"Copyright Shmopyright" says Sarah Palin.

Courtesy of The Salt lake Tribune:

Now, Palin is using a North Salt Lake photographer's copyright picture of a grizzly chasing a wolf in Yellowstone National Park on her Facebook page without crediting him. 

Rob Daugherty, a wildlife photographer and tour guide, took the stunning photo Aug. 5, 2010. The image has been posted extensively on the Internet. Daugherty says when his credit line is missing and he informs the the Web venues that it's a copyright photo, they either take it down or add his credit line. 

But earlier this week, when he pointed out that Palin's Facebook page had failed to credit him, Palin ignored him. 

Instead, several of Palin's Facebook friends derided Daugherty for being petty and praised the former Alaska governor for loving America so much.

Of course as we all know this is not the first time that Palin has been called out for using a copyright protected image and not giving credit, or financial reimbursement, to the folks who own it.

Remember it was just this last April that she finally paid $15,000 to settle a lawsuit over her use of an iconic 9-11 photograph.

By the way I checked and now that photo of the bear chasing the wolf has been removed. However as usual it is too little, too late.

In other news is looks as if there are still a few slow learners willing to pay Sarah Palin to show up and say ignorant things during a fundraiser.

Well hell, she needs to do SOMETHING to raise money to fight copyright infringement lawsuits.

Sarah Palin wishes her favorite racist promoter of marriage to underage girls a happy birthday.

Courtesy of Granny Grifter's Facebook page.

Gee there's that SarahPAC logo again, perhaps Robertson should think about joining the New Jersey Media Group in their lawsuit against her.

After all we know that everything the Robertson clan does is protected by copyright, and that the  Duck Dynasty dipshits are well known for making tons of money off of their image, so unless SarahPAC got permission.....

P.S. Speaking of making money, look how desperate SarahPAC is getting to do just that.

 That's right folks you too could enter for the chance to win this hockey stick, that somebody stamped Sarah Palin's name on, for as little as ten dollars.

I'm sure they're scrambling to donate ten dollars right now as we speak.

Or not.

Next they will offer to auction off a pitbull with lipstick on it. Because you know, you gotta stick with the mythology.

The plaintiffs in the copyright lawsuit against SarahPAC want it to be known that the failure to reach a settlement was certainly not THEIR fault.

So because I have had so many of you suggest that this letter to the judge from the New Jersey Media Group needed its own post I am going to do just that.

Pay attention to just how many times NJMG tried to get Palin's lawyers to even participate in the process.

Dear Judge Cecchi: 

We represent plaintiff North Jersey Media Group in the above action, and are writing in response to the letter of Ronald Coleman, Esq. (Dkt. 37), attorney for defendants, to make two points. 

First, the parties agree that defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. 29) should be reactivated and decided. (We believe that the analysis in the decision North Jersey Media Group v. Fox News, 13 Civ. 7153 (S.D.N.Y. February 10, 2015), should be dispositive. Defendants disagree.) 

Second, the suggestion of Mr. Coleman that "defendants did enter into a settlement with plaintiff" is incorrect. Defendants did not act as if they intended to complete a settlement. Rather, defendants acted as if they wanted to be in settlement negotiations indefinitely. Here is the chronology. 

1. Before Christmas 2014, the parties had agreed in principle upon a settlement amount. 

2. Since the time of the agreement upon a settlement amount, until at least February 10, 2015, the parties could not agree on the terms that would keep the amount of the settlement confidential. Defendants insisted on this term. Plaintiff owns the second largest newspaper in the State of New Jersey, and would prefer that the truth be told. 

3. At a telephone conference with Magistrate Judge Falk on January 29, 2015, I stated that the areas of disagreement were narrow, but that if the parties could not complete the settlement within 10 days, the settlement could not be completed. 

4. Between the end of that conference on January 29, 2015, and February 2, 2015, the parties exchanged no fewer than 5 e-mails, including a proposal that I sent to defendants' counsel on January 30, 2015, at 10:59 a.m. 

