MJ Estate Sues Howard Mann and business partner Henry Vaccaro - Settlement reached

[Big Apple2]

But apparently the “Estate” did not want Katherine Jackson to preserve her memories of her son and her family between the covers of a book and make it available for purchase by Michael’s fans.

Somebody needs to tell Howard Mann and Katherine Jackson that we DO NOT support any of their Michael Jackson related ventures and it has NOTHING to do with the Estate.

Just because you SLAP a Michael Jackson "sticker" on something, doesn't mean we're gonna lap it up, without first asking some questions!

 

[marc_vivien]

Re: MJ Estate Sues Katherine Jackson's Business Partner Howard Mann

about copyrights :

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter0/0-c.html

 

[Big Apple2]

Re: MJ Estate Sues Katherine Jackson's Business Partner Howard Mann

about copyrights :

Thank you, that's good information.

One thing that stuck out for me was:

"The U.S. Copyright Office allows BUYERS of exclusive and non-exclusive copyright rights to record the transfers in the U.S. Copyright Office. This helps to protect the buyers in case the original copyright owner later tries to transfer the sam rights to another party."

So since Mann is "claiming" that he obtained exclusive rights through his Vaccaro purchase, did he ever RECORD this supposed transfer with the U.S. Copyright Office? I somehow doubt it.

(Maybe Ivy can add something to this.)

 

[Autumn II]

Re: MJ Estate Sues Katherine Jackson's Business Partner Howard Mann

Thanks, Ivy, for info and updates.

Katherine receives 86k a MONTH from the estate, for her personal allowance, staff, and care of the children. I think that monthly amount does not even include vehicles, house renovations, and other things the estate has paid for?

 

[marc_vivien]

Re: MJ Estate Sues Katherine Jackson's Business Partner Howard Mann

Thank you, that's good information.

One thing that stuck out for me was:

"The U.S. Copyright Office allows BUYERS of exclusive and non-exclusive copyright rights to record the transfers in the U.S. Copyright Office. This helps to protect the buyers in case the original copyright owner later tries to transfer the sam rights to another party."

So since Mann is "claiming" that he obtained exclusive rights through his Vaccaro purchase, did he ever RECORD this supposed transfer with the U.S. Copyright Office? I somehow doubt it.

(Maybe Ivy can add something to this.)

Here Mann is not owner of copyrigts

 

[Big Apple2]

Re: MJ Estate Sues Katherine Jackson's Business Partner Howard Mann

Here Mann is not owner of copyrigts

But doesn't he claim to be, or I'm I thinking about something else.

In my opinion, he is only the owner of some of the Jackson's belongs, nothing more.

 

[prismsagainst5live]

Re: MJ Estate Sues Katherine Jackson's Business Partner Howard Mann

if Katherine needs the money so much and Mann is sooo concerned for her financial wellbeling then why do like 75% of the profits from the book go to his pocket?

 

[ivy]

Re: MJ Estate Sues Katherine Jackson's Business Partner Howard Mann

Thanks, Ivy, for info and updates.

Katherine receives 86k a MONTH from the estate, for her personal allowance, staff, and care of the children. I think that monthly amount does not even include vehicles, house renovations, and other things the estate has paid for?

That money thing in Mann's response is really biased and wrong.

Mann says the executors made millions of dollars since Michael's death - which I believe is true as we know the estate made $310M and the executors get 5% share. So it would be "millions".

However Mann also says that Katherine only got $160,000 from the estate since Michael's death. If we think July 09 to February 11 - that's 20 months. So what Mann considers as money is probably the $7,000 - $8,000 CASH that Katherine is getting.

This is highly flawed like I said as it completely ignores all the other money being given to Katherine (or being paid for her benefit) such as children's allowance, travel/holiday expenses, school tuition, staff salaries, household costs, house utility costs, $5 million mortgage, Hayvenhurst renovation costs, rental house cost, cars bought and the undisclosed amount of loan given to Katherine. I'm sure if all of these added together it would also equal to "millions".

