This post is for you, Robert Tourtelot
The saga continues beyond this post; make sure to read
…and coming up: two new posts on the topic, with more emails from Mr. Tourtelot, so make sure to sub to the RSS feed.
…and, if you’re a comic book fan, we’re launching a new comic book store in September, and we’re giving away a free year’s subscription to any DC/Marvel/Indie comic book to everyone who registers at Heavy Ink, so go there and do the 2-second registration.
…and, of course, check out SmartFlix.com!
I recently ran into someone who was a bit confused about copyright law, and wasn’t happy.
I sent him a polite email, and gave him my phone number.
He called, and was very tightly strung.
I tried to calm him down.
He threatened to have his lawyer call me.
I said that that might be a good idea.
His lawyer called, and was very angry and curt.
The following is from memory:
I next sent an email to the lawyer, CC-ed to my lawyer:
Mr. Robert H. Tourtelot,
Thank you for returning my phone call just now regarding the matter of me renting out XXX’s DVDs.
For the record, I was somewhat surprised that you told me that renting out a DVD was “illegal”, but that you refused to specify what law you allege we are breaking. I’ve had dozens of interactions with lawyers, and I’ve never once had the experience of someone telling me that we were breaking a mystery law, which they were unwilling to cite.
With regards to your statement that you’ve been “looking forward for a class action lawsuit on a case like this”, I, too, would enjoy such a lawsuit. The publicity that we would derive from defeating your firm in court over a baseless allegation of copyright infringement, brought about by a law firm and a lawyer that does not understand the First Sale doctrine, and which are entirely ignorant of the Supreme Court case law on the topic, would be of incalculable value to us, and would be a very cost efficient way to further publicize our service.
As I have repeatedly assured Mr. XXX, we are 100% in compliance with the law, and I continue to hope that Mr. XXX will become convinced of the proven track record of rental markets increasing profits to content creators such as himself.
However, if Mr. XXX persists in believing that we are acting illegally, and you encourage his belief in some unexplained “mystery law” that somehow refutes 17 USC 109 and several Supreme Court cases, then we will see you in court. As I mentioned on the phone, we would also likely counter-sue both Mr. XXX and – potentially – your firm.
You can direct any legal documents about the lawsuit to the our firm’s lawyer (who is CC-ed on this message), at YYY
Thank you,
Travis J. I. Corcoran
The lawyer, after taking enough time to actually crack a law book and realize that he has no case at all, replied:
Mr. Corcoran: We understand more than you think about copyright law. What I was referring to and what you failed to mention in your e-mail concerned the copying of DVD’s. Enough said?
I wrote back to the opposing attorney:
Ah, it would have been nice if you had answered my question on the phone instead of telling me that you didn’t have the time to “educate me about copyright” – we could have saved some time.
As I have already assured Mr. XXX, we have never copied a DVD, we have no illegal copies of DVDs in our inventory, and have a program to allow authors and vendors to audit our inventory.
If you allege that we either are illegally duplicating DVDs, or are breaking some other law, then I advise you to take us to court, ASAP, because I’d love the publicity.
If you do not allege that we are breaking any law, than I assume that our interaction is at an end, and I wish you a good day.
I then wrote to the opposing party and – because what is best in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women – I CC-ed his lawyer:
I had the “pleasure” of having your lawyer tell me on the phone that it was illegal for me to rent out DVDs, and then – believe it or not – refuse to tell me what law forbid this.
In email, I challenged him, and later – perhaps after doing some research – he backpedaled, stating that he had only been talking about copying DVDs. ( I note that this is manifestly untrue; he explicitly said on the phone that “renting is illegal” ).
Your lawyer’s website says that he specializes in “real estate law” and “personal injury” law, among 12 different areas of expertise.
Nowhere does he list copyright law.
A bit of well-intentioned advice:
1) in my experience, no lawyer who does real-estate law is top notch.
2) any lawyer who claims 12 areas of expertise has ZERO areas of expertise.
3) if you have copyright concerns, you want to deal with a lawyer who does copyright, copyright, copyright, and nothing but copyright.
A good copyright lawyer would have told you during the free phone consultation that renting out DVDs is deeply settled law, and is fully legal.
I hope that Mr. Robert H. Tourtelot doesn’t charge you too much,
If you’re going to be in the business of producing copyrighted work, you really want to find a halfway decent lawyer.
Now, here’s the great part: the opposing attorney flew off the handle and ranted about me to his client, while keeping me CC-ed.
In two messages.
First:
XXX,
For a moment, I thought I was losing my mind. The guy said in his e-mail: “nowhere does he list copyright law”. Well, cutting him a little slack, I guess maybe he is dyslectic! As you can see from reading our web- site, we do list “Intellectual Property Litigation”. Duh!
Second:
Dear XXX: One of the more obvious downsides of the internet is the fact that any fool can write anything to anyone, so long as he or she has the-mail address. On the brighter side is the availability of programs like Spambully, which are designed to keep electronic garbage from people like this out of sight, so to speak. Mr. Corcoron, an individual who quite obviously has far too much time on his hands and, no doubt, not enough business, seems to delight in writing fiction.
As for his assessment of my legal skills and abilities, God forbid word of this gets out amongst the public! I have been quite successful keeping up the charade for all these years, only to be exposed now by someone in D.C. who probably makes less in a year than I gave to charity last year. Why did this have to happen to me? I had it all going so well. They all thought I was “top notch” and now this pip- squeek from across the Potomic has let the cat out of the bag. Well, XXX, all I can say is that its been one hell of ride so far. Best regards, RHT
PS I will bet you $1,000 that ol’ Mr. Corcoran, is not over 5′-6″. Want to bet?
I replied:
Actually, someone skilled in the area would know that IP covers a broad area: copyright, patents, trademark, trade secrets, etc. Any lawyer who specializes in one of these areas specializes in ONE of these areas. A good IP lawyer will cover copyright OR he will cover trademark.
I note that, because I seek out trained professionals who are good at what they do, that I retain two separate lawyers: one copyright lawyer, and one patent lawyer.
You can certainly find a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none who does all of these (and personal injury law, and divorce cases, and the other 10 specialties that your attorney professes), but you’ll have to go to the yellow pages of the local phone-book.
I entirely agree with your lawyer that “any fool with an email address” can pop up on the Internet.
For example, you’ve hired one who is totally ignorant of the 17 USC 109, the First Sale doctrine, Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339 , 1979 Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., Novell v. Network Trade Center 25 F. Supp. 2d 1218, etc.
…and then he tried to cover his poor law skills by trying (and failing) to make cracks about someone’s height.
By the way, RHT, I’m 5’11″.
If you’re so inclined, please mail the $1,000 check to me at XXX.
Oh, and another thing, RHT, “dyslectic” isn’t a word. (XXX, another hint: most real attorneys spell check their emails before sending them to their own clients, and/or the opposing side).
Seriously, if you’re in the market for a real copyright attorney, talk to me, I’ll put you in touch with some professionals, instead of the small town divorce-and-condo-agreement folks you can find in the yellow pages.
Travis J I Corcoran
Robert H. Tourtelot, this blog post is dedicated to you, and every other B-grade lawyer trying to compete in an A-grade world with nothing but bluster, arrogance, and an arsenal of short-jokes.
http://tb4law.com/pages/partners.html
Robert H. Tourtelot has earned a reputation as an aggressive, hard-hitting litigator who knows the facts and never backs down…
Heh. “Aggressive”. Not “smart” or “well educated”, though.
