CaseClaim typeDescription of WorkDescription of Infringement (Truncated at 1200 characters if longer)Description of harm suffered and relief sought (Truncated at 1200)ClaimantClaimant Law FirmRespondentMost recent filing
22-CCB-0152-DMCANANAWe received a number of demands and claims from the CBD Advertising Agency LTD clients, because they were frustrated with https://cbdadvertising.agency/ services, but because of the same design they desided that we are the same website. Our employees spent hour spent hours of work explaining that we have nothing in common with https://cbdadvertising.agency/.Local Profy LLCnoneCBD Advertising Agency LTDClaim
22-CCB-0151-DMCANANAFor years, I have actively enforced my copyrights against unauthorized use. Most infringers are typically located overseas, trying to sell blurry, pixelated/distorted prints that they offer for sale by lazily uploading my images to quick, print-on-demand service websites. I've issued DMCA takedown notices, and after these infringers make a quick buck, they usually delete their accounts and disappear. However, lately there has been a disturbing trend of brazen infringers filing false counter-notices because there is no consequence to them. The burden of proof is on artists like me who the infringers count on not being able to afford the cost, time and emotional turmoil to file a Federal lawsuit against them. I take great pride in my 5-star reviews, providing personal customer service and high quality products to my loyal patrons. Aside from lost revenue, by reproducing and profiting off of poor quality reproductions of my copyrighted artwork, the Respondent is harming my reputation as a graphics artist and small business. It also dilutes my brand's value as unsuspecting customers may have the perception that my work is not original and other infringing parties will think it's freDocket number:nonePinelli StewartClaim
22-CCB-0150infringement-DMCAThe Cyber Garden Reflective Print - A Pictorial and graphic features identified separately from and capable of existing independently of the utilitarian aspects of a useful article.Unauthorized reproduction and distribution of Dolls Kill's copyrighted work, and misrepresentation of facts in counter-notice sent to the service provider.Loss of revenue and goodwill and/or reputation Relief sought: Actual damages suffered as a result of the infringement and any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages.Dolls Kill, Inc.noneDexter RenterClaim
22-CCB-0149infringementPhotograph of the family room of a home located in Johnston, IAKerry Bern (Claimant) is a professional architecture/interior photographer with over 10 years of experience based in Ankeny, IA. Claimant is the creator and copyright owner of the photograph 250A9084.jpg. The photograph was first published on July 22nd, 2018. Claimant registered the photograph with the USCO under Registration Certificate VA 2-123-376 with an effective date of registration of September 19th, 2018. Respondent is a home remodeling firm located in Fort Worth, TX. Respondent owns and operates the website www.luxuryhomeremodelingdfw.com and Facebook page www.facebook.com/luxuryhomeremodelingdfw which it uses to promote its business. On or about December 20th, 2021, Claimant discovered his photograph being used on the Respondent’s website claiming it represents a home remodel project that the Respondent completed in Frisco, TX. Claimant did not grant permission for Respondent to copy, display or distribute his photograph on Respondent’s website or Facebook page to promote Respondent’s business. Claimant retained the law firm SRIP Law to attempt to negotiate a settlement with the Respondent. SRIP Law emailed a demand letter to the Respondent on February 16th, 2022Since the Claimant timely registered the work under section 412, Claimant elects an award of statutory damages against Respondent in an amount up to $15,000 pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 1504(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I).Kerry BernnoneLuxury Home Remodeling DFWClaim
22-CCB-0148infringementphoto of bride and groomI’m here to collect $5000 from Island Entertainment and Spring House Hotel. The business took a photograph of mine and used it in 2 magazine print advertisements over the course of the year. They did not have permission or the rights to that photo. I learned when confronting them over this issue that they were about to take out a third advertisement. Each advertisement cost $5,000. They spent money to advertise the business, but did not properly pay for the art used in that advertisement. I sent the owner Frank an invoice to collect the fees for the use of that photo in a commercial advertisement. He repeatedly refused my invoices and tried to intimidate and shame me for the simple practice of collecting payment for my work and time. When I called again to pursue the invoice after 6+months of it going ignored, he paid lawyers to send me a cease and desist order to prevent me from communicating with his business and pursuing payment. He claims he understood he had the rights to use this photo. He did not. I have in writing that I gave his marketing manager permission to share a photo of mine in social media, with an explicit credit to my account. No other use case. This permiI would receive multiple inquries a year and opportunites to photograph weddings at the spring house hotel which i can no longer take because of this issue and the 'cease and decease' their lawyers sent me, also in good faith- they stole from me. I lost 4500$ worth of business billing hours as a result of pursuing this claim including all the information gathering and communications with the defendants lawyers.Mikhail Glabets Photography LCCnoneIsland entertainment dba Spring House HotelClaim
22-CCB-0147-DMCANANAAs a self-employed person - journalist and analyst on a freelance, my articles are my only source of income, and the specialty and uniqueness of my work help me to support myself. So, the use of my intellectual property (my articles) without my permission deprives me of my means of livelihood. Based on that, I kindly ask you to oblige the resource moshennik.eu and online service provider Google.com to remove my articles from the website moshennik.eu and Google search results.Ekaterina BlagayanoneViktor DobroserdovClaim
22-CCB-0146infringementLive Sports Pay-Per-View ProgramClaimant Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. ("Claimant") is a Pennsylvania corporation that specializes in commercially licensing premier sporting events to commercial locations such as bars, restaurants, lounges, clubhouses and similar establishments. By written agreement, Claimant was granted the exclusive right to license, display, and distribute publicly [17 U.S.C. § 106(4) & (5)] the Ultimate Fighting Championship® 242: Khabib Nurmagomedov vs. Dustin Poirier mixed martial arts program, including all undercard bouts and commentary, on September 7, 2019 (the "Program") for businesses such as the business made the basis of this claim. Commercial businesses such as the business made the basis of this suit were not authorized to receive and exhibit the Program in their commercial business without authorization from Claimant. Respondents Tango Bravo Charlie, Inc. and Thomas Halverson (collectively the "Respondents") owned, operated, maintained, and controlled the commercial business known as Shooters Bar & Grille located at 6 N. Maple, Watertown, SD 57201 (the “Establishment”) on the date of the Program. Respondent Thomas Halverson is an individual who resides in the State of SoutClaimant seeks statutory damages in the discretion of the Board, of up to the maximum amount of $15,000.00 for the Respondents’ willful violation of 17 U.S.C. § 501 and for Claimant’s attorney’s fees, interest, and costs of proceedings.Joe Hand Promotions, Inc.Jekielek & JanisTango Bravo Charlie, Inc.Claim