Plus although the executors is getting 5% of the money brought in 90% of it is put in the trust for the beneficiaries and they'll have access to it after the probate. I'm seriously tired with people who cannot understand how probate works.

 

[Autumn II]

Re: MJ Estate Sues Katherine Jackson's Business Partner Howard Mann

That money thing in Mann's response is really biased and wrong.

Mann says the executors made millions of dollars since Michael's death - which I believe is true as we know the estate made $310M and the executors get 5% share. So it would be "millions".

However Mann also says that Katherine only got $160,000 from the estate since Michael's death. If we think July 09 to February 11 - that's 20 months. So what Mann considers as money is probably the $7,000 - $8,000 CASH that Katherine is getting.

This is highly flawed like I said as it completely ignores all the other money being given to Katherine (or being paid for her benefit) such as children's allowance, travel/holiday expenses, school tuition, staff salaries, household costs, house utility costs, $5 million mortgage, Hayvenhurst renovation costs, rental house cost, cars bought and the undisclosed amount of loan given to Katherine. I'm sure if all of these added together it would also equal to "millions".

Plus although the executors is getting 5% of the money brought in 90% of it is put in the trust for the beneficiaries and they'll have access to it after the probate. I'm seriously tired with people who cannot understand how probate works.

Right. Mann's statements are "highly flawed." I think all this will eventually come to some sort of crisis point, as the lawsuits by the estate travel through the court-system. I think it's only out of courtesy, that Katherine was not included in the lawsuits, in that her relationship with Mann is one of partnership.

The charge of the executors is to protect and grow the assets of the estate, for the HEIRS. Whatever else any one of us might think of the executors, they are doing exactly THAT. . protecting the heir's financial interests. For Mann to claim any sort of inadequate funding for Katherine, is absurd.

It's true, that the executors are gaining much wealth from managing the estate. The five percent fee is NORMAL, though, for estate executors.

Katherine is being maintained now to a degree of luxury, that none of us can probably even begin to understand?

 

[Dangerous Incorporated]

Michael Jackson Estate vs. Howard Mann - Updates

Howard Mann's lawyers responded to the Michael Jackson Estate's claims in the above titled case. Below you may read of some interesting points:

- Mann didn't infringe the This Is It copyrights, because it has been posted on a social media website (note: JacksonSecretVaults.com has not been marked as a social media website until the lawsuit has been filed. As well the image has been put into the website's layout, what's been owned by Mann's Canadian company).

- Mann claims that he is entitled to use the MJ drawings in Katherine Jackson's book, because he has a licence agreement from the material's co-owner.

- Mann refers on more points to the 2005 court order regarding the memorablia, and says that MJ even lost his property rights, interests and titles.

- Mann says that the pose in the Vintage Pop Media logo hasn't been invented by MJ, but it has been on for decades before him (note: this is a very weak excusion, who wouldn't think of MJ looking at the logo?).

- Mann claims that Katherine thanked for the MJ Estate in her book, because she thanked them for letting her preserving MJ's memories. And not for acting as MJ's Estate endorsed the book. (note: should I say anything?).

- Mann claims that MJ and Janet had ownerships in Jackson Communications Inc., the company that caused Henry Vaccaro's take over the family memorablia.

- Mann claims that the original Jackson family restaurant network was intended to be named as "Jackson Street".

- Mann confirms that Vaccaro is a member of Vintage Pop Media LLC, that currently owns the memorablia. He defines himself as a consultant of Vaccaro and business partner of Katherine.

- According to the documents MJ first wanted to get back his items in May, 2002. Two years later MJ's lawyers even started to threaten Vaccaro, because of exploiting his items.

- Mann claims that the MJ Estate or Sony

might have violate their copyrights with releasing the Destiny song in 2009 (note: when did they get ahold of the copyrights of this song?).

