Law N Motion

A new document was added to Pacer today. It is the order denying Plaintiff’s, Doc’s Dream LLC, motion to consolidate cases. You can view this if you have a pacer account, otherwise it will likely be made available at justia.com soon. This order proves what I had cited in this blog: the plaintiff and their lawyers were sorely mistaken at best, or they were trying to deceive the judge, at worst. If you aren’t aware of the case, I’ll quickly summarize: Plaintiff, Patrick Robinson, spiked the ball after receiving the appellate court’s order. In the order, the appellate made clear that it was reversing the district court’s decision to dismiss defendant’s, Dolores Press and Melissa Scott, counterclaim as well as their complaints of copyright infringement. Robinson, along with many cheerleaders in the alt fan Gene Scott forum, insisted that the appellate partially reversed their defeat and remanded their case for trial. I posted these details in this blog, see below. The parti...

Today I want to talk about the defeat suffered by Bobbi Jones et al. when the court granted Plaintiff, Melissa Scott’s, motion to dismiss the counter-claim. This is a significant defeat for Jones and her co-defendants. In her counterclaim, Jones attempted to initiate a declaratory action against Melissa Scott. The counterclaim alleged 3 controversies: 1) The alleged infringement was actually fair use 2) Plaintiff’s conduct violates defendant, Jones’ et al, First Amendment right to free speech 3) Dr. Scott’s works cannot be copyrighted because his words constitute the “the word of God” (This is a simplistic explanation of the controversies within defendant’s counterclaim). I couldn’t help but notice, the naked license and limited abandonment theories were not argued at all, in Jones’ counterclaim. I was certain that it would be there. But I guess my theory that these cases are woven together with Doc’s Dream, LLC. was incorrect. Either that or the parties are putting on a show for t...

After further research, I’ve noticed there are other cases of alleged copyright infringement filed by Melissa Scott; Melissa Scott v Bobbi Jones, Tina Perida, and Michael Evans. In this action Jones, et al has filed a counterclaim and Scott opposed by filing a motion to dismiss. Judge Real has decided that the motion is suitable for a decision on the papers, meaning he will not hear oral arguments. This could go either way, but after reading the moving papers and opposition, I believe Scott has the advantage. For one thing, Jones’ attorney is attempting to try it as a first amendment case. The Supreme Court of the United States, in Harper & Row Publishers v. Nation Enterprises 471 U.S. 539 (1985) held, in part, that copyright law is a permissible speech restriction. This SCOTUS ruling, if on point, renders the argument of copyright infringement as an abuse of Jones’ first amendment rights, baseless and with little hope of prevailing. Remember that a district judge cannot overri...

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 playi...