22-CCB-0145infringementshort video of eagles locking talonsMy video clip copyright # 1-11692301741 was taken from my Instagram account, cropped to remove my watermark which read "Mark Smith Photography" and then used twice in their video at the above referenced url. The moment I learned of this, I filed a complaint with Youtube. Youtube responded quickly and removed the video. The respondent emailed me the following day offering to pay a small licensing fee for the stolen content. I did not respond. The respondent emailed again a couple of days later asking me to name a price for licensing the video. I responded with a price of $50,000. The respondent refused my offer and filed a counter claim stating fair use.My video clip that was stolen is widely known and was used in a way that shed bad light on me. The stolen clip was used alongside other graphic content that I would never associate myself with. My reputation as an ethical wildlife photographer was damaged. The respondent also monetized the video profiting off of my hard work.Daniel M SmithnoneUmair ZaibOrder Denying Request to Link Daniel M Smith with the Daniel M Smith party
22-CCB-0144infringementPhotographMr. Beck copied and posted Mr. Andrews' copyrighted photographs to Mr. Beck's Facebook feed without proper license or permission from Mr. Andrews. Mr. Beck copied and posted Mr. Andrews' copyrighted photographs to illustrate a advertisement for a rental property.Mr. Andrews is a commercial photographer who relies on the proper licensing of his copyrighted photographs. Mr. Andrews charges license fees for the proper use of his copyrighted photographs. Mr. Beck failed to properly license eighteen of Mr. Andrews' copyrighted photographs.Philip AndrewsThe Law Office of David C. Deal, P.L.C.John T BeckClaim
22-CCB-0143infringementApplication Icon DesignWillful Infringement: a representative of Wells Fargo received a copy of the infringed work in March 2018: Sent to Wells Fargo by William Grecia representative: https://share.icloud.com/photos/0b38ex0VdkwoMSeN8FeDbfPMw Confirm receive by Wells Fargo Zelle representative: https://share.icloud.com/photos/027Cvt5c_EwYdLLBPWAtTYW4gWells Fargo is has allowed collusion from its owned subsidiary Early Warning Services LLC to use illegal anti-trust methods to stop and limit William Grecia’s entry into the market since 2017. William Grecia seeks the full $30,000 remedy while retaining the right to Opt Out to a full Copyright Infringement filing pending on the discovery production of total distributed users of the Wells Fargo online and mobiles apps in the home district of EDPA.William GrecianoneWells Fargo & CompanyClaim
22-CCB-0142infringementIcon Design for applicationsThe infringer's representative received a tangible copy of the copyright owner's protected design on March 14, 2020. See discovery evidence: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8cbn8268ittz2ki/Screen%20Shot%202022-09-02%20at%208.10.13%20PM.png?dl=0 Copyright owners contacted Twitter DMCA portal and they refused to enforce the Takedown request making Twitter an instant Contributory Infringer.Public confusion over the Zelle application misuse of the copyright icon with that of the Copyright owner's own products and services. Copyright owner seeks immediate takedown of the infringing post and disablement of the infringing user's entire account until resolution. Copyright owner seeks the full remedy of $30,000 in damages if Twitter refuses to comply.William GrecianoneTwitter, IncClaim
22-CCB-0141infringementTrue Life Story of Dr. Dippold growing up in foster care. Melissa Mulhollan is the editor on the project and her name is listed on the cover.TikTok Melissa Mulhollan has a private TiKTOK acount with 10 videos playing videos of me holding up the book that at the time was being published by PrinciplesLLC. Since July 1, 2022 ZeeT Publishing obtained exclusive publication rights for the said book. Melissa Mulhollan was notified in writing about the change in publisher and notified and requested multiple times to remove 10 TikToK videos advertising the book and Dr. Dippold as being published by her company Pfrinciples LLC. To date she has blocked Dr. Dippold from the account so she can not see that they are still up and being advertised. This in itself is 10 accounts of copyright infringement. This is deliberate wrongful acts on her part. MelissaMulhollan.com On her personal website she has a section called Just Another Slice ( Again she was notified that she is NOT allowed to advertise or market the book in any manner.) She has a picture of the book and an entire message defaming Dr. Dippold on her personal site claiming she is co-author. Melissa Thompsom Mulhollan Facebook She has a picture of the book on this site telling people not to buy the version under ZeeT Publishing. Again defaming Dr. Dippold. We have picI am seeking the max claim of 30,000. Melissa Mulhollan has three facebook post going asking people not to by the book from Amazon that list ZeeT Publishing as the publisher. We have a copy of a conversation where one person stated that she was going to by the book but Melissa Mulhollan told them not to. We have pictures of Melissa Mulhollan engaging in 41 conversations misrepresenting herself and not clarifying for people that she is not the copyright holder. Plus she is encouraging people to share the post. This is deliberate and wrongful behavior. One of her friends made a false review on Amazon with a 1 star rating stating that the book was fraudelent published by Zeet and the "editor is the author too." This lowered the ranking on Amazon impacting the sales. All of Melissa's infringements are not by accident and are on purpose wrongful doing. If there are any attorney fee's I am requesting the CCB board to consider her being responsible for those fees. Due to the defaming comments, her public claims calling me an abuser (I have a picture of the post), her claims I stole the book ( I have a picture of the post) it is not only affecting my author credibility but I am a psychZeet Publishing LLCnoneMelissa MulhollanOrder Dismissing Without Prejudice
22-CCB-0140infringementNight-time photo of Broadway in Downtown Nashville, TN (IMG Nashville-Classics-Downtown-Broadway-0481.jpg)Respondent saved and uploaded a screenshot of the copyright image from Claimants website. Respondent posted this image to referenced online locations to advertise and promote a commercial event. Infringement was found after event was completed and usage of copyright image had benefited Respondents business venture. Attempted contact with Respondent on September 28, 2020 via an attorney without settlement success. Documentation supporting is attached to case submission.Seeking monetary relief in the amount of $2,500 for the infringement made by the Respondent by advertising with and use of copied imagery by Claimant resulting in ticket event sales and profits of an unknown amount. Claimant works and relies on income as a freelance commercial photographer. The unapproved usage of imagery creates a burden on the Claimant in the following ways: 1) Reduction of passive income through online SEO-driven advertising. Originating website makes income based on advertising. Advertising revenue is dependent on active traffic. The active traffic is reduced when original imagery is duplicated, as SEO engines calculate this into originality of content and results in lower traffic direction to the original single-source posting. ; 2) Direct licensing fee loss. The cost of licensing the imagery was bypassed blatantly (by capturing the image as a screenshot. ; 3) An established business operating commercial for-profit events for years, PEM, the Respondent, infringed upon the Claimants copyright in a direct manner to boost sales and extend their profit for the promoted event. As such established business, the Respondent would be aware of the harm and legality of tSouthern Fatty Media, LLCnonePremier Event Management LLC, Attn: Bill BurkeClaim
22-CCB-0139infringement2-D artwork depicting the history of American house stylesThe infringing party has been selling a duplicate of our copyright work on Etsy.com. When we submitted a DMCA takedown request, the infringing party filed a counter notice.We have lost revenue to this infringing party when customers purchased their counterfeit version instead of ours. It has also diluted our brand's value as having numerous sellers purporting to own our designs makes our work appear to not be our original work.Pop Chart Lab, Inc.noneSione TuaiClaim