- Mann claims on many points that MJ had the chance to remove his personal items from the collection, but refused to do so (note: then Mann's lawyers filed a 2002 court paper that clearly states: MJ's lawyers didn't know that any of his personal property left in the collection, and if anyone could sell them).

http://lesliemjhu.blogspot.com/2011/03/michael-jackson-estate-vs-howard-mann.html

 

[Sophielo]

Re: Michael Jackson Estate vs. Howard Mann - Updates

We already have a long thread dedicated to this already in News and Happenings. We don't need another one. Thanks anyway so I've merged with the main thread.

 

[Petrarose]

Re: MJ Estate Sues Katherine Jackson's Business Partner Howard Mann: Summary of Updates pg23

I thought Joe had the most incompetent lawyer, but now it seems Mann's lawyer has won that prize.

 

[xthunderx2]

Re: MJ Estate Sues Katherine Jackson's Business Partner Howard Mann

Thanks, Ivy, for info and updates.

Katherine receives 86k a MONTH from the estate, for her personal allowance, staff, and care of the children. I think that monthly amount does not even include vehicles, house renovations, and other things the estate has paid for?

anyone that cannot live off of that kind of money every month...with all expenses paid...obviously has a problem. someone should give Mrs.K. a class n money management.

 

[Petrarose]

Re: MJ Estate Sues Katherine Jackson's Business Partner Howard Mann

anyone that cannot live off of that kind of money every month...with all expenses paid...obviously has a problem. someone should give Mrs.K. a class n money management.

The sad thing is that Katherine is giving this money to you know who. She pretends that it is only for her use and that she cannot make ends meet, thereby giving the Estate a bad name. Oh the bad Estate is making so much and giving me so little. Every week when Katherine gets her allowance, a bunch of hands are stretched out--grandchildren and their dads.

 

[xthunderx2]

Re: MJ Estate Sues Katherine Jackson's Business Partner Howard Mann

The sad thing is that Katherine is giving this money to you know who. She pretends that it is only for her use and that she cannot make ends meet, thereby giving the Estate a bad name. Oh the bad Estate is making so much and giving me so little. Every week when Katherine gets her allowance, a bunch of hands are stretched out--grandchildren and their dads.

I agree it is very sad that a woman of her age does have to do this..it is also very sad that she has signed away her 3 innocent grandchildren (who's dad DID and still does make sure they have plenty of money).in order to meet HER childrens demands for the almghty dollar.

 

[Ashtanga]

http://lesliemjhu.blogspot.com/2011/03/michael-jackson-estate-vs-howard-mann.html

Michael Jackson Estate vs. Howard Mann - Updates

Howard Mann's lawyers responded to the Michael Jackson Estate's claims in the above titled case. Below you may read of some interesting points:

- Mann didn't infringe the This Is It copyrights, because it has been posted on a social media website (note: JacksonSecretVaults.com has not been marked as a social media website until the lawsuit has been filed. As well the image has been put into the website's layout, what's been owned by Mann's Canadian company).

- Mann claims that he is entitled to use the MJ drawings in Katherine Jackson's book, because he has a licence agreement from the material's co-owner.

- Mann refers on more points to the 2005 court order regarding the memorablia, and says that MJ even lost his property rights, interests and titles.

- Mann says that the pose in the Vintage Pop Media logo hasn't been invented by MJ, but it has been on for decades before him (note: this is a very weak excusion, who wouldn't think of MJ looking at the logo?).

- Mann claims that Katherine thanked for the MJ Estate in her book, because she thanked them for letting her preserving MJ's memories. And not for acting as MJ's Estate endorsed the book. (note: should I say anything?).

- Mann claims that MJ and Janet had ownerships in Jackson Communications Inc., the company that caused Henry Vaccaro's take over the family memorablia.

- Mann claims that the original Jackson family restaurant network was intended to be named as "Jackson Street".

- Mann confirms that Vaccaro is a member of Vintage Pop Media LLC, that currently owns the memorablia. He defines himself as a consultant of Vaccaro and business partner of Katherine.