By the way, my blog has, according to the google plugin, a pagerank of 5/10.
…and every other page that contains the words “Robert Tourtelot” has a pagerank of 0/10.
This post is for you, Robert.
Next.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Pure gold!
May 18th, 2007 at 12:02 am
“Duh”? Aggressive, hard-hitting litigators say “duh”? What an astonishing exchange.
May 18th, 2007 at 12:05 am
I will say that the “never backs down” description is true.
Which is not a good thing.
When you’re in the wrong, you want an attorney who will back down…
May 18th, 2007 at 1:18 am
“Tourtelot” is just too perfect. Does he rhyme it with “I have to bribe the court a lot”?
If he does sue, perhaps you can invite your own counsel to take you to the fair.
May 18th, 2007 at 1:20 am
I’m suddenly reminded of Bob Loblaw.
“You don’t want rational argument; you want Bob Loblaw”
May 18th, 2007 at 1:21 am
After having called your business in Massachusetts, he seems to have confused you with your copyright lawyer in DC. He doesn’t seem capable of too much attention to detail.
At least he didn’t claim his dick was longer than yours.
May 18th, 2007 at 10:40 am
May 18th, 2007 at 10:42 am
bah. i tried to respond using a comical image, didn’t work. So i’ll summarize: PWNED.
May 18th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Just put the URL to the image here, and I’ll do the swizzling to make it show up.
May 18th, 2007 at 11:36 am
That’s awesome. You had a much more entertaining day at work than I had.
May 18th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Joshua wrote:
Excellent point – I missed that one!
Ha!
May 18th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Travis, your mastery of coolly and calmly showing people how idiotic they really are is always impressive.
May 18th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Hey Susan – what say we all go? We can take the whole family!
May 18th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Thanks!
May 19th, 2007 at 1:17 am
Word on the street is that A Google search on ‘Robert H Tourtelot” has an interesting first hit.
May 19th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
[...] comedy gold at dispatches from TJICistan demonstrates that reality is funnier than anything you could ever [...]
June 15th, 2007 at 4:41 am
Depressingly I’ve been dealing with a firm in Manchester in UK that seems to have employed a number of Mr Tourtelt’s clones.
And all I’m trying to make them understand is the statutory formula for fast track PI costs.
So sadly your not alone in dealing with the err shall we say thick end of the legal wedge.
June 15th, 2007 at 6:45 am
Did a lawyer accuse you of a false fact, the copying of a DVD? It is unclear. What if the victim self-published the false remark?
A competent defamation attorney may have an answer about a lawyer alleging a false fact, outside of a legal claim.
June 15th, 2007 at 9:06 am
That distinguished, high-paid lawyer can’t even spell “Potomac” correctly.
June 15th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
I’ll bet this firm does a lot of TV advertising!
June 15th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Man, what a fight that’d be: an old washed-up geezer vs. a fat, freckly tub of shit. Probably better than most pro bouts these days, though….
June 16th, 2007 at 8:32 am
Few people realize what a disadvantage freckles are in a fight.
Thanks for the astute comment.
June 16th, 2007 at 9:11 am
You’re right. The freckles won’t make a difference (other than aesthetics, of course.) But that gut isn’t going to do much in your favor. I’ve seen a lot of fat people try to box, and they usually get winded skipping rope to warm up. Once in the ring, they wander around, mouth agape, hands down by their sides, trying in vain to get enough oxygen into their fat-swaddled lungs. It’s generally hilarious.
Granted, you’d probably knock his old ass out before he got his gloves up, but let’s not suddenly pretend you’re some kind of athlete.
All that said, that was one of the funnier emails I’ve read in a while. Who doesn’t have spell check? Even this little comment box has spell check (nice touch, by the way.)
June 16th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Have we been pretending that?
The most I assert is that I can throw 80 jabs at the bag while keeping the other hand up to protect my face…and I am panting quite hard at the end of that.
June 17th, 2007 at 10:43 am
At least he doesn’t misrepresent himself. His website says he “knows the facts,” it says nothing about him knowing the law.
June 18th, 2007 at 9:07 am
Hey, kids! Come look! A troll!
June 18th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Hey, kids! Come look! A troll
Ah – so you’re one of them there attack bears I heard so much about.
June 20th, 2007 at 11:05 am
[...] Previously // Next. [...]
June 20th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
I love the reference to “fat, freckled tub of shit! That’s what I’ve heard. So, instead of Corkhead, let’s use “Corkhead, the fat, freckled tub of shit.”
June 20th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
For the record I’m Mr. XXX, my name is Vincent Versace.
Here is the issue for me. I created, produced, figured out, paid for and shot the DVD’s that were going to be “rented”. I don’t want my work rented out. If it is going to be rented out I’ll be the one to do that. What I got when I asked that my copyrighted images and my copyrighted ideas and my copyrighted DVD’s not be rented and said I’ll give you your money back was “doesn’t matter don’t need your permission. “
Here’s my feeling on this, I think that people who make money off other people knowingly and without permission specifically against the expressed wishes of the content creator in this manner are parasites, regardless of the legality. It is morally reprehensible that anyone would do this after being asked not to. At no time did the individual who had designs to rent my work out from under me put any effort either intellectually or economically in to the creation and production of my DVD’s. All they did was pony up some money to buy them and then planned to put them to work for themselves.
Again, for the record, that’s what was left out of this little rant. That the individual who was contacted by my lawyer at my request was doing something I felt he had no moral right to do with something he had no hand in creating. If you think want was being planned to be be done with my images ideas and contet by this individual is right than all I can say is I now know something about you.
It’s one thing to have an agreement, but at no time was I ever asked. Ask yourself each and every one of you; would you like this done to you? I don’t think so.
Lastly for the record, in actuality I do not sell the DVD’s, I license the use. Renting them is not one of the uses I grant a license to.
Vincent Versace
June 21st, 2007 at 12:07 am
That the individual who was contacted by my lawyer at my request was doing something I felt he had no moral right to do with something he had no hand in creating.
Wait, I’m confused. If this was about moral right, shouldn’t you have contacted your pastor? Or do you perhaps belong to a faith where lawyers … no, sorry, I can’t even finish that sentence.
June 21st, 2007 at 9:16 am
It’s one thing to have an agreement, but at no time was I ever asked. Ask yourself each and every one of you; would you like this done to you? I don’t think so.
I create a video. A guy comes along, exposes it to a large audience. Many many more people now have the potential to view my work.
Oh ya. I’d so hate that. Throw me in that sticker patch, Br’er Fox.
June 21st, 2007 at 9:51 am
A fine point, but you forgot one detail: the guy PAYS real money to the artist.
SmartFlix has put so much money in artists’ pockets over the last few years that it isn’t even funny.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:24 am
TJIC
A fine point, but you forgot one detail: the guy PAYS real money to the artist.
I didn’t forget it; money was out of scope in my comment. It is possible I’ve been spending too much time talking to Project Managers.
A bit of un-asked for advice that is well meaning and to which you will not pay the slightest bit of attention to: get a new lawyer. The one you’ve got is entertaining but he’s not doing you any good at all for the capital you’re expending on him.
June 21st, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Vincent, Thanks for speaking up. It takes guts.
I don’t think your case stands up very well because US law has decided against your position. You should look up First sale doctrine. For better or worse, the Supreme Court has decided what’s “moral” here.