22-CCB-0138infringementPhotographPacific Tax Pros copied and posted Mr. Pearson's copyrighted photograph to its commercial website and Instagram feed without proper license or permission from Mr. Pearson.Mr. Pearson is a commercial photographer who relies on the proper licensing of his copyrighted photographs. Mr. Pearson charges license fees for the proper use of his copyrighted photographs. Pacific Tax Pros failed to properly license Mr. Pearson's copyrighted photograph.David C DealThe Law Office of David C. Deal, P.L.C.Pacific Tax ProsOrder Granting Request to Amend Claim
22-CCB-0137infringementGroup registration of photographsClaimant Urbanlip.com LTD is a London based imaging company specializing in health and beauty images. Respondent is the owner and operator of the website https://faviana.com which is a website that promotes and sells the Respondent’s clothing and products . On or about August 2020, Claimant discovered that their photograph was being displayed on Respondent's website in an blog post designed to push traffic to the Respondent’s website and promote it’s business.Claimant seeks an award of actual damages and disgorgement of all of Respondent’s profits attributable to the infringement as provided by 17 U.S.C. § 1504(e)(1)(A)(i) and 17 U.S.C. §504(b) in an amount to be proven or, in the alternative, and at Claimant’s election, an award for statutory damages against Respondent in an amount up to $15,000 per work infringed pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 1504(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I), whichever is larger.Urbanlip.com LtdThe Law Firm of Higbee and AssociatesFaviana International IncClaim
22-CCB-0136infringementPhotographVisionary Financial copied and posted Mr. Verch's copyrighted photographs to its commercial website without proper license or permission from Mr. Verch. Mr. Verch makes the images available for use under a Creative Commons 2.0 license, but Visionary Financial followed none of the published terms.Mr. Verch is a commercial photographer who relies on the proper licensing of his copyrighted photographs. Mr. Verch charges license fees for the proper use of his copyrighted photographs. Visionary Financial failed to properly license two of Mr. Verch's copyrighted photographs.Marco C VerchThe Law Office of David C. Deal, P.L.C.Visionary Financial LLCClaim
22-CCB-0135infringementPhotographDiscount Fence copied and posted Mr. Beeman's copyrighted photograph to its commercial website without proper license or permission from Mr. Beeman.Mr. Beeman is a commercial photographer who relies on the proper licensing of his copyrighted photographs. Mr. Beeman charges license fees for the proper use of his copyrighted photographs. Discount Fence failed to properly license Mr. Beeman's copyrighted photograph. Mr. Beeman timely registered his image and is therefore eligible for statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504-5.Josh C BeemanThe Law Office of David C. Deal, P.L.C.Discount Fence Supply, Inc.Claim
22-CCB-0134infringementPhotographAlpine SB Solutions copied and posted Mr. Buisse's copyrighted photograph to its commercial website without proper license or permission from Mr. Buisse.Mr. Buisse is a commercial photographer who relies on the proper licensing of his copyrighted photographs. Mr. Buisse charges license fees for the proper use of his copyrighted photographs. Alpine SB Solutions failed to properly license Mr. Buisse's copyrighted photograph.Alex C BuisseThe Law Office of David C. Deal, P.L.C.Jessica GranishClaim
22-CCB-0133infringementSound Recording, Production, Musical ArrangementSome contract was signed for the subject song. Song was released without a record contract and the SR was stolen from the claimant. Relief requested return of the copyright return of the SR recordings and full damages for $30,000.A contract was signed for the subject song. But the Song was released without a record contract and the SR was stolen from the claimant. Song was represented by a demo not intended for public release and stolen from the claimant and released without the claimants knowledge and without a record contract with the claimant for the group the global Gonks. This release was not discovered until two months ago. Claimant possesses an example of that recording for review by the board. The song represents a once a year special situation for military veterans and could have made the claimant well in excess of $30,000 for this song which represents Veterans Day had it not been stolen by the defendants. Relief requested return of the copyright return of the SR recordings and full damages for $30,000.Leslie M FradkinnoneSpirit Music Group© 2022 I'll Be There Tonight
22-CCB-0132infringementPhotographMartin Fein Interests copied and posted Mr. Lee's copyrighted photograph to a video advertising real property. Martin Fein Interests posted Mr. Lee's photograph in a video posted to its Facebook feed, and did so without proper license or permission from Mr. Lee.Mr. Lee is a commercial photographer who relies on the proper licensing of his copyrighted photographs. Mr. Lee charges license fees for the proper use of his copyrighted photographs. Martin Fein Interests failed to properly license Mr. Lee's copyrighted photograph.Jerome LeeThe Law Office of David C. Deal, P.L.C.Martin Fein Interests Ltd. d/b/a The Belmont Luxury Apartment HomesClaim
22-CCB-0131infringementPhotographVan Valen Associates copied and posted Mr. Iwasaki's copyrighted photograph to its social media (Facebook) feed without proper license or permission from Mr. Iwasaki.Mr. Iwasaki is a commercial photographer who relies on the proper licensing of his copyrighted photographs. Mr. Iwasaki charges license fees for the proper use of his copyrighted photographs. Van Valen Associates failed to properly license Mr. Iwasaki's copyrighted photograph.Rich IwasakiThe Law Office of David C. Deal, P.L.C.Van Valen Associates, Inc.Claim
22-CCB-0130infringementPhotographBaroque Travel copied and posted Mr. Havel's copyrighted photograph to its social media (Facebook, Instagram) without proper license or permission from Mr. Havel.Mr. Havel is a commercial photographer who relies on the proper licensing of his copyrighted photographs. Mr. Havel charges license fees for the proper use of his copyrighted photographs. Baroque Travel failed to properly license twelve of Mr. Havel's copyrighted photographs. Mr. Havel timely registered his image and is therefore eligible for statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504-5.Tomáš HavelThe Law Office of David C. Deal, P.L.C.Baroque Travel, LLCClaim
22-CCB-0129infringementPhotographVersatile Office Trailers copied and posted Mr. Jenkins' copyrighted photograph to its commercial website without proper license or permission from Mr. Jenkins.Mr. Jenkins is a commercial photographer who relies on the proper licensing of his copyrighted photographs. Mr. Jenkins charges license fees for the proper use of his copyrighted photographs. Versatile Office Trailers failed to properly license Mr. Jenkins' copyrighted photograph.Arno JenkinsThe Law Office of David C. Deal, P.L.C.Versatile Office TrailorsClaim
22-CCB-0128infringementPhotographSt. James Chamber of Commerce copied and posted Mr. Moore's' copyrighted photographs to its commercial website without proper license or permission from Mr. Moore.Mr. Moore is a commercial photographer who relies on the proper licensing of his copyrighted photographs. Mr. Moore charges license fees for the proper use of his copyrighted photographs. St. James Chamber of Commerce failed to properly license Mr. Moore's copyrighted photograph. Mr. Moore is due the cost of a proper license for the images at issue.Paul MooreThe Law Office of David C. Deal, P.L.C.St. James Chamber of CommerceClaim
