Is Patrick Robinson Going to Free Up Dr. Gene Scott's Copyrights?



Will an effective defense by Patrick Robinson in a copyright infringement case “free up the copyrights” of Dr. Gene Scott’s works? Read on to find out the answer.



I’ve been watching this battle play out with concern, as should anyone with an interest in copyright law, whether they be a small-time production or even Walt Disney Company. The claims being made, and defenses raised in this complicated issue of copyright infringement and claims of copyright abandonment could have a wide range of effects on copyright law. But are any of them favorable to Patrick Robinson’s group?



This case has gone up and down the proverbial field of play, from the initial copyright infringement cases being dismissed to the abandonment theory being defeated in cross-motions for summary judgment. You may be asking, what is a motion for summary judgment, let alone a cross-motion? It’s not that difficult to understand and I’ll walk you through it if you’ll read on.



On one side of the playing field you have Dolores Press Inc. and Pastor Melissa Scott claiming that the works authored by Dr. Gene Scott, the late husband and predecessor of Pastor Melissa Scott, were infringed by the opposing parties; Patrick Robinson, Doc’s Dream LLC., Truth Seekers Inc., and Bobbi Jones.



On the other side Patrick Robinson, et al. filed a “declaratory action,” requesting the court to declare that the copyright protection for the works of Dr. Gene Scott are abandoned and are in the public domain. The legal theory of copyright abandonment is a vague doctrine which requires two elements: (1) an overt act by the copyright owner indicating their desire to abandon their copyrights and (2) the owner allowing the public to copy the work. Robinson’s claim is that this copyright author committed the overt act by publishing the works online.  If this theory were true, copyright claimants would be at risk for publishing their works on Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, etc. These are the wide-ranging effects I was talking about.



As stated above, the infringement cases brought by Dolores/Scott were dismissed on prevailing motions brought by Robinson et al., while their same declaratory action was defeated in cross-motions for summary judgment. A motion for summary judgment is a request for the judge to rule on a set of undisputed facts based on the law. A cross-motion for summary judgment is when both parties to a dispute ask the court to rule against their opponent. In other words, it’s a request for the judge to make a ruling without a trial because their opponent’s case lacks merit, or the law is against them. This means the judge in this case issued his ruling in favor of Dolores/Scott based on the undisputed facts and the law [Judgment].



The purpose of interjecting my perspective is simple:

I’m beginning to doubt Robinson’s authenticity in his call for his supporters to contribute to his fund. I do not believe the fund is adhering to Robinson’s designation and he may be flirting with committing fraud. In Robinson’s early FUMS videos he was claiming that the fund will pay the lawyers to get a ruling on whether Dr. Scott abandoned his copyrights. In his FUMS #38, Robinson confirms this when he said the purpose of the fund is to “Pay the lawyers to get a decision and that’s what we’ve done.” This is a fact, the district court issued its ruling in favor of Dolores/Scott and the appellate affirmed that decision: Scott did not abandon his copyrights. However, in Robinson’s FUMS #39; he’s calling for his supporters to recommit and “Get these lawyers paid” The renewed call to action for the giving of money under false pretenses concerns me." Robinson may be making promises that the pending actions cannot deliver for him. And I believe all his claims of victory are meant to persuade his followers to continue to contribute money. But all is not as Robinson is claiming. Let me explain.



In these forums and on his YouTube channel, Robinson has claimed victory. This is an odd interpretation of the appellate court’s decision. The ruling of the appellate court has been posted online as well as the video of the oral arguments, go check them out. 




What does the ruling say?

It’s quite simple once you read past all the history and details of the cases. The appellate court reversed the decision of the district court to dismiss Dolores/Scott claims of copyright infringement, 4 cases total, these same dismissals that Robinson was celebrating in his FUMS#11, #15, #20 videos. Dolores/Scott will get to have their day in court, charging the defendants, Patrick Robinson, et al., with copyright infringement. Bear in mind that the statutory penalty for willfully infringing on another’s copyright is a fine up to one-hundred, fifty thousand dollars ($150,000.00). This same statute also clearly states that imprisonment is a penalty for infringement, although this is unlikely in this case.



Dolores/Scott will be presenting evidence that the defendants did knowingly and willfully infringe on the claimant’s copyrighted material and should be held liable in the amount of the statutory fine for each infringement. Furthermore, the decision of the district court on cross-motions for summary judgment in favor of Dolores/Scott is affirmed, which is just a fancy word for upheld. Again, this ruling is nothing resembling a victory for Robinson’s group.



What is Robinson celebrating?

Robinson is celebrating that the appellate court is refusing to rule on the “limited abandonment” claim that he brought up midway through the briefing on motion for summary judgment. But this appears to be the appellate court taking care to prevent the defendants from appealing to the full 9th circuit panel for an abuse of discretion by limiting their defenses. The defendant is permitted to defend themselves in any way they deem proper however robust or fatally flawed that defense may be.