5. On Monday, February 2, 2015, at 6:29 pm, I wrote to defendants' counsel, Mr. Coleman: 

 "Ron, any word on this?" 

6. At 6:34, Mr. Farkas, his associate, wrote back to me: 

 "Hi Bill – We're expecting to be able to speak with our client tomorrow or Wednesday, and will get back to you ASAP afterwards." 

7. Having heard nothing by Wednesday despite the promise of defendants' counsel, I wrote back on Thursday, February 5, 2015, at 1:52 pm, stating: 

"Have you made any progress?" 

8. Four minutes later, Mr. Farkas wrote to me staying: 

"We'll be in touch shortly." 

9. Having heard nothing, on Monday, February 9, 2015, at 8:15 am, I wrote to counsel for defendants: 

"Have you made any progress?" 

10. Within minutes on February 9, 2015 at 8:38 am, Mr. Farkas wrote to me: 

"Working on it. Should have something for you this week." 

11. Mystified that counsel for defendants were not even able to commit to get back to me by the end of the week, I wrote to them at 12:34 pm on February 9, 2015: 

"We told the Magistrate on 1/29 that if this settlement could not be finalized within 10 days, it cannot be finalized. We are no further along now than we were before Christmas. Moreover, since 1/29, we believe that our position has strengthened. 

Accordingly, unless we have a signed agreement resolving this by the close of business tomorrow, we plan to write to the Judge and ask her to reactive the pending motions, and decide them." 

12. Eleven minutes later at 12:45 pm, on February 9, 2015, 

 "We suggest the following, which is essentially what you'd proposed before but with minor tweaks and the addition of a third clause: 

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties further agree that: (1) news reporters for the plaintiff are free to report on the existence of the settlement, and about whatever facts they learn from sources other than NJMG; (2) the parties or their respective attorneys or agents may respond to questions about the litigation posed by any third party, except that statements about the case must be limited to confirming its settlement and directing the third party to the court file; and (3) this settlement specifically incorporates, and does not replace, the terms of the Confidentiality Agreement entered into by counsel on September 13, 2013. 

 Let us know." 

Because defendants' counsel had been unable to reach their clients 11 minutes before this e-mail, it seemed odd to me that this was a firm proposal, as opposed to another effort to waste time by keeping the confidentiality term up in the air. (The word "suggest" is vague.) I nevertheless assumed it to be a firm proposal, but wanted to keep our earlier deadline in place. 

13. On February 9, 2015, at 5:22 pm, I wrote to counsel for defendants: 

 "I think that we are in agreement as to the attached settlement agreement. 

I am also attaching to this e-mail the 9/13/13 agreement, so there is no confusion as to what this is. 

Please return a signed copy of the settlement agreement to me in pdf by the close of business tomorrow." 

 14. We did not hear from defendants by the close of business the next day. 

15. After the dilatory behavior defendants had exhibited during the prior six weeks, after defendants were given more than a reasonable opportunity to complete the settlement on the financial terms agreed upon before Christmas even though plaintiff had received a very favorable decision in NJMG v. Fox News, and after receiving no response from defendants within this time frame that we set for writing to the Court, we wrote to the Court on February 11, 2015 (Dkt. 36) and asked for the motions to be decided.

16. If defendants want to blame someone for not completing the settlement, they have no one to blame but themselves. 

And then the NJMG lawyers sign off at the end in what can only be described as disgust.

As somebody has already pointed out on the other thread this has most certainly already cost SarahPAC more than the $15,000 being asked for in the settlement, and it is quite likely that now they will be forced to pay substantially more after the court renders its decision.

I think it's clear while reading through this that the problem was simply that Palin herself was virtually impossible to engage in this matter and seemed disinterested or downright hostile to the negotiations.

So for all intents and purposes it appears that Palin has managed to sabotage any possibility of settling this matter, and her indifference will now cost her PAC a tidy little sum.

I can hardly wait to see the next SarahPAC fundraising e-mail; "We need $100,000 before midnight. And we're not kidding this time!"