22-CCB-0127infringementPhotographAir Charter Advisors copied and posted Mr. Kruglov's copyrighted photographs to its commercial website without proper license or permission from Mr. Kruglov. Mr. Kruglov makes the images available for use under a Creative Commons 2.0 license, but Air Charter Advisors followed none of the published terms.Mr. Kruglov is a commercial photographer who relies on the proper licensing of his copyrighted photographs. Mr. Kruglov charges license fees for the proper use of his copyrighted photographs. Air Charter Advisors failed to properly license twelve of Mr. Kruglov's copyrighted photographs. Mr. Kruglov is due the cost of a proper license for the images at issue.Roman KruglovThe Law Office of David C. Deal, P.L.C.Air Charters Advisors, Inc.Claim
22-CCB-0126infringementEssay on arts, general reflections on art with a focus on photoshop artist Tigran TsitoghdzyanThe domain www.ttigran.com is under Tigran T. control for commercial and advertising purposes. See attached Exhibits proving the fact. The author gave permission for a one-time printing of the text as part of a catalog, printed in paper, in the past, in the form a book, in 2015, but never granted unbounded permission of use of the text after that under any other form, and never for online publication, and even less gave the author the text for Tigran T. to copyright it. On his website the text bears at the end a note indicating that T.T. holds its copyright, which is utterly false. He has been taking advantage of the Plaintiff's work for his own improper enrichment. This infringement has been committed by him willfully, misleads the public, and it is a gross falsehood. See attached Exhibits proving the fact.The harm is financial, since the Defendant takes unbounded advantage of the Plaintiff's copyrighted work without proper permission. The harm is also public defamation, in the clear view that the Defendant, not happy enough by using the text online without permision to do so, has been exhibiting, since 2016, the next inscription next to it "Copyrighted Tigran Tsitoghdzyan", which is utterly false. This defames the author of the text, misleads the public, falsifies publicly the status of the literary work in an egregious, willful manner.Arthur BaldernoneTigran TsitoghdzyanClaim
22-CCB-0125infringementPhotographOzy Media copied and posted Mr. Richert's copyrighted photographs to its commercial website without proper license or permission from Mr. Richert. Mr. Richert makes the images available for use under a Creative Commons 2.0 license, but Ozy Media followed none of the published terms.Mr. Richert is a commercial photographer who relies on the proper licensing of his copyrighted photographs. Mr. Richert charges license fees for the proper use of his copyrighted photographs. Ozy Media failed to properly license two of Mr. Richert's copyrighted photographs. Mr. Richert is due the cost of a proper license for the images at issue.Marcus RichertThe Law Office of David C. Deal, P.L.C.Ozy Media, Inc.Claim
22-CCB-0124infringementPhotographsOzy Media copied and posted Mr. Proimos' copyrighted photographs to its commercial website without proper license or permission from Mr. Proimos. Mr. Proimos makes the images available for use under a Creative Commons 2.0 license, but Ozy Media followed none of the published terms.Mr. Proimos is a commercial photographer who relies on the proper licensing of his copyrighted photographs. Mr. Proimos charges license fees for the proper use of his copyrighted photographs. Ozy Media failed to properly license twelve of Mr. Proimos's copyrighted photographs. Mr. Proimos is due the cost of a proper license for the images at issue.Alex ProimosThe Law Office of David C. Deal, P.L.C.Ozy Media, Inc.Claim
22-CCB-0123infringementPhotographs of car hood logosInside.com copied and posted without proper license or permission Mr. Radic's copyrighted photographs to its commercial website. Mr. Radic makes the images at issue in this case available under a Creative Commons 2.0 license, but Inside.com failed to follow any of the terms specified under the CC 2.0 license.Mr. Radic is a commercial photographer who relies on the proper licensing of his copyrighted photographs. Mr. Radic charges license fees for the proper use of his copyrighted photographs. Inside.com failed to properly license twelve of Mr. Radic's copyrighted photographs. Mr. Radic is due the cost of a proper license for the images at issue.Ivan RadicThe Law Office of David C. Deal, P.L.C.Inside.com, Inc.Claim
22-CCB-0122infringementPhotograph of subway trainEscape Quest LLC copied and posted Mr. Schumin's copyrighted photograph to its commercial website without proper license or permission. The infringing use of Mr. Schumin's copyrighted photograph appeared next to a description of the Washington, D.C. Metrorail.Mr. Schumin is a commercial photographer who relies on the proper licensing of his copyrighted photographs. Mr. Schumin charges license fees for the proper use of his copyrighted photographs. Escape Quest failed to properly license Mr. Schumin's copyrighted photograph. Mr. Schumin is due the cost of a proper license for the image at issue.Ben SchuminThe Law Office of David C. Deal, P.L.C.Escape Quest, LLCClaim
22-CCB-0121-DMCANANAAs a self-employed person - journalist and analyst on a freelance, my articles are my only source of income, and the specialty and uniqueness of my work help me to support myself. So, the use of my intellectual property (my articles) without my permission deprives me of my means of livelihood. Based on that, I kindly ask you to oblige the resource komentish.com and online service provider Google.com to remove my articles from the website komentish.com and Google search results.Ruslan BarabanovnoneVitaly BogachevOrder Denying Request to Link RUSLAN BARABANOV with the Ruslan Barabanov party
22-CCB-0120infringementOriginal Icon Design presented to infringer's representative for partnership on March 20, 2020Under section "How to Pay it Safe with Zelle", second (middle) image infringes the registered icon presented to infringer's representative on March 20, 2020Market confusion of competing service mark use of the copyright design. Copyright Owners seeks infringement relief up to the maximum Copyright Claims Board recovery of $30,000 for the single infringement count.William GrecianoneEarly Warning Services LLCClaim
22-CCB-0119infringementPhotographs of real propertyThe Pearsons copied and posted Mr. Pennell's copyrighted photographs to advertise and market a rental property listed on www.vrbo.com, without proper license or permission from Mr. Pennell, the copyright holder.Mr. Pennell is a commercial photographer who relies on the proper licensing of his copyrighted photographs. Mr. Pennell charges license fees for the proper use of his copyrighted photographs. The Pearsons failed to properly license seven of Mr. Pennell's copyrighted photographs. Mr. Pennell is due the cost of a proper license for the images at issue, as well as attributable profits by The Pearsons. Since most if not all renters of vacation properties do so sight unseen and rely on photographs that accompany the rental listing, Mr. Pennell is due all profits from the period of time The Pearsons used Mr. Pennell's copyrighted photographs.Jeffrey D. PennellThe Law Office of David C. Deal, P.L.C.Christopher S. PearsonClaim
22-CCB-0118infringementPhotographs of interior and exterior of houseCoastland Realty copied and posted Mr. Pennell's copyrighted photographs to its commercial website to advertise and promote the real property located at: 9100 Reed Dr, Emerald Isle, NC ("Queens Court 3101"), 7701 Ocean Drive East, Emerald Isle, NC ("Rooms With A View East"), and 7701 Ocean Drive West, Emerald Isle, NC ("Rooms With A View East").Mr. Pennell is a commercial photographer who relies on the proper licensing of his copyrighted photographs. Mr. Pennell charges license fees for the proper use of his copyrighted photographs. Coastland Realty failed to properly license seventy-nine of Mr. Pennell's copyrighted photographs. Mr. Pennell is due the cost of a proper license for the images at issue, as well as attributable profits by Coastland Realty. Since most if not all renters of vacation properties do so sight unseen and rely on photographs that accompany the rental listing, Mr. Pennell is due all profits from the period of time Coastland used Mr. Pennell's copyrighted photographs.Jeffery D. PennellThe Law Office of David C. Deal, P.L.C.Coastland Realty, LLCClaim
