and had not heard of it until now, my design has measurable differences between that of a real cat. I dont have any interest in trying to steal the design of their cat, and if my cat were colored orange and had the word Mondays under it, it wouldn't make it Garfield would it? it's a cat that's white and beige and says nope. Hardly a slam dunk.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 05:28
|
|
|
Yes, of course. I believe you. But the issue is whether a jury will believe you, and that question you just don't know. It adds another layer of uncertainty to option 2) above, but the basic calculus remains the same. Safest thing to do is probably contact Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts. They can give you more specific advice on the merits of any potential copyright/trademark claim and how you ought to proceed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 05:35
|
|
|
Nah I'm just going to change the elements of the design. I don't care that much about this cat. I was just loving around when designing it and thought it was cute. Change the color, make an ear come down, make him sitting maybe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 05:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
Jet Ready Go posted:Nah I'm just going to change the elements of the design. I don't care that much about this cat. I was just loving around when designing it and thought it was cute. If you still use the words grumpy and cat in association with it, that wordmark posted a bit up thread will come back to bite you. And I do work in IP. If an infringer called me to ask what they could do to change their design so as not to infringe, I would start laughing and not stop til after I hung up. (Then I would memo to file the call in case we ever wanted to sue for willful infringement and bill the client. Hurray lawyering.) You never talk to cops without your lawyer present and you never talk to opposing counsel period. Nothing good will ever come of either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 06:13
|
|