Sarah Palin reaches $15,000 settlement over 9-11 copyright lawsuit, but only if the deal remains confidential. Well we're talking about it, so guess what?

Courtesy of New Jersey.com:  

Sarah Palin agreed in December to pay a New Jersey newspaper $15,000 to settle a lawsuit over her campaign's unauthorized use of an iconic photograph of firefighters hoisting the American flag on 9/11 — but the deal remains stalled over the former GOP vice presidential candidate's insistence on confidentiality, according to court papers filed Monday in U.S. District Court. 

According to the documents, William Dunnegan, the attorney for North Jersey Media Group, which publishes The Record of Bergen County, says that on Dec. 22, 2014 -- four days after the two sides agreed in principle to settle the case -- lawyers for SarahPac, Palin's campaign organization, "asserted that there must be a broad confidentiality clause." 

"Shortly thereafter, Palin's counsel, Ronald Coleman, Esq., told me that Palin required a confidentiality clause because her political action committee did not want any hint of a compromise associated with her name," Dunnegan writes. 

Dunnegan included with his filing several emails exchanged with Palin's lawyers regarding the settlement. 

"We have confirmed with our client, and accept your offer of a $15,000 settlement," Palin attorney Brian Farkas wrote in a Dec. 18, 2014, email that Dunnegan filed with the court. "We assume that this will include a mutual confidentiality/non-disparagement clause in the stipulation of discontinuance.''

Okay this cracks me up.

So after first claiming that the plaintiffs did not have a case, then claiming they lived in the wrong place to file a lawsuit, and then demanding that they move the case to Alaska, finally Palin reaches a deal and it falls apart because she does not want anybody to know that she settled?

Yeah wouldn't want anybody to think she was capable of compromise or anything, right?

I like how Palin claimed that she required the confidentiality clause because "HER political action committee did not want any hint of a compromise associated with her name."

As if SHE wasn't the person completely in charge of what the PAC wanted or did not want.

Well gee, guess what? We all know about it now.

Sarah Palin don't care about no stinking copyright!

Courtesy of Radar Online: 

 Sarah Palin doesn’t care if you own the rights to an iconic photo, she will do as she pleases and use it anyway — this according to the former politician in court docs exclusively obtained by RadarOnline.com. 

Palin, 50, has been in a legal battle with with North Jersey Media Group, who own New Jersey newspapers, and filed a lawsuit filed last year against Palin for copyright infringement.

Of course as we all know Plain used an iconic 9-11 picture, and slapped a SarahPAC label on it in order to fund raise. 

The company contacted Palin by e-mail but she never responded, so they filed a lawsuit.

However Palin's attorney does not think the company that owns the photo has a case.  

“The Amended Complaint was not only filed in the wrong place, the Southern District of New York — it should never have been filed at all,” Palin’s attorney argued. 

“It is fatally deficient on the law and this Court can, defendants submit, and should dismiss it for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff’s characterization of a copyright infringement claim arising from the use of a photograph into an unfair competition case is so plainly meritless that little argument is, as shown below, necessary to dispose of it.” 

The attorney goes on to suggest that the claim by the North Jersey Media Group is baseless and that it is not Palin's fault anyway because "the photo posted on her Facebook was produced automatically by updates to her website with a widget app."

Which I take to mean that if SarahPAC creates one of those graphics and posts it on their site, that it automatically gets posted to Palin's Facebook page as well.

Which indeed does seem to be the case, but I think that is kind of moot, when in fact it is YOUR PAC, your Facebook page, and your name all over both.

But remember what Palin said when she was pretending to run Wasilla, "I'm the mayor, I can do whatever I want until the courts tell me I can't."

So if the courts want her to respect copyright laws, they are going to have to force her to do so.

Sarah Palin loses her bid to move copyright lawsuit to Alaska.

Courtesy of Life at the Moment:

The North Jersey Media Group sued former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her political action committee in Manhattan Federal Court last September, claiming copyright infringement over the use of an iconic 9/11 photograph. 