22-CCB-0117infringement-DMCAYou Said It Was Love Special Treatselling records and recouping royalties, and copyrighting music that was recorded in 1989.I originally had the song playing at the radio station in Houston on 102.1 we received no royalties from the song. I was unable to receive any information from Robert Gillerman. I received zero payment. I spent 25,000.00 to make the song in a studio in Houston in 1989. I would like to receive 25,000.00 and my master tape of the song back.Ronald K DewittnoneSelect-O-HitsClaim
22-CCB-0116infringementPrivate Photograph I taken of myself in my Private Vehicle looking into the camera while holding my beard. I did not give permission or consent to use this pic in any way including in derivative worksHeels in the Air dba Vicki Pate has made a derivative of my Copyrighted work. It is not parody. It is not fair use. It is not being used for educational purposes. The Infringer has also infringed on at least 50 other photos / videos of mine that I plan to file claims against in the future. I've sent the Infringer Vicki Pate who Operates Heels in the Air a cease & desist. Vicki Pate has not complied as of this date.The Heels in the Air YouTube Channel that is ran by Vicki Pate has over 10,000 Subscribers at the time of this Claim. The channel distributing my Copyright Photo as a derivative of my work which is not fair use, it's not parody, it's not for educational purposes. The Infringer is using my copyrighted work to defame me causing deliberate infliction of emotional distress. I seek $20,000 in reliefJonathan RichesnoneHeels in the Air dba Vicki PateClaim
22-CCB-0115infringementImage of a dog on a snowy hillRespondents accessed the watermarked photographs from Claimant's website, illicitly copied them, then published them to their commercial website to promote their rental property. When approached with a settlement offer, Respondents removed the website and later falsely asserted the website was non-commercial and the the use would fall under Fair Use or Claimant's free "personal use only" license (which it does not and which would still require Claimant's permission, see https://www.alex-kunz.com/about/photo-licensing-information/). Respondents refused to discuss settlement (see Statement of Facts, attached).Loss of license fees as well as control of Claimant's works. Claimant requests $12,500 in statutory damages for the timely-registered Landscape Photo and $5000 for the Dog Photo.Alexander KunzBurns the Attorney, Inc.Ryan TrenhaileClaim
22-CCB-0114infringementNone givenCopyright infringement in violation of United States copyright laws. Specifically, infringer is an IP attorney who chose to copy significant portions of Plaintiff's law firm webpage content describing its detailed step by step method for trademark prosecution. Please see cease and desist exhibit with side by side comparison.We are seeking the max in statutory damages. The infringer used Plaintiff's registered written content to compete for the same consumers and presented Plaintiff's work as its own to Plaintiff's detriment.Gerben Perrott PLLCGerben Perrott, PLLCFine Point Law, Inc.Claim
22-CCB-0113infringementManuscriptDorrance Publishing I ended with book contract with July 2018. Since then there has been numerous emails to them, to remove my book content for sales and distribution, including sending a complaint to the Better Business Bureau regarding copyright infringement and royalty payment issues. As of today, August 24th, my ebook of The Christian Teen Buzz, is still being illegally sold on Google Play and eBay websites for public display, reproduction of work and distribution sales. My book is copyrighted and should not be redistrubted or on display for sales or available for sales by Dorrance Publishing.The harm I have suffered is copyright infringement and my intellectual property being used against my permission, unreported book sales, and illegally profiting of my book, and missing and unreported royalty payments from 2018-2022. I would like monetary damages and undue stress damages paid to me to the fullest amount from Dorrance publishing and my book ebook ISBN #978-1-4809-7151-6 removed from Google Play, listed by Dorrance Publishing and the paperback removed from ebay, ISBN #978-1-4809-7151-6 immediately, back pay from any hidden profits unknown to me from Dorrance Publishing/Rosedog books.Shon S LewisnoneDorrance PublishingAmended Claim
22-CCB-0112infringementMotion Picture Film for Coming to AmericaCopyright Rights: Paramount Pictures Corporation (“Paramount Pictures”) is the sole and exclusive owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the copyrights in the motion pictures entitled Coming to America and Coming 2 America (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Works”). The Works are original works of authorship, embodying copyrightable subject matter and subject to the full protection of the copyright laws of the United States. Paramount Pictures has complied with all requirements and formalities of the Copyright Act with respect to the Works. Paramount Pictures has obtained copyright registration certificates from the United States Copyright Office for each of the Works. Documents showing the registration of a representative sample of the Works are attached collectively as Exhibit 1 (See, e.g., U.S. Copyright Registration Numbers PA0000376420; PA0002280086). Background of the Works: Coming to America was a huge commercial success and the second highest-grossing movie of 1988, and remains immensely popular despite premiering over 30 years ago. See Exhibit 2 https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/1988/. Coming to America is an American romantic comeJMC misused Paramount Pictures’ intellectual property to deceive parents and children into believing that the Infringing Restaurant is affiliated with, or authorized by, Paramount Pictures. To make matters worse, the quality of the food is in serious question, as consumers have reported feeling discomfort after eating at the Infringing Restaurant. See Exhibit 25. The foregoing harm is irreparable and is exacerbated by the fact that in the Infringing Restaurants and in associated marketing materials, JMC has intentionally displayed and reproduced the copyrighted images, characters, costumes, and character names, and derivative works thereof, from the Works. JMC created, displayed, and reproduced the Infringing Materials willfully, and in knowing disregard of Paramount Pictures’ copyrights, of which JMC was on notice long before it began its infringing conduct. On information and belief, all of JMC’s conduct described herein has been and continues to be willful, wanton, and in bad faith, and none has been with the authorization or consent of Paramount Pictures. Federal Copyright Infringement (17 U.S.C. § 501) As stated above, the Works are original works of authParamount Pictures CorporationKilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLPJMC POP UPS LLCClaim
22-CCB-0111infringementLivestream debate with another Youtuber**SECTION I: BACKGROUND AND FACTS** I am a Youtuber and Twitch streamer who goes by the alias “Acerthorn.” My Youtube channel can be found at the url of www.youtube.com/c/acerthorn, and my Twitch channel can be found at the url of www.twitch.tv/acerthorn. On May 16, 2021, I did a live stream on Twitch, which I later transferred to Youtube, known as “Acerthorn's Credibility as a Reviewer (w/ Montyspa on Co-Commentary).” As of the time of this writing, this video can be found at the url of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDKSx4oi-r0. On January 17, 2022, I registered the copyright for this stream with the Copyright Office. Its copyright registration number is PA0002340792. At timestamp 2:17:55 – 2:18:23, you can see me giving a smug smile while I put my fingers together in a very smug manner. It is a long video, so to keep you from having to navigate to the timestamp manually, you can click on this link to take you to that timestamp directly: https://youtu.be/iDKSx4oi-r0?t=8275. There is a Youtube channel called “Acerthorn the True Acerthorn,” or ATTA for short, which is dedicated to harassing me, doxxing me, impersonating me (as evidenced by the channel's name), and inf$15,000 in statutory damages, both to compensate me for loss of licensing royalties, and also to teach Google a lesson about giving people the run-around after they file technically perfect DMCA Takedown Notices.David A StebbinsnoneGoogle LLCClaim