How was the ruling in the appellate court a defeat for Robinson?

The district court dismissed each one of Dolores/Scott’s 4 suits. Dolores/Scott appealed the dismissal of these 4 suits asking the appellate court to reverse the district court’s ruling. Robinson opposed these appeals, requesting that the appellate court uphold the district court’s dismissals. But the appellate court sided with Dolores/Scott and reversed the district court’s decisions. In Robinson’s declaratory action, the district court sided, as a matter of law, with Dolores/Scott and granted their motion for summary judgment and simultaneously denied Robinson’s motion. Remember that this meant the court found that the undisputed facts and the law supported Dolores/Scott’s position, that Dr. Gene Scott did not abandon his copyrights. Robinson appealed this decision, asking the appellate court to reverse the district court’s finding. Dolores/Scott opposed this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision and the victory for Dolores/Scott on the abandonment action stands. Therefore, the only case(s) moving forward are Dolores/Scott’s case(s) against Robinson. Dolores/Scott moves into the copyright infringement case(s) armed with the upheld decision that Dr. Scott did not abandon his copyrights. Furthermore, in appeals, such as these being discussed, costs are only awarded to the prevailing party and the appellate court awarded costs to Dolores/Scott in each appeal. These decisions leave Robinson in the same position he was in after Dolores/Scott filed their initial complaint, only now he’s over one-hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) in debt.



I hope you can see why I am confused about Robinson’s dancing in the end zone. He is on defense, there was no interception, and his challenge of the officials was denied. He’s just dancing in the end zone, alone, without the ball and the scoreboard still shows 7-0 Dolores/Scott. I hope Robinson’s supporters will review his FUMS videos for their own understanding. Don’t take my word for it, watch the above-referenced videos and make up your own mind. Did Robinson really win anything with the appellate court’s ruling? Reversing all the previously celebrated dismissals and affirming Robinson’s loss in the district court does not look like a victory. In fact, it looks like Robinson spent an inordinate amount of other people’s money filing motions to dismiss Dolores/Scott’s suits and opposing Dolores/Scott’s appeals, to now celebrate the fact that Dolores/Scott gets to sue him for copyright infringement. I am just speculating, but it appears that the only one getting anything out of this litigation is Robinson’s attorney. That’s just my opinion on the facts and the law, I could be wrong. The facts do seem suspicious though, wouldn’t you say?

The Battle to Perpetuate the Legacy of Dr. Gene Scott

Comments

  1. Moses,
    Nice to meet you, I am very curious how you came to be so intrigued by these cases, certainly there are many cases out there, why these?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello J Gnosis:

      Thank you for the question.

      My mom, who is involved in Scott's ministry, got me interested in these cases. She told me to watch The Battle to Perpetuate the Legacy of Dr. Gene Scott. That started it all. After watching the program I wanted to get the other side of the story. I found the names of the other parties, some court filings, and Robinson's FUMS videos. This became a rabbit hole with no bottom; full of accusations, claims to finding "the smoking gun", alleged witnesses stepping forward to give damning testimony, depositions leading to more accusations, and the claims of victory.

      Ultimately, it is my passion for law that resulted in this blog and my post. But the fact that these cases are so full of drama didn't hurt.

      Delete
  2. Moses,
    I'm glad you have taken an interest and have posted this. It is very difficult to know what the truth is when I can only see what Patrick puts out occasionally and Melissa Scott rarely if ever speaks directly about the actions. Will you be posting more or is this it? If you were to continue I would certainly participate in sharing your blog with a few others I know are interested in a genuine legal explanation of the facts. Let me know.........

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear J. Gnosis:

      I intend to post on this matter until its completion. I would love for this blog to be shared, the purpose of the post is to spark discussion and questions regarding the actions.

      As for the difficulty of knowing the truth regarding these cases, it really is clear. The courts put everything in writing and lay it out with specificity. In the current matters the cluster of cases can be viewed this way:

      1) Dolores Press, Inc. and Melissa Scott through a series of complaints sued Patrick Robinson, Doc’s Dream LLC., Truth Seekers, Inc. and Bobbi Jones. Furthermore, Dolores/Scott attempted to sue the parties in a cross complaint to the action brought by Dream/Robinson (see below). The district court judge had dismissed each complaint upon motion by the defendants (Dream/Robinson). The plaintiffs (Dolores/Scott) appealed these decisions.

      2) Dream/Robinson sued Dolores/Scott in a declaratory action, seeking to prove that Dr. Gene Scott had abandoned his copyrights. This case was also dismissed by the district judge upon motion by the defendants. The plaintiffs (Dream/Robinson) appealed. This matter was submitted in 2017 and the appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded back to the district court.

