top of page
comment #:
average rating is null out of 5
average rating is null out of 5
In a recent case Jazan Wild v. NBC / Heroes, judge Feess dismissed the case without even a summary judgment. Matters of fact are suppose to be decided by a jury not a judge. Steven T. Lowe recently published an article titled 'Death Of Copyright' in which the article states, 'that Copyright Infringement claims against motion picture studios and television net-works, for all intents and purposes, are dead. Of the 48 (now over 50) copyright infringement cases against studios or networks that resulted in a ?nal judgment within the Second and Ninth Circuits (and the district courts within those circuits) in the last two decades, the studios and networks prevailed in all of them—and nearly always on motions for summary judgment. In fact, in the last 20 years, only two publicly available copyright infringement cases (published or unpublished) against studios or networks proceeded to jury trial—with verdicts for the defendants.' This is who judge Feess allowed to get by with copyright infringement... 'Aron Coleite (Heroes Writer) ... Using Copyrighted Material For So-Called Inspiration' Tim Kring 'We’ll take an idea from the guy who gets our coffee, you know?',37975/ We had a storyboardist from Heroes tell us how that they were told to rip ' The Fly' and given comic books with post-it notes showing which panels to rip. That's not influence... That's stealing. They will never know, the joy of calling in ones spouse or family to first read something one wrote. To wait eagerly for a response. To be proud when the story is first published, and hits the shelves. All along knowing, I wrote that. I fought for that. I'm proud that I took a stand against Corporate Justice. JAZAN WILD Here is a pdf of the Heroes Storyboards, 'The Fly' rip off, and others properties being used without the consent of the copyright owners: Here's some of the judge's bias comments put up against the facts: In a decision against Rihanna, Judge Scheindlin, decided that LaChapelle's (Photographer) selection and orchestration of props and the way he controlled 'angles, poses and lighting' do rise to elements that can be copyrighted. However, Judge Feess looked at the evidence in the pdf's and found nothing similar. One judge rules correctly, and one judge does not. (When a major network or studio is involved.) After looking at the pdf's... I ask, if that is not copyright infringement, what is? When should one defend his copyright?
7/15/19, 2:12 AM
Hon. Gary A. Feess

Send reply to the comment poster:

note: comment poster will be able to reply directly to your email

bottom of page