22-CCB-0110infringementMedical DeviceWebsite sells my patented medical device without my consent, misleading people about treatment and endangering the health of patients. These devices should be sold only in medical institutions after consultation with a doctor.Damage is estimated at $5,000-20,000Eckart KlobenonePectushealingClaim
22-CCB-0109infringementCompositionA)Title 17 Sec 501 B) Distribution and selling of copyrighted material C) I never was paid for a license.Loss of income I was never paid Lost sync licensing opportunities I want statutory damagesLangston M ChildsnoneKOBALT MUSIC PUBLISHING AMERICA, INCClaim
22-CCB-0108infringementBlack and white silver gelatin photograph of 4 elderly men in front of a store with "Sunglass Corner" written on the storefront window. This image was made in 1980.December 8, 2021 at 9:50 pm the respondent, Nathaniel Ladson sent a text message with an exact rendering of the copyrighted image "Sunglass Corner" attached, to a friend of mine and gallery owner for consideration in an upcoming exhibition. The text also included a picture of Nathaniel Ladson standing in front of "Sunglass Corner" (with his name on it) hung on a wall at a Georgianna's Joint in Manhattan, NY. He has also used "Sunglass Corner" as his cover image on Facebook.As a photographer for over 40 years, "Sunglass Corner" is my signature photographic piece. It is the image that I am known for and is easily recognizable as my work. "Sunglass Corner" helped to launch my career. It has been published and exhibited widely. I have collectors who have purchased limited editions, valued at $1500 each. Copying and reproducing "Sunglass Corner" in any way, reduces its value. My collectors bought and paid for the emotional sentiment evoked by this image- four elderly men from a different time standing as present day sentries to the Village of Harlem, New York. The high contrast and soft grainy texture is indicative of the style I've created, by using the same materials in processing and printing my images. Reproducing the image cheapens and devalues it tremendously. I've invested years, time and money honing my craft and skill as a self-taught photographer. This infringement has also threatened my reputation as a professional. I can't have the authenticity of my work questioned at this stage of my career. I have had my attorneys send letters to cease and desist all activities. They've also had phone conversations with Mr. Ladson, that resulted in hiCheryl MillernoneNathaniel LadsonClaim
22-CCB-0107-DMCANANAUnder the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, I am requesting that Jamie Park's post continues to be removed from the Google search results, as the post contains material that was taken from my original post that took an immense amount of time and effort to share to my audience. Moreover, submitting the original DMCA report as well as this follow-up report has been extremely time-consuming in an effort to showcase proper objective evidence, and has taken away from the time I could have spent on my business and has in turn affected my overall revenue. I believe all creative work should be protected under the Copyright Law to protect the author's integrity and the amount of hard work and effort dedicated to creating each original post.Elle HongnoneJamie ParkClaim
22-CCB-0106infringementMedical DeviceWebsite sells my patented medical device without my consent, misleading people about treatment, and endangering the health of patients. These devices should be sold only in medical institutions after consultation with a doctor.Damage is estimated at $5,000-20,000Eckart KlobenoneIgor NaumovClaim
22-CCB-0105Not availableNANANot availableSee captionNot availableSee captionNone
22-CCB-0104infringementCompositionTITLE 17 US CODE SECTION 501 Willful Infringement Artist (Montana of 300) distributed and sold producer(LANGSTON M CHILDS) works with out written permission or a license. This violates producer(LANGSTON M CHILDS) exclusive and non exclusive rights to his works.Statutory damages. I also have had severe surgeries, I am handicapped and disabled. I want to be paid 15k-30k per work infringed.Langston M ChildsnoneWALTER A BRADFORDClaim
22-CCB-0103infringementThe Skunkman Comic Book Series Vol. VI with IllustrationsBreach of a Non-Disclosure Agreement. Paragraph 5, Misappropriation of Registered Copyrighted Material, Unlawful Acquisition, Misrepresentation, Passive UseEmotional and Mental Anguish, Misappropriation, Infringement of Registered Copyrighted Material, Misrepresentation, Attorney Fees, ExpensesRichard KraynoneMatthew HeldermanClaim
22-CCB-0102infringement2-D Artwork (chart explaining the different types of beer)The infringing party has been selling a design that is plainly a copy of our copyrighted design.Our revenue has been hurt by customers choosing to purchase this cheaper, infringing product over our original design. We have sold our product for nearly a decade, and it is deeply associated with our brand. The infringing product is creating confusion in the marketplace because it looks so similar to ours that customers might believe it actually is Pop Chart Lab's product.Pop Chart Lab, Inc.noneShenzhenshi Yijiangnan Dianzishangwu YouxiangongsiClaim
22-CCB-0101infringementArticle I published on a new paradigm I created for leader developmentOn his web site, Mr. Tobias plagiarized text from my copyrighted article. The following text was taken, almost word-for-word, from my article: The ALFA program begins with AU faculty working with the agency director to identify 1-3 difficult organizational challenges along with identifying an executive sponsor for each challenge. AU faculty then meet with each executive sponsor to assess the suitability of the problem for the Action Learning process; clarify the roles of the AU faculty, executive sponsor, and the team members; and provide guidance in selecting an effective Action Learning team. The executive sponsor for each challenge then selects Action Learning teams comprising 6-7 people each. Days 1-3:The first three days are classroom-based and focused on developing the leadership competencies necessary to utilize the Action Learning methodology. The class will focus on such skills as active listening, asking powerful questions, reflection, strategic thinking, and problem solving. Each team member is required to select one or more personal leadership developmental goals on which to work during the Action Learning process. Participants are challenged to let go of ingrIn 2009, as an independent consultant, I created this award-winning leadership development program, and have offered it ever since then, for a substantial fee, to individual and organizational clients all over the world. By copying my text, Mr. Tobias has made it impossible for me to market my program in Washington DC to Federal Government agencies. Agency clients will purchase Mr, Tobias's program rather than mine, since he has the imprimatur of American University, while I am an independent consultant without the ability to market as intensively as Mr. Tobias. I seek $30,000 in relief.Robert KramernoneRobert TobiasClaim