…
Oh and you should fire your lawyer posthaste.
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:38 am
Oh come on. Another person who only LICENSES their materials? That is such a cheap cop and I’m so tired of it. We don’t own anything anymore, we’re just allowed to use it. As a consumer if I ever need a DIY DVD from Vincent’s line I’ll rent it and certainly not “License” it from someone who doesn’t even understand the basics of how the industry works.
Score one for Smartflix!
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:45 am
oh vincent. it’s so sad that you can’t quite grok this (especially since you try to sell DVDs and really should know how this works). i have the distinct feeling you never will and that you will keep your laywer as well.
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:51 am
is this all over the movie “Taps”?
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:51 am
LOL! Nothing like handing a lawyer’s ass back to them on a plate. Bravo!
Mike
http://quicktrivia.com
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:54 am
[...] that he resorted to making jokes about Corcoran’s height! The email exchanges are hilarious. Link (Thanks, Theology [...]
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:58 am
Seems that someone should point out the film. Here it is on IMDB: Taps (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0836704/maindetails)
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:59 am
Vincent -
I’m looking at your order page. Where is your license? It looks like you’re selling DVDs to me.
http://versacephotography.com/v2/dvd.html
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Two things:
(1) “That distinguished, high-paid lawyer can’t even spell “Potomac” correctly.” He also doesn’t know how to spell squeak.
(2) Mr. Versace is himself guilty of a moral infraction, hiring a lawyer to bully somebody. Whether he has justice on his side is a question I can’t address without knowing more, but he certainly doesn’t have the law on his side. This was clearly an attempt to intimidate and Mr.Versace picked the wrong enforcer and the wrong method.
If you don’t want people to see your DVD don’t sell it. If you do sell it, then know the law well enough to know what might happen. If something happens you didn’t expect, learn from it.
The problem isn’t that your lawyer is no good. It is that you shouldn’t have hired a lawyer to do what you asked him to do.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Mark: I think it’s not the same Vincent….
http://www.versacefilm.com/
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:05 pm
I don’t want my work rented out. If it is going to be rented out I’ll be the one to do that.
That’s fine – just stop offering your copyrighted work for sale (or in exchange for filling out Wacom surveys), and re-call all previous sales. Problem solved – that advice provided for less than the price that Robert H. Tourtelot would charge (and worth a whole lot more).
Rental … sale. Rental … sale. Rental … sale. You see the difference, right? I can assure you that the courts (but not all officers of the court — like a certain attorney you engage) do understand the difference.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Too funny
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Vincent’s argument *is* a cop out. I produce DVDs for a living and it’s a ridiculous argument to make that I’m only licensing it out. As has been pointed out here correctly his claims of infringement are baseless, but at least he retained a complete idiot for an attorney (who in turn seems to have retained a rather poor web designer).
The sheer number of links to this post are going to have an interesting effect on Tourtelot’s Google results.
Good times!
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Vincent,
I feel sorry for you. Unfortunately, you have failed to explore/learn/understand the law that impacts your business. Whether you like it or not, the law is not on your side. Bummer for you. Now stop bothering everyone and let it die.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:11 pm
I love stories like this. The sad thing about this is that the lawyer probably did know the law. He just puts out threats like this and hopes for someone to bite. They really have too much power.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Mr. Versace, I suggest you go crying to a group of authors. You know, the people whose work is loaned out for FREE at the local library. However, I suspect they won’t be too sympathetic to your cause since they understand the power of marketing. This is something you’ve obviously missed. I am an amateur photograper, but I will never buy one of your DVD’s. When I buy a book or DVD, I expect to be able to resell it or give it away. If you only grant a licence to view the DVD, I have no use for it. There are others out there that understand the market. They will get my business. If I rent (or borrow) an instructional item and find it useful, I buy a copy. I never buy a “license to view”.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Wow.. Travis, you should publish a book! I was thoroughly entertained from reading this! heh heh. On a side note, Mr. Tourtelot’s website is an SEO’s nightmare. All of his information is represented by text images. I’m glad to see that you have a “nofollow” tag applied to the link pointing to Tourtelot’s site. (Funny how you reference the “0″ pagerank issue.) Once again, brilliant post! You have earned another potential SmartFlix customer!
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Vincent,
Your response to all of this is commendable, but terribly misguided. I point specifically to “regardless of legality”.
In the business world, there is NO situation where transactions can be done without regard to legality. And your response to the situation as it arose, namely, referring it to your lawyer, belies your attempt to claim the moral high ground. You clearly thought the law was on your side, or you wouldn’t have involved your attorney.
The disconnect between morality and legality is the very essence of liberty, and has itself a high moral value. Those who would attempt to invoke legal remedies for moral affronts threaten the liberty of us all. The amount of sport had at the expense of you and your attorney is regrettable, but the issue underlying all of this is quite a serious one, and well worth defending wherever it arises. Abiding by the law, as it is settled by the courts and the legislature, is itself a highly moral act, even when that law is of questionable morality.
You may have thought you were licensing your work, and may have intended to do so. This was the first instance in which your attorney misserved you — he failed to advise you in the first place that the law was not on your side, and that your attempt to limit the rights you were releasing into the world would not avail.
There is an old rubric among lawyers: “When the law is against you, argue the facts; when the facts are against you, argue the law; when both are against you, pound the table and make lots of noise!”. In this situation, both the law and the facts are against you — fortunately, your lawyer is good at pounding the table and making lots of noise. Unfortunately, the party on the other side of this matter knew their rights, so your lawyer’s efforts at intimidation were unsuccessful. Better luck next time.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Ironically, I seem to be having the same exchange with the “Customer Care” department @ Continental Airlines, where the only thing that’s consistent is the lack of care for–and communication with–the customer. Who cares about meals at meal time when you can’t hear whether or not the world has come to an end?
By the end of the exchange, poor Mr. Customer Care Man has come completely unhinged. He can’t spell, he can’t punctuate, and he can’t even put together a coherent sentence.
See the exchange below:
Message: RE: CO Flight 1144 on 6/8/07
Originally scheduled to depart at 5:25 pm, this flight didn’t take off until 5+ hours later. Delayed from the start because of late arrival from Washington, passengers began boarding at 6:50 pm (appx.) and then sat on the runway for nearly four hours.
I understand there are always delays with air travel, and I know these things are often difficult to control or predict (weather, computer glitches with another airport, etc.), but my major complaint was with the way this delay was handled. The communication system between the pilot and the passengers was absolutely non-existent. Every announcement from the pilot was unintelligible, and even the attendants were having trouble getting accurate information. No one seemed to know anything, which only exacerbated the situation.
Finally, after several hours of waiting, the plane returned to the terminal and some passengers got off. No announcement was made; no one was told if they would be able to get back on again; and no clarification was made about baggage for passengers who did decide to get off. It was just a desperate and strange situation. Only by asking one of the people who nearly got off the plane did I find out that you would not be allowed back on the plane if you got off.
Our original flight was scheduled to land at 7:05pm; I don’t think we landed until sometime after 12:30am, but it could have been even later. It was truly a horrible experience.