      3) Dream/Robinson case came back to the district court with instructions to the judge that the plaintiff will amend their complaint, requiring they concede that Dr. Gene Scott did in fact own each copyright to each motion picture, before the alleged abandonment. Plaintiff complied and the case proceeded.

      4) Both parties conducted their discovery and filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The judge in this case ruled in favor of Dolores/Scott: Dr. Gene Scott did not abandon his copyrights. Dream/Robinson appealed this decision.

      5) In February 2019 the parties presented their arguments before the appellate court and several weeks later, the court’s order is revealed:

      a. The ruling in favor of Dolores/Scott’s motion for summary judgment stands
      b. The dismissals of the Dolores/Scott cases are reversed.

      Dream/Robinson are being sued by Dolores/Scott for copyright infringement. The only addition the appellate court made was, Dream/Robinson may argue “limited abandonment” or “naked license” as a defense at trial.

      All the above are undisputed facts. I have not interjected any opinion. There isn’t any room for interpretation or argument with these facts.

      Please feel free to share my blog with anyone who is interested.

      Thank you.

      Delete
  3. Moses,
    That is very helpful. You said you watched FUMS video#39, Patrick appears to have a different opinion. He seems to believe that the original case is still going and the Appellate Court is "demanding" that Judge Real examine or revisits the Limited Abandonment theory.

    It seems that he is unaware that he lost and she won, he appealed and lost his appeal. Game over except for the fact that now he and Bobbi Jones are now being sued because the other three lawsuits previously dismissed are nor reinstated. Does that about sum it up?

    Do you know of any other lawsuits related to these? I heard Bobbi Jones and her family had been sued. Is that true?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Erik Dawson shared your Blog at FUMS Video Discussion Group:
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/1696698493888239/
    That's how I found you.

    You might consider sharing your blog at AFGS:
    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/alt.fan.gene-scott
    But be warned, this is a cutthroat group that will reject you and anything
    you have to say...Just sayn'

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you. I took your suggestion and posted it in the google group. We'll see what happens from there.

      Delete
  5. >>> The facts...

    The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has sent the "Dolores/Scott" verses "Patrick Robinson, Doc’s Dream LLC., Truth Seekers Inc., and Bobbi Jones" case back to the Federal District Court. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in essence and in stated fact, ruled that the Federal District Court, in several incidences, did not act properly in arriving at it's decision. Recognizing and understanding this, "Patrick Robinson, Doc’s Dream LLC., Truth Seekers Inc., and Bobbi Jones" appealed to the 9th Circuit Court.

    The results...

    "Dolores/Scott" did NOT achieve what they sought; that was to uphold the decision of the Federal District Court (i.e., the decision lower federal court of Judge Manuel Real), which was NOT DONE. Because of this, the decision of the 9th Circuit Court was NOT a victory for Dolores/Scott.

    If it had been a "victory" for Dolores/Scott, the 9th Circuit Court would have NOT sent the case back to the Federal District Court, and would have upheld the decision of the Federal District Court; the 9th Circuit Court did no such thing. Dolores/Scott won NOTHING.

    Any claim that Dolores/Scott has won this case is pure nonsense and ignorance believed only by uninformed people or spread by liars seeking to deceive.

    >>> As posted before...

    THE TRUTH WILL NOT BE SILENCED

    LISTEN TO DR. GENE SCOTT IN HIS OWN WORDS;

    youtu.be/_z9UJurwGJY

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I read this exact reply in the google group. I do not understand what the purpose of this video is, that you posted. This video is not referenced in the appellate hearing or in the order. Is there a reason you post this video in response to my review of the cases? Do you believe this video demonstrates a legal authority?

      I sincerely beg your pardon, but I believe you are mistaken about the appellate court's ruling. I have provided citations to the relevant federal law as evidence in support of the ruling, it is impossible to view the facts any other way.

      Delete
    2. The 9th Circuit sent it back to the district court, Dolores/Scott won and achieved nothing. If they did, tell me what "Dolores/Scott" achieved? Did they get a ruling, a motion, that there was no abandonment of the files as they wanted? Did the 9th rule in favor of "Dolores/Scott"? No. It's going back to the district court with more or less an order for the district court to review ALL the evidence and motions.

      As I noted; If it had been a "victory" for Dolores/Scott, the 9th Circuit Court would have NOT sent the case back to the Federal District Court, and would have upheld the decision of the Federal District Court; the 9th Circuit Court did no such thing. Dolores/Scott won NOTHING.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Patrick Robinson Gives an Update in His FUMS #41

Attorneys Dismissed, Motion for Summary Judgment Denied! Is this the Beginning of the End?