- According to the documents MJ first wanted to get back his items in May, 2002. Two years later MJ's lawyers even started to threaten Vaccaro, because of exploiting his items.

- Mann claims that the MJ Estate or Sony might have violate their copyrights with releasing the Destiny song in 2009 (note: when did they get ahold of the copyrights of this song?).

- Mann claims on many points that MJ had the chance to remove his personal items from the collection, but refused to do so (note: then Mann's lawyers filed a 2002 court paper that clearly states: MJ's lawyers didn't know that any of his personal property left in the collection, and if anyone could sell them)

I just got the copy of Mann's response. Leslie did a wonderful summary. Let me post some additional information and copy-paste some quotes directly from Mann's response so that you can see the unbelievability of it yourselves.

- Mann is asking for the dismissal of the case mainly based on Michael tried and lost the case before and in some instances estate failed to send then cease and desist letter first.

- For Michael's 5 paintings they say the co-owner is Brett Livingstone Strong and that they got his permission to publish them.

- Exact quote about Michael's pose used in their logo

"Additionally, Michael Jackson was not the inventor or creator of this dance move -- or look -- or pose. It has been around for decades (or even longer) and has been used by countless dancers and musical entertainers before Michael Jackson ever started using it in some of his routines. That same dance move -- or look -- or pose was recently utilized in the choreography showcased in the movie entitled “Step Up 2” by the cast of street dancers featured in it."

- Exact quote about Katherine's Book and her thank you to the Estate

"Because the Estate is paying Katherine mere pennies on the millions of dollars the executors of Michael Jackson’s estate are taking – and keeping -- all for themselves, to themselves, she wanted to thank them for letting her preserve her memoirs as Michael’s mother for all of Michael’s fans. But apparently the “Estate” did not want Katherine Jackson to preserve her memories of her son and her family between the covers of a book and make it available for purchase by Michael’s fans. So the Estate’s trustees have stooped to filing suit against Mrs. Jackson’s business partners for what they deem ‘damages’ due the Estate of Michael Jackson arising from Michael’s own mother’s book sales. What is most germane in this case is that the Estate of Michael Jackson is supposed to exist and operate for the benefit of its beneficiaries, to wit: Katherine Jackson and Michael Jackson’s three children – not for the benefit and unjust enrichment of the Plaintiffs (trustees) who brought this suit on behalf of the Estate of Michael Jackson. Katherine Jackson has every right to use the materials in her book for money she desperately needs to protect and provide for herself and the children’s upkeep, since the Trustees are not adequately providing for her and
Michael’s children."

- Important note: Here Mann cites only the allowance of Katherine as money being given to her. He doesn't mention children's allowance, staff salaries, money given for holidays, renovations, mortgage, loan to Katherine etc etc.

:bugeyed



Mann.... :sigh: uke:

 

[Webbie]

Re: MJ Estate Sues Katherine Jackson's Business Partner Howard Mann: Summary of Updates pg23

VintagePopMedia.com Has Been Removed


Howard Mann's company website has been removed recently. Under VintagePopMedia.com an empty page appears for now.

As I have reported about previously, the Michael Jackson Estate claimed in their case that VintagePopMedia.com has an image on it's home page thar infriges MJ's copyrights. Mann in his answere said that the dance move in the logo wasn't invented by MJ.

Even if VintagePopMedia.com will be back online, it say a lot how JacksonSecretVault.com has been changed in the past weeks.

 

[Petrarose]

Re: MJ Estate Sues Katherine Jackson's Business Partner Howard Mann: Summary of Updates pg23

VintagePopMedia.com Has Been Removed


Howard Mann's company website has been removed recently. Under VintagePopMedia.com an empty page appears for now.

As I have reported about previously, the Michael Jackson Estate claimed in their case that VintagePopMedia.com has an image on it's home page thar infriges MJ's copyrights. Mann in his answere said that the dance move in the logo wasn't invented by MJ.