Ms. XXXXXXXX
>>>>>>>>>>>>
This was the strange response I received several days later:
> From: custo@coair.com [mailto:custo@coair.com]
> Sent: Sat 6/16/2007 7:54 PM
I am sorry you were inconvenienced when our schedule was interrupted by the inclement weather conditions at (CTYAPT). Unless the airport is shut down completely some aircraft will be permitted to depart and arrive. Typically, runway usage becomes limited during inclement weather as outlined by air traffic control, and each carrier must make the difficult decision as to which flight will be delayed and cancelled to accommodate the situation. This is not an arbitrary decision, and we use a state-of-the-art computer system to help determine how to minimize the fewest number of passengers. As soon as it is safe to do so, our onward transportation should be confirmed.
For more information on our commitment to you during irregular operations, please visit our website at http://www.continental.com/web/en-US/content/customerfirst.aspx
Regards,
Herman Ulmer
Customer Care Manager
>>>>>>>>>>>
To:
Subject: RE: Flight Experience
If you read my letter carefully, you would have noted that I clearly understood that the delay was unavoidable. My complaint was with the method–or lack thereof–of communication between the pilot and the passengers. It was simply inexcusable.
Please read the letter and comprehend its meaning. While your team communicated so poorly, I feel my message is quite clear.
Sincerely,
XXXXX XXXXXXXX
P.S.–It’s so obvious this is just an automatic form letter and your didn’t pay any attention to the content of my letter. You couldn’t even bother filling in the information at the end of the first sentence:
“I am sorry you were inconvenienced when our schedule was interrupted by the inclement weather conditions at (CTYAPT).”
How ironic that this comes from the “customer care” department, when you don’t care at all. What a pathetic way to run a business. By the way, I have forwarded this exchange to the Office of Consumer Affairs in the Department of Transportation.
>>>>
From:
Date: 17 Jun 2007 12:00:56 -0500
Subject: RE: Flight Experience
Ms. XXXXXXXX
I understood your comments. I do apologize for the lack of communication from the flight crew and pilot. Your flight was order by ATC (air traffic control) to return to the terminal. Because of ground clearance or traffic congestion of the runway.
Our pilots have full authority to operate and give information as they deemed fit. However, I have forward your complaint to our flight operation manager in Newark.
Once again, I do apologize for the inconvenience and the lack of communication. I hope you will continue using Continental Airlines for your business and personal travel plans. Thank you.
Regards,
Herman Ulmer
Customer Care Manager
>>>>>>>>>>
To which I responded:
Thank you for forwarding this exchange to the flight operation manager in
Newark. I hope this person will have a better understanding of the nature of
my complaint and will communicate accordingly.
As I said before, my concern was with the communication system in the
airplane (for instance, had there been an actual emergency on the plane or
in the airport, the passengers would have no idea because of the poor
communication system–entirely a safety concern), not with “ground clearance
or traffic congestion of the runway.”
I’m not sure what the flight operation manager in Newark will have to say
about all that, but I look forward to receiving his or her response.
Sincerely,
XXXXX XXXXXXXX
>>>>>>>>
Then I received this follow up, which was completely wacky and random (Better stick with the form letters, I think).
Ms. XXXXXXXX
Please disregard the previous message. Yes, we do send generic responds to speed the process up. However, after reading your comments. I understand the reason you are upset with Continental Airlines.
The research of your situation indicated your flight was delayed because of the orders from the ATC (air traffic control). Continental Airlines must abide by the authority of ATC.
I have forward your complaint to the appropriate managers. I hope that you will give Continental Airlines another chance to become your airline of choice.
Regards,
Herman Ulmer
Customer Care Manager
And this came moments later:
Ms. XXXXXXXX:
Our flight operations manager will not respond to your complaint. We handle all customers complaints internally, handle by Continental Airlines organization.
I want to assure you that we are looking into your situation. We take all complaints very seriously, and will modify any problems we can as an airline.
Again thank you for your comments.
Regards,
Herman Ulmer
Customer Care Manager
>>>>>>
What a mess!
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Holy Tort law, Batman! Is his name really Tourtelot? Is that like some sad joke? Hilarious!
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Lastly for the record, in actuality I do not sell the DVD’s, I license the use. Renting them is not one of the uses I grant a license to.
Under the circumstances, it doesn’t make a difference, It seems you’ve licensed the use to a whole lot of wicked middlemen who are selling (as in “First Sale”) or giving away (considered the same as a sale) copies of your intellectual property. Does your license specifically bar those middlemen from selling (again, as in “First Sale”) copies of the IP to end-users who intend to rent out those copies? (not that such language is enforceable under the terms of – again – First Sale).
If you want to take control of your IP, the only thing to do is what I suggested earlier: stop selling (or licensing for sale – implicitly or explicitly) copies of your intellectual property, and re-call or buy back all earlier sales. After you somehow close that barn door, publish a limited run of your DVDs, put tracking DRM on them, and rent them out (but don’t sell them) or exhibit them yourself. Of course, your photography business and artistic work won’t get the publicity that DVDs generate under the current model, but that’s the price you pay for extreme control of your IP.
I suppose you could also put your efforts toward overturning the doctrine of First Sale (good luck on that!), but I’d get an attorney who specialises in IP law for that job. I’d make specific suggestions about other qualities you’d want in an lawyer, but the general rule of thumb you might want to consider would be: do the opposite of what you did when choosing your current attorney.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Having just fired my own lawyer for a delightful combination of incompetence and arrogance, I nominate this post as the feel-good movie of the summer. Or some such kudos.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Vincent,
If you believe the law is on your side – sue.
Court isn’t meant to be a bullying tatic, but a way to actually resolve disputes. However, it might be wise to get a second or third opinion or see if you can pursue this on a contingency basis. It isn’t like you are cheating on your lawyer, just don’t be swayed by the proverbial pretty girl of law, the false promise of winning, without looking at more than one potential mate, or solutions.
Lawyers like money, I know I am one, however when a lawyer won’t put his own money on the line and bet on his skill or the law then as a client it might be a good idea to try to work with people or rethink your strategy.
Have you tried being reasonable, informed, and asking nicely? Or at the very least stemming your perceived losses? There are multiple options.
This seems like common sense as well, if you hire a mouthpiece, a lawyer, to conduct your business, he represents you and his actions reflect upon you. Irrespective of the facts (that you do not seem to deny?!?) you might want to use him, because if you can’t becuase of concerns or other reasons…what use is he?
Resolving a dispute need not cost alot of time or money. Americans are notoriously upset about being commanded to do anything without their consent. Unless the “offender” either agrees with you expicitly or logically or illogically believes you to be right implicitly, it might be a good idea to approach the situation with a pleasant tone (irrespective of the facts in this matter or if you are right).
Lastly, although I am addressing this comment in a conversational tone, you might want to pick up some email smarts that you should use for anything business oriented or formal. Try a formal approach a la Emily Post.
Sincerely,
Your Friendly Capitalist Lawyer.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:26 pm
(And just to demonstrate – look at the spelling mistakes and grammatical problems above – spell check and learn the difference between BCC: and CC: and To:)
Again,
Your Friendly Capitalist Zen Lawyer
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Good Show Major! Jolly Good Show!
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Try http://lifehacker.com/software/etiquette/stephen-colbert-email-assassin-271086.php
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:38 pm
What a delight! Enough people heard me laughing uproariously over this (and some of the great comments) that all productivity has ceased within earshot. My worst problem: nobody will believe that there’s a lawyer called tort-a-lot!
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:41 pm
I don’t know anything about the law in this case, but if you’re referring to the First Sale Doctrine, the cogent Wikipedia entry mentions The Record Rental Amendment of 1984, which seems to prevent renting if the owner of the copyright of the original recording disapproves… does this not apply to videos / DVDs?