Sarah Palin won’t have home court advantage. Mama Grizzly has lost her bid to have a lawsuit filed against her by a New Jersey company moved to a court in her native Alaska. 

Newspaper publisher North Jersey Media Group sued Palin and her political action committee in Manhattan Federal Court last September, claiming copyright infringement over the use of an iconic 9/11 photograph. 

The former Republican vice presidential candidate moved to have the case dismissed or moved to Alaska Federal Court. 

Manhattan Federal Judge Alvin Hellerstein instead moved the case to where the plaintiff is located, New Jersey Federal Court, in a ruling Friday.

Well so much for Palin having the opportunity to hand pick her judge, and make sure she walks away unscathed again. 

Let's see how she fares in tough, take no prisoners New Jersey.

And considering her sometimes combative relationship with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie it is unlikely she can expect any support there.

Sarah Palin claims she cannot be sued for copyright infringement because the defendant lives in the wrong place. Wait, what?

Courtesy of Deadline:  

The Fox News contributor and former Alaska Governor says a copyright infringement lawsuit against her for use of an iconic photo of the U.S. flag being raised at Ground Zero on September 11 should be tossed out. “A New Jersey Sarah Palin Signs Copies Of Her New Book "Good Tidings and Great Joy: Protecting the Heart of Christmas"newspaper has chosen New York as the forum to sue defendants located in distant states, based on conduct with no particular connection to this District besides the subject matter of the photograph — a consideration that is irrelevant for purposes of venue,” lawyers for Sarah Palin wrote yesterday (read it here) in a filing in NYC District Court. “Defendants therefore seek dismissal…on the ground of improper venue or, in the alternative, for transfer of this action to an appropriate forum,” the motion memo adds.

Okay I am not a lawyer so I am not completely clear on how the place in which a lawsuit is filed  has any impact on the fact that Palin used a copyrighted photo of firefighters raising the American flag on the ruins of the World Trade Cente, slapped a SarahPAC logo on it, and then posted it to her Facebook page to make money, has any bearing on the fact that she illegally used their product to make money?

Here are the papers that SarahPAC filed, which falsely claim that Palin is a resident of Alaska by the way, so perhaps one of you legal eagles can explain how her argument holds any water.

Palin, as we know, is incredibly slippery when it comes to lawsuits, having wriggled her way out of several in the last five years, so it would be no surprise to see her slither away from this own as well.

P.S. Okay having looked a little harder at the document, it appears that the problem is that the company may have filed the lawsuit in a district in which the company does not have a physical presence. In other words the lawsuit itself is not being addressed, only the legality of where they filed it.

So this is a delaying tactic that SarahPAC hopes will drain the company of resources and convince them to drop the suit, because it appears to me that they have a pretty good case.

I hope that if the court agrees with the venue argument that the North Jersey Media Group refiles and pushes forward. Because SOMEBODY needs to hold this woman accountable for SOMETHING.

Sarah Palin: "Look Ma, no copyright infringement."

Photo courtesy of the Granny Grifter's Facebook page. As is this quote:

Thanks to my Aunt Billie in Texas for sending me her friend's clever caption.

Now this is the first I am hearing of an "Aunt Billie" from Texas, but the big news of the morning is that Palin made damn sure to post this with Shealah Craighead's name prominently displayed and no, repeat NO, SarahPAC stamp anywhere to be seen. 

And hey, this is an image of Palin herself, so the ONLY person who might object to it being monetized would be Craighead.

Ahh, I love the smell of fear of copyright lawsuits in the morning.

Oh and as for the quote, if THAT is what Palin thinks just happened then she is even dumber than we all think she is.

Yesterday was "Constitution Day," apparently, so Sarah Palin posted picture of her pretending to read and understand the document. Oh, and she also used the opportunity to ask for more money. Duh!