Even if VintagePopMedia.com will be back online, it say a lot how JacksonSecretVault.com has been changed in the past weeks.

^^Thanks for this update. Yeah!!!

 

[Memefan]

I just got the copy of Mann's response. Leslie did a wonderful summary. Let me post some additional information and copy-paste some quotes directly from Mann's response so that you can see the unbelievability of it yourselves.

- Mann is asking for the dismissal of the case mainly based on Michael tried and lost the case before and in some instances estate failed to send then cease and desist letter first.

- For Michael's 5 paintings they say the co-owner is Brett Livingstone Strong and that they got his permission to publish them.

- Exact quote about Michael's pose used in their logo

"Additionally, Michael Jackson was not the inventor or creator of this dance move -- or look -- or pose. It has been around for decades (or even longer) and has been used by countless dancers and musical entertainers before Michael Jackson ever started using it in some of his routines. That same dance move -- or look -- or pose was recently utilized in the choreography showcased in the movie entitled “Step Up 2” by the cast of street dancers featured in it."

- Exact quote about Katherine's Book and her thank you to the Estate

"Because the Estate is paying Katherine mere pennies on the millions of dollars the executors of Michael Jackson’s estate are taking – and keeping -- all for themselves, to themselves, she wanted to thank them for letting her preserve her memoirs as Michael’s mother for all of Michael’s fans. But apparently the “Estate” did not want Katherine Jackson to preserve her memories of her son and her family between the covers of a book and make it available for purchase by Michael’s fans. So the Estate’s trustees have stooped to filing suit against Mrs. Jackson’s business partners for what they deem ‘damages’ due the Estate of Michael Jackson arising from Michael’s own mother’s book sales. What is most germane in this case is that the Estate of Michael Jackson is supposed to exist and operate for the benefit of its beneficiaries, to wit: Katherine Jackson and Michael Jackson’s three children – not for the benefit and unjust enrichment of the Plaintiffs (trustees) who brought this suit on behalf of the Estate of Michael Jackson. Katherine Jackson has every right to use the materials in her book for money she desperately needs to protect and provide for herself and the children’s upkeep, since the Trustees are not adequately providing for her and
Michael’s children."

- Important note: Here Mann cites only the allowance of Katherine as money being given to her. He doesn't mention children's allowance, staff salaries, money given for holidays, renovations, mortgage, loan to Katherine etc etc.

can you please post the link?

- For Michael's 5 paintings they say the co-owner is Brett Livingstone Strong and that they got his permission to publish them.

now we know why he was at hayvenhurst the day of the Oprah interview. Another money hungry ..publicity whore.

It never ends.

 

[Sophielo]

Re: MJ Estate Sues Katherine Jackson's Business Partner Howard Mann: Summary of Updates pg23

This is all just ridiculous, utterly ridiculous.

 

[Diplomate]

Re: MJ Estate Sues Katherine Jackson's Business Partner Howard Mann: Summary of Updates pg23

This is all just ridiculous, utterly ridiculous.

Thanks to Katherine and Joe.

 

[ivy]

Re: MJ Estate Sues Katherine Jackson's Business Partner Howard Mann: Summary of Updates pg23

Let's do another round of updates about the case (thanks to marc_vivien)

- As we mentioned before as expected (quite normal) Mann's lawyers has asked for a dismissal mainly claiming the previous lawsuit that Michael abandoned. Their dismissal request included personal attacks towards executors as well.

- Yesterday lawyers for MJ Estate has filed documents against Mann's dismissal request. Here are the main points that they make

---- They say that 2004 lawsuit was dismissed due to period of inactivity from MJ and with the reason of "failure to prosecute". As that lawsuit never went to trial and as no decision whatsoever made in that case it cannot be limiting today's case.
---- They argue that the 2004 defendants and today's defendants are different.
---- Estate lawyers argue that the new lawsuit is focused about the events happened in 2009 -2010 (such as copyright claim of TII - 2009/2010, issues with KJ's book - 2010, new website - 2010, release of opis none - 2010). They say as the lawsuit covers this new events it's a different lawsuit than the 2004 one.