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Well- count me as one who found your website due to yet another bungling and misunderstanding of how the Internet and law works- were it not for this “lawyer” and his client, I would not have come to Smartflix.com. And- now that I am here- I just might rent a couple of DVDs as there are many that are very interesting to me.
I hope you notice an uptick in your business!
Have a great weekend.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:49 pm
I don’t really understand the argument that morality (let alone the law) should dictate that the author of a copyrighted work be able to control how every copy sold can be used. If the Rolling Stones call me and ask me not to lend my copy of Let It Bleed to my friends any more, should I be obligated to abide? If Stephen King calls to ask that I not skip to the last chapter of his book, am I a bad person (or criminal) for doing it anyway? Certainly there are some uses a copyright holder can prevent, but not ordinary and legitimate ones, and certainly not just because he asked nicely.
That said, Travis, I found your jabs at lawyers in general a bit misplaced. This particular lawyer seems to be a bad one. It doesn’t mean that others in his same field(s) are bad. I’ve known plenty of very smart, very capable lawyers who handle both copyright and trademark. Not many who do personal injury work on the side, though.
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:00 pm
wow. 5’11” huh? you showed him! he thought you were too short to be right, but i’m glad you set him straight.
i can’t believe you even responded to his height comment. by the way, i’m 6’12”. gotcha bitch!!!
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:46 pm
re Vincent Versace
If you feel like that you are living in the wrong country – it is well established law in the US that renting is legal.
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Wait – the guy that made the DVD doesn’t sell them, he licenses their use? Is this true? Is this a whole new wrinkle his bus-bench attorney failed to detect?
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:04 pm
“Caveat venditor”
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:13 pm
think want was being planned to be be done with my images ideas and contet by this individual is right than all I can say
No wonder he hired a semiliterate lawyer.
I can only imagine the quality of the DVD itself.
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Never hire a Tourtelot to do a Copiewrightalot’s job.
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:40 pm
I’m still shaking my head over a lawyer who has a last name of “tort-a-lot.”
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Nice post. By the way, dyslectic is a word.
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Actually, dyslectic is a word. It is uncommon, but it is an accepted alternative to dyslexic.
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:03 pm
[...] [link][more] [...]
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:15 pm
you, mr vincent versace, are a douchebag.
morals are not what come into play in a capitalistic market. if you are competing as a capitalist in a free-market economy, you have to follow the LAW, much like the host of this blog does.
morals are a wishy-washy grey area that are different for each person. good luck trying to defend that!
plus, you really are a prick, vincent.
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:17 pm
[...] He got BoingBoinged today, bringing down his server (darn it, I was -just- going to mention that he install WP-Cache). The server’s back up and the story is funny. Check it out. [...]
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:33 pm
I can’t believe Mr. Vincent Versace’s post. Is this guy an idiot? Again, the whole issue has been settled at a Supreme Court level not once, but several times. His wishes, want, whines, or whatever they are, just aren’t apropos to anything. His ‘moral’ rantings sound much like someone who just figured out that he missed an opportunity to make a buck and wants to punish anyone else for availing themselves of that opportunity. You’re a petty man Mr. Vincent Versace.
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:37 pm
“Lastly for the record, in actuality I do not sell the DVD’s, I license the use. Renting them is not one of the uses I grant a license to.”
Hmmm. Then I guess maybe you should head over to Amazon and tell them to stop selling items you’ve only granted “license to use”. If you don’t sell them, then how do they have them in their possession to resell?
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_d/103-1623874-1800659?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=vincent+versace++dvd&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go
(search amazon for “Vincent Versace DVD” in case the link doesn’t make it through)
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:50 pm
To Ms. Butler,
Just thought you might want to know how much bad press your partner has gotten you into with his carelessness and apparent disregard of just how small the world has become due to blogging and being condescending to one such blogger. Please know I am forwarding this article to all my friends who will in turn forward to their friends and so on. Logic and precedence win lawsuits not bluster and condescension.
oh here’s the link: http://tjic.com/?p=6135
actually that is the FIRST link. There are 5 others
* part 2 – http://tjic.com/?p=6139
* part 3 – http://tjic.com/?p=6194
* part 4 – http://tjic.com/?p=6396
* part 5 – http://tjic.com/?p=6397
I hope for your sake, he is defending a friend casually and this is not the way he represents actual clients.
Have a great day.
Sincerely,
Seth Rosner
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:05 pm
[...] This post is for you, Robert Tourtelot Welcome, Boing-Boing and Reddit readers! [...]
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:39 pm
y’know, Vince is right actually, if not legally. Here he did something really stupid like make a DVD that was rentable & someone else rents is out w/o letting him know or giving him anything. Seems he did all the work. Seems a little sleazy to to sponge off another man’s brains like that.
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Vincent Versace? The photographer who makes the photography how-to videos? Ya, I never heard of you before oh great one.
I did just visit your website though and I see no terms for the “license” of your DVDs, just a standard shopping cart application and PayPal checkout.
Make up some lame excuse and/or lie about how you “license” your DVDs much? Or do you just use deceptive practices in general?
June 22nd, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Your comment regarding real estate lawyers was arrogant, high-handed, and incorrect.
Otherwise, funny.
June 22nd, 2007 at 6:11 pm
1) Yes, dyslectic is a word. I wondered the same thing reading that, and confirmed via http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dyslectic that it is a legit spelling. Learn something new everyday.
2) Moral != Legal. We endeavor to have these two things equate, but just because something is a legal, does not make it moral. I understand and vaguely empathize with Mr. Versace. I just don’t think he has a legal leg to stand on.
3) To Airport Customer Service lady: I’ve gotta say, your initial email could’ve been somewhat more clear and articulate. Not to excuse the slow comprehension of the respondee(s) (it is possible that multiple people were responding to you, or that the person who was responding answered to someone else who didn’t understand), but it is worth mentioning.
June 22nd, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Josh Burton: It’s even better than your rhyme – Tortelot pronounced ‘tort-a-lot’.
Tort, n. [F., from LL. tortum, fr. L. tortus twisted,
crooked, p. p. of torqure to twist, bend. See Torture.]
2. (Law) Any civil wrong or injury; a wrongful act (not
involving a breach of contract) for which an action will
lie; a form of action, in some parts of the United States,
for a wrong or injury.
[1913 Webster]
Perfect!
June 22nd, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Blah, blah blah….
After reading your response, as well as reading the responses of several others in this thread I can understand why you seem to be confused, so let me help clarify things for you. Rather than playing pedantic word games, coming up with pithy barbs of ridicule or busying yourselves worring about spelling errors stick to the point. I have someone who has copied word for word my copyrighted material off my website, is taking my copyrighted images and is using them for profit and is renting out my copyrighted DVD’s. I spent a life time developing the techniques in those DVD’s and the images used are mine. I OWN the rights to to these things. I don’t think that what is being done with them by Smartflix with only being notified after the fact and not even being asked if you would like to do this or not receiving any part of the profit of this when I incurred all of the expenses to produce them is right. Morally, ethically or just on a doing the right thing level or however you choose to phrase it. Is that clear enough? Stick to that point, better yet argue THAT point and perhaps you will find yourself less confused.