22-CCB-0100infringementLive Sports Pay-Per-View ProgramClaimant Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. ("Claimant") is a Pennsylvania corporation that specializes in commercially licensing premier sporting events to commercial locations such as bars, restaurants, lounges, clubhouses and similar establishments. By written agreement, Claimant was granted the exclusive right to license, display, and distribute publicly [17 U.S.C. § 106(4) & (5)] the Ultimate Fighting Championship® 241: Daniel Cormier vs. Stipe Miocic 2 mixed martial arts program, including all undercard bouts and commentary, on August 17, 2019 (the "Program") for businesses such as the business made the basis of this claim. Commercial businesses such as the business made the basis of this suit were not authorized to receive and exhibit the Program in their commercial business without authorization from Claimant. Respondents The Village Restaurant LLC, Brittany R. Havely, Joe Havely, Lorene A. Singleton, and Roger A. Singleton (collectively the "Respondents") owned, operated, maintained, and controlled the commercial business known as Indian Village Restaurant & Lounge located at 12 North J Street, Lakeview, OR 97630 (the “Establishment”) on the date of the Program. RespondeClaimant seeks statutory damages in the discretion of the Board, of up to the maximum amount of $15,000.00 for the Respondents’ willful violation of 17 U.S.C. § 501 and for Claimant’s attorney’s fees, interest, and costs of proceedings.Joe Hand Promotions, Inc.Jekielek & JanisThe Village Restaurant LLC d/b/a Indian Village Restaurant & LoungeClaim
22-CCB-0099infringementPhotograph of the exterior of St. Joseph Medical TowerRespondent illicitly copied the photograph (which appears under non-exclusive license on Mr. Durant's client's website), posted, and thereby distributed the photograph for its commercial purposes, i.e., to promote its business on its website. Despite demand letter, DMCA takedown required to effect removal of the work; respondent then replied to confirm removal but refused to discuss damages/settlement.Loss of license fee; loss of credit line/CMI Seeking $10,000 in statutory damages and any awardable attorney's fees for respondent's bad faith refusal to remove the work without a takedown notice and its refusal to negotiate pre-suit.John DurantBurns the Attorney, Inc.Soho Taco Gourmet Taco Catering LLCClaim
22-CCB-0098infringementLive Sports Pay-Per-View ProgramClaimant Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. ("Claimant") is a Pennsylvania corporation that specializes in commercially licensing premier sporting events to commercial locations such as bars, restaurants, lounges, clubhouses and similar establishments. By written agreement, Claimant was granted the exclusive right to license, display, and distribute publicly [17 U.S.C. § 106(4) & (5)] the Ultimate Fighting Championship® 241: Daniel Cormier vs. Stipe Miocic 2 mixed martial arts program, including all undercard bouts and commentary, on August 17, 2019 (the "Program") for businesses such as the business made the basis of this claim. Commercial businesses such as the business made the basis of this suit were not authorized to receive and exhibit the Program in their commercial business without authorization from Claimant. Respondents Arif Skyline Café LLC and Hellen Abera Kassa (collectively the "Respondents") owned, operated, maintained, and controlled the commercial business known as Arif Skyline Café located at 3811 S. George Mason Drive, Suite C, Falls Church, VA 22041 (the “Establishment”) on the date of the Program. Respondent Hellen Abera Kassa is an individual who resides in Claimant seeks statutory damages in the discretion of the Board, of up to the maximum amount of $15,000.00 for the Respondents’ willful violation of 17 U.S.C. § 501 and for Claimant’s attorney’s fees, interest, and costs of proceedings.Joe Hand Promotions, Inc.Jekielek & JanisArif Skyline Cafe LLCClaim
22-CCB-0097infringementA man posing with a guitar like hes shooting a gunmy photograph were used by a band for publicity purposes for their own profitI am the owner of the photos They were used to make profits for the band in the photos and other bands also on the venue bill , they were publicly shown in 2 newspapers , in ad flyers hung all over 2 Ohio Counties , it was broadcast on the Rock Radio Stations and ads all over Facebook . I am seeking the Maximum I can get in damages and I am seeking no further use of any of my photos again by this Man for his bandCyndi WoftonnoneGary E MARKASKYClaim
22-CCB-0096Not availableNANANot availableSee captionNot availableSee captionNone
22-CCB-0095-DMCANANAAs a self-employed person - journalist and analyst on a freelance, my articles are my only source of income, and the specialty and uniqueness of my work help me to support myself. So, the use of my intellectual property (my articles) without my permission deprives me of my means of livelihood. Based on that, I kindly ask you to oblige the resource komentish.com and online service provider Google.com to remove my articles from the website komentish.com and Google search results.Ruslan BarabanovnoneВиталий БогачевOrder Denying Request to Link RUSLAN BARABANOV with the Ruslan Barabanov party
22-CCB-0094infringementThis is a video that I filmed of my dog and my best friend. I added audio and text and shared to my tiktok and Instagram pagesA massive media agency stole my content and is profiting of f it. They downloaded and removed my watermarks from a video that I created and shared on my own social media pages. I am a full-time content creator and make my living by selling content and by posting content. I get paid by social media platforms per like, view and share of my content. Additionally, I get paid in all future brand deals based on how many, followers, views and likes my profiles have. Doing Things Media, and their subsidiary Doggos Doing Things stole the video from my account, removed my watermarks, and shared it to their own account, amassing over 1.8 million views. They did not appropriately tag me nor ask my permission to use my content. I commented and messaged asking for appropriate credit, at the very least. My followers also began commenting on the post asking them to credit me. They deleted those comments. I then emailed them 2 times, once asking them to take the content down and twice with an invoice asking them to simply pay my content fee - the standard fee I charge for usage without watermarks or tagging. They are not only making money off my content but stealing my potential income As a result of this infringement and unlicensed use of Nicole Punzi's likeness, I have lost out on my standard fee of $2775 for limited content use - if a video is to be used in ads I charge an additional $1500 and if it will be used in perpetuity and additional $1000. Additionally, I have lost out on more than 1.8 million views which amounts to $720, or $.04 per view. The lost followers, likes, and views cannot be easily quantified because all of my future brand deals will now pay less as they have stolen those follows, likes, and views from me. Brands determine how much they will pay a partner based on engagement rate which is now marred because of these lost numbers. I am seeking my standard content fee of $2775, $1000 for use in perpetuity, $720 in lost creator fund fees, all fees associated with claim and subsequent case, and any damages amassed by them utilizing my content on their platform. I leave it to the Copyright Claims Board to determine any additional damages, but I would ask that you consider all of the aforementioned, as well as, the emotional damage, stress, and time that this issue has taken on me as an individual coming up against a multi-million dollar cJennifer LeenoneDoing Things MediaClaim
22-CCB-0093infringementNone givenHorton Records or Brian Horton is distributing, reproducing, performing, displaying, etc., unpublished work with regard to the musical composition "Black Cherry." And in addition, a second musical composition published and titled, "Desiree."Horton Records is committing copyright infringement upon two compositions to which claimant is owner: "Black Cherry," and "Desiree." Section 106 of the Copyright Act of 1976 grants five exclusive rights to the copyright proprietor of a musical composition: (1) "to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;" (2) "to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;" (3) "to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public;" (4) "to perform the copyrighted work publicly;" (5) "to display the copyrighted work publicly." Horton Records is selling, reproducing, distributing, displaying, and performing an unpublished composition in which Claimant is owner, titled: "Black Cherry." Horton failed to give any notice to date. Horton paid no Licensing Fees, Royalties, nor Monies for any negotiated licenses, nor Compulsory licenses. Under Section 115, Horton had 30 days after the recording was made, to give notice of intent to use song. Royalty payments must be made "on or before the twentieth day of each month and shall include all royalties for the month next proceeding. Each monthly payment shall be made under oath..." 17USC app. sec 11James MarkhamnoneHorton Records, LTD.Claim