---- Estate lawyers state that Michael's image from TII was used in the website background therefore not added by a user.
---- Estate lawyers argue that Mann didn't have any copyright rights on Destiny (also known as Opis None) whatsoever.
---- Estate lawyers state when people see "smooth criminal lean" it automatically reminds them of MJ and therefore whether he created the move or not is irrelevant.
---- As for the 5 MJ drawings, Estate lawyers state that Michael is the "author" and therefore the copyright owner. They state Brett Livingstone Strong wasn't in a position to authorize MJ's copyright.

---- Furthermore Estate lawyers state that the bankruptcy case that Vaccaro got this items from didn't include Michael and the judge in that case openly stated that Vaccaro can only get items from Katherine, Joe, Jermaine and Tito.
---- Estate lawyers is asking the court to establish that although Mann can own some items, he doesn't own the copyrights to them. He just owns the physical items.

(Estate's point is quite simple in this one. They say even if the court decides that Mann/Vacarro owns MJ related items, they want court to establish that they only own the physical items and not the intellectual property and copyrights. They state that intellectual rights are separate than material objects).

 

[Speechless09]

Re: MJ Estate Sues Katherine Jackson's Business Partner Howard Mann / Latest update : March 22, 2011

Thank you for the update.

 

[marc_vivien]

a funny quote by the Estate's lawyer :

"Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ first, second and third copyright claims are
barred by the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (“OCILLA&#8221,
17 U.S.C. § 512, part of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA&#8221.
Their discussion begins with a curious quote, without citation to any source,
purporting to establish that OCILLA can shield them “for their own acts of direct
copyright infringement.” (Motion at 7.) As discussed below, this is not the law, which
is not surprising given that Defendants’ authority appears to be Wikipedia." (16)


(16) Defendants did not reveal their source, so Plaintiffs’ counsel typed a portion of the
quoted text into a Google search and was directed to Wikipedia, where the entire
quote is found.

 

[Big Apple2]

Re: MJ Estate Sues Katherine Jackson's Business Partner Howard Mann: Summary of Updates pg23

(Estate's point is quite simple in this one. They say even if the court decides that Mann/Vacarro owns MJ related items, they want court to establish that they only own the physical items and not the intellectual property and copyrights. They state that intellectual rights are separate than material objects).

Thanks Ivy. That's the way I always understood it also.

I mean, if I buy a dress once worn by Marilyn Monroe, that does mean because of that sale I also own Marilyn's intellectual property and copyrights. That's absurd!

I'm very glad to see that the Estate of Michael Jackson is being very specific as to what they are claiming. Unlike Mann, who is going for personal attacks, instead of facts.

Typical action coming from a con man, in my opinion, i.e. "I don't have a leg to stand on, so let me just attack my enemy."

 

[Big Apple2]

a funny quote by the Estate's lawyer :

"As discussed below, this is not the law, which is not surprising given that Defendants’ authority appears to be Wikipedia." (16)


(16) Defendants did not reveal their source, so Plaintiffs’ counsel typed a portion of the
quoted text into a Google search and was directed to Wikipedia, where the entire
quote is found.

Lord have mercy! Not only is that HILARIOUS. It's also VERY EMBARRASSING!

Is Mann's attorney related to Brian Oxman. LOL!

 

[marc_vivien]

physical property vs intellectual copyrihts :