This is the tweet that Palin, or Palin's ghost tweeter, posted yesterday:

In honor of Constitution Day, I'm rereading the great document, and I encourage everyone to do the same and to... http://t.co/vcCcCrWfQO
— Sarah Palin (@SarahPalinUSA) September 18, 2013

The tweet links to her Facebook page which features the above photo. The interesting thing about the photo is that it also features, along with the ubiquitous SarahPAC stamp, the name of the person who took the picture. Which I assume is Palin's way of demonstrating that she is trying to avoid having any more lawsuits filed against her for copyright infringement.

So look you can teach an old, tired, emaciated dog new tricks.

You know, though I did not read it yesterday, I have read the Constitution as well. And that's why I know that MOST of the people who support Sarah Palin have no idea what it says.

They seem to believe that it claims this is God's country, deems the Bible as the ONLY textbook needed in public schools, and says that a black man shall NEVER be elected to the White House. Or something like that.

Sadly for them, not everybody agrees. As evidenced by the fact that a bunch of pagan freedom hating Atheists took out this ad in a number of papers around the country:

 I know, right? I mean how dare these people use facts to confuse the American people into realizing that most of the radical the Right Wing nutjobs can barely spell "Constitution" much less understand it.

Well anyway, happy day after Constitution day everyone!

Sarah Palin, poster child for slow learning. Update!

So yesterday Palin learned that she was about to be sued for using an iconic 9-11 picture without permission, and monetizing it with a SarahPAC logo.

After looking through her Facebook page many of us noticed that she removed the Ashton Kutcher, and Noam Chomsky photos from her page, along with the 9-11 photo, which SEEMED to indicate that she realized she had screwed up and would no longer risk any further legal action.

But then somebody sent me this link to SarahPAC. And it as it turns out she has certainly NOT learned any lessons.

See?

So, it looks like Palin is only willing to respond when somebody threatens a lawsuit, but not before.

Hmm, I wonder if Ashton would like to know about this?  I tweeted him, how about you?

Once again we really ARE just trying to help. I mean SOME people simply cannot learn unless they get their hand slapped over and over again.

Slap, slap Sarah.

Update: Ooh, now isn't THIS interesting?

Courtesy of North Jersey.com:

Jennifer A. Borg, vice president, corporate secretary and general counsel for North Jersey Media Group, said the lawsuit was filed when neither Palin nor the PAC responded to a letter. 

“It is important to enforce our copyright on this iconic photo,” Borg said. “When neither Ms. Palin nor representatives from her PAC responded to our demand letter to remove the photograph, we were left with no choice but to seek redress in court.” 

Oh yeah, that sounds like EXACTLY the response one might expect from SarahPAC!

Sarah Palin to be sued for copyright infringement due to use of iconic 9-11 photo. Update!

Courtesy of the New York Post: 

A North Jersey newspaper company on Friday slapped Sarah Palin with a lawsuit alleging the former vice-presidential candidate and her political action committee posted copies of an iconic 9/11 photograph on their websites without permission. 

The trademark-infringement suit, filed in Manhattan federal court by North Jersey Media Group, alleges Palin posted a copyrighted photo of firefighters raising the American flag on the ruins of the World Trade Center on her PAC’s website, her official Facebook page and other web pages. 

North Jersey Media Group’s holdings include The Woodland Park, NJ-based The Record and the Herald News. The photo was taken by Thomas E. Franklin and appeared on the front page of the Sept. 12, 2001 edition of The Record. It earned him Pulitzer Prize nomination and was the focus of a CNN documentary “The Flag” that aired on Sunday. 

“North Jersey Media Group is concerned about the infringement of its photograph and people taking credit of the photo who are not entitled to,” the company’s lawyer William Dunnegan said. 

Reps for Palin’s PAC could not be reached for comment.

Whoops!

Well hey, WE tried to warn her.

Okay now watching this play out should be VERY entertaining.

Now if ONLY we can get Ashton Kutcher and Martin Luther King Jr's family to follow suit.

Update: Yep ABC News does have it. And some added detail:

The lawsuit asks the court to stop SarahPAC from using the picture. It also seeks damages.

Oooh, damages! Methinks I see another money bomb being drummed up by the Sea O'Pee coming soon.