June 22nd, 2007 at 6:39 pm
ere he did something really stupid like make a DVD that was rentable & someone else rents is out w/o letting him know or giving him anything. Seems he did all the work. Seems a little sleazy to to sponge off another man’s brains like that.
Google “first sales doctrine.”
The copyright holder was paid for his work when the company bought it from him. He is exposed to a wider audiance than would otherwise know about him. The company also offers to drop in promo material in with the videos.
And of coruse the orignal copyright holder for THIS video has gotten a great deal of negative publicity. But thems the breaks.
June 22nd, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Mr Versace,
When one is in a situation like this the most important thing is to realize that a) you’re in a hole and b) stop digging.
I consider Travis a friendly aquaintance, and i don’t even know you but on this one I’m a neutral party. Dude, morally you have the right to think what you want. Legally you have no leg to stand on. In the arena of public opinion you’ve been beaten like a red-headed step-child.
Time to declare victory and go home.
June 22nd, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Vincent writes
I don’t think that what is being done with them by Smartflix with only being notified after the fact and not even being asked if you would like to do this or not receiving any part of the profit of this…
I think it’s a bit disingenuous to claim that you’re not receiving any part of the profit: SmartFlix payed hard cash for every copy of your video that they own. A video can only be sent to one SmartFlix customer at a time, so if your video is popular, SmartFlix probably has a bunch of copies.
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:00 pm
The more vincent bleats and lies about not getting anything from this…. disregarding that he has been paid in full for the copies smartflix owns, the more I think I should visit the Amazon pages for all his crappy DVDs and point out to potential buyers, via a review 1. this thread, 2. they are not really buying the DVD only licensing some number of views and 3. they can rent it from Smartflix
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Have to say, Vincent, from the stills on your website your films look to be beautifully lit and shot. Well done you. It’s hard work making a good-looking film.
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Very fine legal conversation. Classy in a comic book heroic way. For keeping your cool
and your classy touch, yes, I may be a customer/partner.
Thanks for the education. May ‘poetic justice’ prevail.
a draft comment on airplane experience. There is a STATISTICAL correlation between
late plane flights, poor maintenance, bad and possible FAKE parts/fuel and safety/cleanliness.
Late, unexplained schedules mean poor planning and less time to clean. Would you feel
more SAFE/comfortable if you knew the seat was cleaned thoroughly? How about
after the Tubercolosis Patient in the HEADLINE news was the previous occupant OF
YOUR SEAT?
PS. Pairing of comic book/manga/picture story with music or does opera go with
Superman?
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Oh, got the wrong VV.
Duh!
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:51 pm
http://www.takegreatpictures.com/HOME/Columns/Celebrities_Who_Shoot/Details/Robert_Tourtelot.fci
Holy F@#King sh!t
I guess I figured out where the two twixt meet. Please note that the article contains copyrited images by Mr. Tourtelot himself.
Anyone want to have fun with appropriation?
To note, I do find it funny that Mr Versace is a photographer that has been working on his techniques in DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY for a LIFETIME, yet photoshop has only existed since the early 90′s. Before that, digital imaging was limited to very poor programs that didn’t even involve photography, but merely computer generated graphics. And, even then, digital photography did not catch up, on a prosumer level, until the late 90′s. Now, given, techniques can transfer from film to digital, but if you will please notice, Lesson 5 is How to light like Hurrel in the computer. I ask you, Mr Versace, are you paying Mr Hurrell’s estate for the rights to HIS lighting techniques? I mean, since you are chiefly concerned with IP, yet you claim to have spent a lifetime developing these teqniques.
Also, is this the same Robert Tourtelot that represented Mark “De Furher”Man vs the New York Times? Or the Goldman Family? That’s pretty damn impressive if it is, and makes the e-mail communications all the more pathetic.
I’m a photographer myself. I have a BFA in photography, and have my work in the permanent collections of museums. Now, I am usually one to jump on the side of the photographer in most suits, being one myself, even if I’m not entirely sure if the photographer is in the right, but I feel a fraternal need to defend my own, as it were. That being said, I have two petty things to say. 1. Mr Versace, you are completely in the wrong. You are a photographer, and in that, lies your expertise. There is no doubting that. And judging from the age of some of your images, I assume that you once knew film very well. 2. Mr Tourtelot. Although I respect that you have been shooting since you bought your first box camera, it is people such as yourself that have destroyed photography both as an art, as well as a business. Photography is the only art in which any asshole from the street believes they can pick up our tool, our instrument, and call himself a photographer. Hundreds upon thousands of men in your field, as well as the field of medicine, and various other professions, have opened “photography businesses” because they have the money. They have spoiled the market for those who have completed years of training, because they believe to call themselves photographers. Would you want to be operated on by someone that has taken up surgery as a hobby? I think not. Mr Tourtelot, I am sorry to inform you, that no amount of money can make you a good photographer. And judging from your work, not even YOU have purchased Mr Versace’s DVD’s.
Sincerely,
Lucky
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Vincent said: “I don’t think that what is being done with them by Smartflix with only being notified after the fact and not even being asked if you would like to do this or not receiving any part of the profit of this when I incurred all of the expenses to produce them is right.”
As my old English teacher used to say, “That sentence should be taken out and shot!”
Mike
http://quicktrivia.com
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:58 pm
[...] Link [...]
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:08 pm
All that being said, to his credit, Mr Versace is a talented photographer, who has obviously done a lot to get his work out there, and whose achievements are commendable.
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:30 pm
By the time the dust settles on this, SmartFlix will have been the best thing that ever happened to Versace.
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:43 pm
I’d just like to point out that this is all great publicity. I haven’t heard of SmartFlix before today, but I already found something I would like to rent (Fundamentals of Machine Lathe Operation). So, you should thank Mr. Turtletot for providing the opportunity.
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Lucky wrote:
“Photography is the only art in which any asshole from the street believes they can pick up our tool, our instrument, and call himself a photographer.”
Well….they can indeed call themselves “photographers”. But not necessarily GOOD photographers, lol. That takes time, skill, and creativity. The same is true of violinists, hunters, and unfortunately, programmers.
Steve from http://thedeathpsychic.com
(How Will You Die?)
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:17 pm
http://www.takegreatpictures.com/HOME/Columns/Celebrities_Who_Shoot/Details/Robert_Tourtelot.fci
Aren’t there still laws that in place to keep Americans from visiting Cuba? Seems like an officer of the court shouldn’t be flaunting his willful defiance of the law in such a public forum.
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:20 pm
[...] Link [...]
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Mr. Versace,
Copyright is a limited, artificial monopoly which only exists so long as the public accepts the “bargain.”
Here’s the bargain: you make something, we’ll give you exclusive right to reproduce it for a limited time. Hence, you make some $$ so you can contribute again in 15 years.
And it starts again.
Lets say you only make one work. Lets say this set of DVD’s is all you ever make. Why should we continue to pay you? There was a time when there was no such thing as “copyright.” We’re doing you a favor so you do us a favor. Make more DVD’s.
If you refuse this second part of the bargain, then you, sir, are leeching off of society. Imagine the canoe maker who only makes but one canoe. Or the architect who designs one building. But then, each of them demands to be paid any time someone rents out their respective creations.
Doesn’t really make much sense, does it?
Neither does your position.
–
Ike
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:48 pm
It’s certainly been interesting. I think the best advice I’ve gotten is from Brian, “time to declare victory and go home.” With that said “Mission acomplished!!!”