"Finally, Defendants make a profound mistake in even suggesting that the their
claimed ownership of certain physical items purchased out of a storage vault imbues
them with ownership of the intellectual property associated with those items. This
issue was specifically addressed in In re The Clark Entertainment Group, Inc. 183
B.R. 73 (1995), with facts eerily similar to those here. Clark involved the possession
by debtor/defendant (Clark Entertainment Group, Inc.) of certain audio tapes created
by Columbia Records, predecessor to Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. The tapes
embodied performances of recognized recording artists, including among others The Byrds and Johnny Cash. After a Columbia employee who had acquired the tapes
failed to pay storage rental payments at the facility where he had stored them, the
contents of the storage locker, including the tapes, were sold at public auction and
eventually acquired by Clark. Id. at 75-76. Sony instituted an adversary proceeding
claiming, among other things, that Clark’s exploitation of the performances on the
tapes infringed Sony’s copyrights. Id. at 79. In defense, Clark claimed that because it
owned the tapes, it had the right to exploit the performances. Id. The court rejected
the argument, stating that “it is well settled that intellectual property rights are
separate and distinct from the material objects in which the work is embodied, so that
an author has the power to convey ownership in the material object (e.g. a book) while
reserving common law copyright (e.g. the right to publish, reproduce or exploit the
prose).” Id. The court thus concluded that “even though Columbia validly transferred
physical possession of the tapes to Clark, without Columbia’s (now Sony’s)
permission to exploit the tapes, Clark could not reproduce or distribute copies of the
tapes.” Id.20

As in Clark, regardless of whether a physical copy of the song “Destiny” was in
the storage locker of memorabilia sold pursuant to the Sale Order, Defendants (or their
alleged predecessor) are not entitled to exploit the intellectual property associated with
the sound recording, the copyright to which remains owned by Sony Music. (See
Complaint, ¶ 45.)

The same arguments and reasoning apply to the trademarks and copyrights
associated with other physical items Defendants claim to own, such as photographs
and other sound recordings and videos, sold pursuant to the Sale Order. Namely, the
only (improperly presented) “evidence” of purchase is to El-Rich, Corp.; no sale of
Michael Jackson’s personal property was approved for sale; and regardless of what
physical items may have been sold, none of the underlying intellectual property rights
were transferred."

 

[ivy]

a funny quote by the Estate's lawyer :

"Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ first, second and third copyright claims are
barred by the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (“OCILLA&#8221,
17 U.S.C. § 512, part of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA&#8221.
Their discussion begins with a curious quote, without citation to any source,
purporting to establish that OCILLA can shield them “for their own acts of direct copyright infringement.” (Motion at 7.) As discussed below, this is not the law, which is not surprising given that Defendants’ authority appears to be Wikipedia." (16)


(16) Defendants did not reveal their source, so Plaintiffs’ counsel typed a portion of the quoted text into a Google search and was directed to wikipedia, where the entire quote is found.

Lord have mercy! Not only is that HILARIOUS. It's also VERY EMBARRASSING!

Is Mann's attorney related to Brian Oxman. LOL!

When I was reading the documents this morning , I laughed to the Wikipedia comment.Can you imagine using it in a legal document? Just too funny.

Thanks Ivy. That's the way I always understood it also.

I mean, if I buy a dress once worn by Marilyn Monroe, that does mean because of that sale I also own Marilyn's intellectual property and copyrights. That's absurd!

I'm very glad to see that the Estate of Michael Jackson is being very specific as to what they are claiming. Unlike Mann, who is going for personal attacks, instead of facts.

Typical action coming from a con man, in my opinion, i.e. "I don't have a leg to stand on, so let me just attack my enemy."

Remember the quote from Weitzman when Mann first released "Opis none" or when Mann said he had 170 songs or so. Weitzman said he can listen to them at his home but he can't release them. And that's their main point here, they basically say "so okay let's say that you own those items, you can look to MJ photos all you want, you can wear his jackets, you can play the tapes but you don't own the copyrights , image and likeliness. You cannot make money on those without my permission as I own those intellectual rights".

 

[JMie]

Re: MJ Estate Sues Katherine Jackson's Business Partner Howard Mann / Latest update : March 22, 2011

thank you ivy and marc_vivien for updates!

 

[marc_vivien]

Re: MJ Estate Sues Katherine Jackson's Business Partner Howard Mann / Latest update : March 22, 2011

Zia F. Modabber is the lawyer for the estate and is specialized in copyrights infringments and trademarks