Michael wanted his mother to have the money, I hate John McClain, and John Branca. Katherine is the mother of Michael NOT neither John is, I'm so ANGRY, God please help.
I understand he can do this with Michaels Siblings things but, actual MJ things? From what I know he wasn't suppose to have MJ things from the start? MJ tried to sue him yrs ago for that very reason but, the lawsuit was dropped because according to Vaccaro MJ didn't pay his lawyers? Not, sure how true that info is? During this time MJ was having issues with his finances and with many crooks stealing from him so that could be the real reason, to many things at once?^^
I think they CAN sell the staff. They cannot use is commercially but can cell it, for example, at auction. Whoever buys it will not be able to use it commercially as well. Vaccaro owns physical property but not the intellectual.
He is an idiot! The only one taking assets away from kids is Katherine and Mann himself. Shame on Katherine for entering in business with this crook!
If this is what he has, he didn't bring anything new on the table, he goes with internet conspiracy theorists have been saying all along, hand-writing variances, spelling of kids names and location of signing.
Read everything and still hung up on Katherine declaring that she needs the money she was getting from Vaccaro/Mann!
Needs the money for it? My goodness ... I had look at the last set of accounting submitted to the court. Her every financial need is being met and still she is not satisfied. I am beyond words.
Read everything and still hung up on Katherine declaring that she needs the money she was getting from Vaccaro/Mann!
Needs the money for it? My goodness ... I had look at the last set of accounting submitted to the court. Her every financial need is being met and still she is not satisfied. I am beyond words.
Michael wanted his mother to have the money, I hate John McClain, and John Branca. Katherine is the mother of Michael NOT neither John is, I'm so ANGRY, God please help.
Michael wanted his mother to have the money,
I remember having read about, she and Joe, I think I remember, were sued, a time ago, don't remember how long ago, for some failed/false business contract somewhere with people in an Azian country (if I'm right), and had a large amount of money to pay... or am I mixing everything up lol? (I'm sure Ivy and others know more about it.) I guess it still plays big role in need for money? Or is it that Estate already helped Katherine pay these debts a lot? Goh, I read much but it is difficult to remember everything .
Michael wanted his mother to have the money, I hate John McClain, and John Branca. Katherine is the mother of Michael NOT neither John is, I'm so ANGRY, God please help.
the moonies form south korea. the estate lent her 6 mill to pay off the lawsuit so thats gone now. and of course the estate/the kids will never get it back.
In the trial the damages for the estate will be established.
But Mann and Vacarro are deeply in debt. So they can not pay to the estate. Is this not a possibility for the Estate to get back the memorbilia-collection?
http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/indu...estate-s-copyrights-violated-1007803552.story
An upcoming trial will address damages, although the judge noted that Mann and the site probably will not be able to pay any amount because of debts.
I understand he can do this with Michaels Siblings things but, actual MJ things? From what I know he wasn't suppose to have MJ things from the start? MJ tried to sue him yrs ago for that very reason but, the lawsuit was dropped because according to Vaccaro MJ didn't pay his lawyers? Not, sure how true that info is? During this time MJ was having issues with his finances and with many crooks stealing from him so that could be the real reason, to many things at once?
Firstly, I cannot believe Joe and Katherine signed declaration that Michael "very likely" has work for hire relationship with Joe!
How insulting!
update from NY Daily News
Mann vowed to fight on and said he doesn't believe the judge's ruling applies to the hardcopy tribute book that he published with Katherine's blessing.
"It's obviously very disappointing, but we intend to go back with some additional information. We still feel we have marketing rights related to the book," Mann told the Daily News.
Ivy, I actually have a question regarding this one. My understanding is that anybody can publish a book without authorization. I also understand that the main issue was not the publishing of the book per se but the usage of the copyrighted material (e.g. Michael's drawings) in this book without Estate's permission. And here we get into the grey territory of the ownership of Michael's art, Thome's letter, etc. etc. Am I right?
similarly perhaps the photos used in the book could be problematic. Estate did not make a claim about them in the lawsuit and who knows if those are owned by Joe, Photographer, Michael or someone else.
I remember once researching the issue about photograph copyright. It my memory serves me well, photograph copyright normally belongs to the photographer.
Of course, it might be not that simple (for example, a photographer was hired and transferred to copyright), but I do understand why the Estate to not want to go into that issue.
I actually believe (pure speculation) that by placing Michael's drawings in this book, Mann was deliberately testing the Estate. If Estate did not object to the motion "we have a permission from the artist who current has the art", it would open possibilities to sell the art. As far as I remember, the issue of copyright (and probably also the issue of at least partial ownership) is also currently playing in Thome lawsuit.