Wait a minute, that one seems to have been taken by the village idiot…
In closing, Zach, charges, Kirk, bk, and Lucky, thanks for the positive thoughts in this rather large negative.
For the record, after looking on the Internet for the “taps” reference there is another Vincent Versace and he is a young film student. Please don’t confuse him with me for good or ill he shouldn’t take any heat from you all.
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Vincent,
Making a film is hard work. Making a good film is extremely hard work. You are an amazing person for completing such a grand project. I’m sure you want people to see your creations.
The meta message of this storm of comments is that the tactics you are using — not selling, only “liscencing” your films” are the exact ones that will PREVENT THE MOST PEOPLE FROM SEEING your work. Indeed, the urge to maximize the control of the copies is really a way to make sure very few people see it. There is an alternative path which really does work, if you trust it, which is that a little bit of sharing (even legal sharing, called renting) will result in increase sales.
This controversy has just handed you a gift — free publicity. You can accept and optimize that gift by letting go a little bit, or you can squander it by not budging.
Can you imagine the publicity, good karma, incredible new friends, and sales that you would make if you sent everyone of the loudmouth critics coming down hard on you here in this forum a free DVD of your movie! It would a kindness bomb! They don’t deserve it of course, but it would be good business. You’d regain the $100 in cost almost immediately. I can’t tell you what a splash you would make.
Yeah, it’s against your principles, but you might learn something. You think everyone here hates you, but in fact they are on your side — the independent underdog who actually manages to finish a big undertaking, which a movie is. You just have to give everyone a way to root for you.
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Copyright lawyer ‘expert’ sends threats by email – hilarious thread ensues…
Lawyer Writes- PS XXX: For a moment, I thought I was losing my mind. The guy said in his e-mail: “nowhere does he list copyright law”. Well, cutting him a little slack, I guess maybe he is dyslectic! As you can see from reading our web- site, we do…
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:12 pm
[...] part 1 [...]
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:12 pm
[...] part 1 [...]
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:12 pm
[...] part 1 [...]
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:13 pm
[...] part 1 [...]
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Rocky&Bull – I noticed all the Cuba pictures, too.
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:45 pm
It’s called “Bluff the ignorant!”
Just offer the man some tea …
and bash him over the head
with this
:)
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Umm… Just a thought here… did you get her permision to reproduce his emails to you? Under the recent supreme court decision that they must get senders permision of emails prior to viewing them held by the recipient out of privacy laws, there may be precedence here that you cannot just repost a senders email without permission from them. You may have set yourself up for a legitimate legal case.
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:58 pm
that was hilarious! you should create a mock website and have him sue you :)
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:01 pm
“Tourtelot” is just too perfect. Does he rhyme it with “I have to bribe the court a lot”?
Nah! He’s just ‘dyslectic’ and can’t even spell his own name. It is obviously spelled, “Tortalot’
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:39 pm
*cough cough*
Nice story.
Except the thing is, a lawyer who does IP law will not specialize in either copyright or trademark. There isn’t enough work in either, unless you work for a corporation instead of a law firm.
I’ve found that most of the lawyers I’ve met who only specialized in copyright were generally piss poor lawyers, simply because copyright law is so well settled that there is very little need to do any lawyering. Copyright law is mostly about needing someone to handle the paperwork.
There are a few inconsistencies with your story. Hopefully, you’ll clean it up and make it more realistic when you rewrite it.
June 23rd, 2007 at 12:10 am
Jorge Says
Jorge,
I use a patent attorney, self-employed, who does nothing but patent law. He refers questions of copyright to other lawyers.
I use a copyright attorney, who runs his own firm, who does nothing but copyright law. He refers questions of patents to other lawyers.
Respectfully, I disagree with you.
I suggest that you don’t have much experience in copyright law disputes.
Everything posted to date has been cut-and-pasted from the actual emails, with the exception of the transcription of the initial phone phone calls, which are marked as approximate.
June 23rd, 2007 at 12:25 am
This would be great if it were all one big scam to promote Smartflix and this guys movie. Otherwise, I don’t care.
June 23rd, 2007 at 12:35 am
Bud Says:
Genius! I only wish that I was so devious.
June 23rd, 2007 at 1:16 am
[...] dispatches from TJICistan » Blog Archive » This post is for you, Robert Tourtelot I recently ran into someone who was a bit confused about copyright law, and wasn’t happy. [...]
June 23rd, 2007 at 1:21 am
Where’s the “I’m a corkhead!” Cafepress t-shirts??
Can we send him some? Along with a nice dictionary.. and, perhaps, a nice prescription?
WHOO. Lovely. I’ve seen exchanges like this, before, but they usually involved 14 year olds hopped up on the anonymity of the web.
Wow.
I feel not unlike when watching the squirrel catapult on Gizmodo — laughing m’self silly while at the same time feeling a bit sorry for the leetle flying rat.
Or in this case, old lying rat.
June 23rd, 2007 at 1:34 am
I really think that this is merely entertainment either on his end or yours… or both.
June 23rd, 2007 at 1:39 am
This alone is worth full weeks of sifting through the Internet. This post is a thing of beauty and a joy forever…the dedication…I have tears in my eyes.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:03 am
[...] Read it all here – http://tjic.com/?p=6135 [...]
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:16 am
Hrm the name is Tourtelot or “Tort a lot”. Seems like a character.
June 23rd, 2007 at 8:20 am
The new definition of irony: the producer of a DIY movie called “Image Harvesting” is ranting about copyright violation.
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:47 am
Did anyone else pickup on the fact that Mr. Tourtelot bought his camera second-hand? Shoud the camera maker be unhappy that he received nothing from this resell?
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:32 am
Matt Volatile
The 1984 exceptions are for phonorecords (and by extension audio cassettes and audio CDs I suspect)
The 1990 exceptions are for certain categories of software.
A dvd video doesn’t fall into either of those categories.
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:35 am
Granted you can disagree with Mr. Versace’s position but the nature of some of the poisonous comments directed at him is very discouraging. In previous posts he’s been characterized as among other things a “douchebag” and a “liar”. I might strongly disagree with his position but I don’t see the need to use those kind of labels. I find it fascinating that individuals who find lawyers so offensive are often the first to engage in similary offensive behavior. Just what is it about anonymity that allows individuals to drop all pretense of civility?
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:49 am
[...] via Boing Boing comes this gem of an exchange, if you dont read Boing Boing go here to check it out, barely credible but totally school yard hilarious, be very glad this guy [...]
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:34 am
[...] part 1 [...]
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:35 am
[...] For comedy relief, check out The Robert Tourtelot saga. [...]
June 23rd, 2007 at 12:34 pm
LOL! While not too detract too much from this page with my lack of legal knowledge. I must say that this has been a funny read!
June 23rd, 2007 at 12:35 pm
I was under the impression that most DVDs are not ‘sold’ but leased with an agreement it is for private use and not rent. It is not the case with all DVDs, but the major ones from studios. A rental place then pays a higher price to be able to rent it. Is this incorrect?
Even if it is correct, I am not saying that the specific DVD in question had such a license agreement.
June 23rd, 2007 at 12:38 pm
“Vincent is able to leap tall buildings in a single bound and on the weekends is a part-time super-hero and short-order cook.”
– found on his bio?
http://versacephotography.com/v2/bio.html
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:50 pm
I have someone who has copied word for word my copyrighted material off my website, is taking my copyrighted images and is using them for profit and is renting out my copyrighted DVD’s.
You’re conflating two separate issues, to your own disadvantage. The rental of legally purchased DVDs is a non-starter from a legal point of view, for reasons laid out by previous commenters.
The use of your marketing copy on the Smartflix site is another issue. If you took exception to Mr. Corcoran’s use of your advertising and marketing copy (and one low-quality image), the most effective solution (not to mention the less expensive and more moral one) would have been to write Mr. Corcoran yourself, asking that he remove the copy or provide proper credit (e.g. a link to your Web site or other citation) for the marketing copy under reasonable terms of Fair Use (another legal doctrine with which you should become familiar). Judging by this thread, Mr. Corcoran seems to be a responsive individual who prefers to settle things without involving attorneys.
Instead, you engaged the services of a lawyer who seems to have severely impaired judgement, and targetted a knowledgeable person who was not easily intimidated. All you’ve accomplished here is turning a large numbers of Internet users – a group inclined to appreciate work and advice like yours – against you. As with many overly litigious individuals whose actions end up backfiring, and regardless of Mr. Tourtelote’s unprofessional behaviour, you have no-one to blame for your misfortune here but yourself.
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Robert H. Tourtelot, part 2…
But wait?there?s more!
Dear Mr. Corcoran: I am in receipt of your e-mail to my client, Mr. XXX. I note your comments about me. I have a proposition for you. I will pay your way to California if you will agree to come and meet me in a gym, the addre…
June 24th, 2007 at 2:24 am
[...] This post is for you, Robert Tourtelot (tags: copyright) [...]
June 24th, 2007 at 11:09 am
[...] I have a few lawyers in the family, few of which I actually like as people. And I may wind-up practicing law myself if other things don’t workout, so I enjoy a good lawyer joke every so often. That’s why I had to share the following conversation with you. [...]
June 25th, 2007 at 1:27 am
[...] Robert H. Tourtelot. Quite an … interesting … *chuckle* … attorney. (tags: hysterical) [...]
June 25th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
It’s a very good job that the lawyer isn’t English – or I’d email him a small amount of advice regarding defamation. Be extremely careful about knocking a professional – stick to the facts and you’re fine, any more and you’re skating dangerously.
Whether or not Mr T is right or wrong, your post goes just a little too far – certainly it would here in the English and Welsh jurisdiction at any rate.
It’s a good job you have a retained lawyer, I’d keep his number handy. Your silly, petty spouting helps folks like me to pay the mortgage.
…and yes,I doknow what I am talking about – for your information I represent only in litigation, and specialise in professional negligence – against lawyers as a defendant in the main.
June 25th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
…another piece of advice.
Knowing that there are some very obvious defamatory comments on this site and keeping them there are not in the least bit clever.
You’re on notice that the comments are defamatory, you may well run the risk of acquiescing consent.
June 25th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
“…. who probably makes less in a year than I gave to charity last year.”
Wow, that guy is giving more money to charity than others make in a year! That’s impressive! Even as impressive as this GREAT web site he’s using to “promote” his law firm. That’s a big laugh: texts are done as gifs and not even rendered properly – not to talk about the overall design. A lot of money for charity and not one cent for a decent web site. And I still believe in Santa Claus …
June 26th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
[...] TJIC | Continue reading [...]
June 26th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
This is one really good argument for working through the machinations of the “evil” industry. Publishers and groups like BMI (for musicians) track performance rights and things like this. Self-publishing can land one in a situation like this. If I were Vincent I’d be happy that my work was being distributed at all.
July 2nd, 2007 at 6:59 pm
[...] Oggi vi parlo di un programmatore anarcho-capitalista, da un blog molto interessante, e di un legale di una altra ditta, in un altra cittá, in un altro stato federale, tutto nel luogo dalel mille possibilitá, gli stati uniti d’america. Questo simpatico programamtore, chiamiamolo TIJC, dopo una chiamata assai strana da parte di un legale di un altra ditta, vive varie avventure. Il legale si fa gioco dell’altezza di TIJC, della sua corporatura, della sua competenza legale, del suo gudagno mensile, lo sfida in a un duello, lo insulta, … ma quest’ultimo rimane freddo. Risponde alle mail del legale, sempre cortese, sempre educato, informando il legale sui usoi errori, e pubblica tutta la storia sul proprio blog. Questo il riassunto, se avente voglia di due risate, potete leggere tutta la saga qui. [...]
July 5th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Well, the only reason I came here was due to a google search for a smartflix phone number since it is nowhere to be found on the smartflix site. There are some interesting titles and I was interested in becoming an affiliate, but I must register in order to even view the terms and conditions for that aspect.
Call me old fashioned but I really prefer the human contact option to be visible somewhere on a business site.
I will go on record thinking even less of lawyers than before I came across this.
July 5th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
KFC, please send me an email at tjicREMOVETHIS@smartflix.com.
July 5th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
2 hours later and no reply, any wonder I prefer a phone number?
July 5th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
KFC, I haven’t received your email.
Did you remove the letters “REMOVETHIS” from the email address before sending?
Mail is sometimes a bit flaky here…if you did sent the email to my real address, I’ll receive it soon. Thanks.
July 5th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
To: com.>
Subject: Smartflix Phone number
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 9:49:24
As requested, I am interested in speaking to someone…
I added back in the remove this…..
July 5th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
screw it, obviously I have issues with trusting someone that wants me to trust them with my CC numbers but does not trust anyone with their ph number.
Too many internet based companies are like this.
You project honesty and wisdom in your dealings above but distrust the public with your lack of confidence in posting anything but a email contact option.
I shall defer to trust anyone who goes to such effort to hide a phone number. examples, paypal, vongo,amazon,netflix,yahoo,smartflix. Trust is a double-edged sword.
July 5th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
“# tjic Says:
July 5th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
KFC, I haven’t received your email.
Did you remove the letters “REMOVETHIS” from the email address before sending?
Mail is sometimes a bit [b] flaky[/b] here…if you did sent the email to my real address, I’ll receive it soon. Thanks.”"
Several hours later…………….. still flaky.
July 9th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Kudo’s to you. This has been the most entertaining hour ive spent in a while. I have know RHT for over 25 years he has always been a blowhard without substance. Why else would he still have to “practice” law at 72 plus years old. I’ll keep the smartflix site on file, very informative, Good Luck
July 20th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Wow. I just read Part 1, and I’m astonished at how unintelligent that lawyer sounds.
Mind you, that was not as astonishing as the fact that the fellow appears to be at least 60-years old. I figured he was a young up-start trying to b.s. his way through an embarrassing situation.
September 8th, 2007 at 8:15 am
[...] ?astounding site now recall this post http://tjic.com/?p=6135 and give comments [...]
September 8th, 2007 at 8:15 am
[...] ?heart-stirring site now drill this occurence http://tjic.com/?p=6135 and give comments [...]
May 4th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
[...] the conversion rate between threatening legal letters and actual lawsuits [...]
December 19th, 2008 at 7:32 am
[...] tjic wrote an interesting post today ondispatches from TJICistan » Blog Archive » This post is for you …Here’s a quick excerpt3) To Airport Customer Service lady: I’ve gotta say, your initial email could’ve been somewhat more clear and articulate. Not to excuse the slow comprehension of the respondee(s) (it is possible that multiple people were responding to … [...]
June 5th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
[...] Almost as much fun as my run in with Robert Tourtelot. [...]