22-CCB-0092infringementNone givenA photograph of my copywritten work was taken, a watermark of my name was removed, and the photo was used without my permission for commercial purposes. Respondent used subject images in online advertising without licensing or otherwise obtaining permission from Claimant.Statutory damages in the maximum permissible by law Respondent's profits attributable to the infringements Claimant's costs and attorney feesMichael MazzanoneGripeo LLCOrder Closing Case
22-CCB-0091infringementPhotograph of a senior woman jogging in a park wearing a pink sweat shirtThe image in question is used as a featured image on a commercial web page promoting the infringers business as well as featuring paid advertising.The claimants primary source of income is through the licensing of photographic imagery. This infringer used the claimants copyrighted imagery without permission, payment, or license, depriving the claimant of their primary source of income from works created for such purpose.Dana HurseynoneNamita NayyarClaim
22-CCB-0090infringementA photograph of my blue acrylic pour paintingA photograph of my artwork was taken, a watermark of my name was removed, and the photo was used without my permission for commercial purposes by two companies over the course of at least two years. On December 18, 2019, I discovered that my photograph of one of my original acrylic paintings was being used as the primary advertising photo to sell “BYOB” acrylic pour painting classes at a New York-based company called “The Paint Place” through the website CourseHorse.com. They posted this photo in affiliation with multiple classes being held at least two different “The Paint Place” art studio locations in the New York City area throughout 2019 and 2020. According to posts of class listings on CourseHorse.com for “BYOB Panting: Paint Pouring” that had my photograph posted on them, these classes were being sold at a price of $60 per person, had an “average of twenty students” per class, and were often listed as being “sold out”. This photograph was of artwork that I created as part of an acrylic pour painting tutorial that I wrote and published exclusively on the arts & crafts website FeltMagnet.com on September 4th, 2018. How to Do a Pour Painting: A Tutorial for BeginCourseHorse.com and The Paint Place’s unauthorized commercial use of my photograph of my artwork that I’m using in current and future creative content and marketing not only reduces the value of my photo, but it implies a connection between myself and these companies that doesn’t exist. The many “BYOB Painting: Paint Pouring” art classes at two New York City art studios being sold on CourseHorse.com and/or The Paint Place for $60 per person with twenty student classes over the course of multiple years, using my photograph as the primary advertising image on their websites, generated revenue for one or both of these companies that I received no compensation for. Internet traffic to my painting tutorial article that includes this photograph has gone down in the last several years as search engines view a photo appearing on multiple websites as duplicate content and de-prioritize the site in search results, which reduces my earnings from this article. As a result of CourseHorse.com and The Paint Place’s usage of my photograph on their websites, this photo has circulated online and has been posted on at least two other unaffiliated websites that provided details about these clCarolyn KelleynoneCourseHorseClaim
22-CCB-0089infringementproduct descriptionInfringers have copied our work to describe their products.Claimant seeks an award of actual damages and disgorgement of all of Respondent’s profits attributable to the infringement as provided by 17 U.S.C. § 1504(e)(1)(A)(i) and 17 U.S.C. §504(b) in an amount to be proven or, in the alternative, and at Claimant’s election, an award for statutory damages against Respondent in an amount up to $15,000 per work infringed pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 1504(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I), whichever is larger.lead creation incnoneQiping LiuClaim
22-CCB-0088infringementproduct descriptionThe linked text plagiarizes our workThe link violated our copyright and caused serious damage to our economic interests, and we demand compensation of $30,000.lead creation incnoneAmazon.com, Inc.Claim
22-CCB-0087infringementproduct descriptionplagiarized our workInfringed our intellectual property rights, we demand compensation of 5,000 US dollarslead creation incnonezhang xinchengOrder Denying Request to Link tara shank with the lead creation inc party
22-CCB-0086infringementBookMy book was published on October 9, 2018. The original contract stated that the contract was good for two years and that I had full creative control along with the rights. 6 months after the release date, an email was sent out to all authors advising that the company was closing down and that our files would be sent to us. Any accounts where our book was being sold would be transferred in our names. The files were never transferred and royalties have not been paid to date. Amazon, Barnes & Noble and Kindle have been selling my book on their sites and sending the money elsewhere. I'm assuming to Kenn Dunn.Since this is the second time that I've been taken advantage of by a publishing company, this situation took a toll on my mental health. The thought of someone else taking credit and making money off my work made me physically ill and caused severe depression. I was left in financial strains that affected my livelihood and was almost evicted. I've reached out to the online sites to have the files transferred and continue to get an automated response. I paid an estimated amount of $5,000 and have no idea how many books have been sold or the amount that is owed to me. I had to stop promoting my book and take down my websites. This situation also made me an open target to thieves trying to steal my intellectual property and plagiarizing my book on their IG and Facebook pages. I've made both local police and the FBI reports on the people I believe were doing this. I have not sent a takedown notice because I do not wish to have the book removed, I would rather have the account transferred under my name and royalties paid. If that is not an option and the book is taken down, I ask that I be compensated what's owed along with compensation to be able to recreate my dream elsewhere. 3 yearsApril A PhillipsnoneAmazon Legal DepartmentClaim
22-CCB-0085infringementInstrumental Music RecordingThe respondents have used the core melodic and rhythmic theme of my song "Heart/the Beat" in their 2019 release of "Ilomilo." An expert's analysis is summarized in this excerpt: "... this researcher concludes that these similarities have not occurred by chance or by coincidence. Therefore, they must have occurred by design. Since Heart/The Beat is the earliest copyrighted recording of the two, it appears as if significant aspects of Mr. Brown's musical material and ideas, which also appear in ilomilo, have been appropriated by the creators of ilomilo without Mr. Brown's permission and have been incorporated into the recording of that song."The respondents' co-opting of my work without attribution has deprived my ability to capitalize on the work. Estimates of the responses earnings from this infringement are in excess of $1,000,000.00. I am asking for attribution and the maximum allowable fine within this venue.Jarhid A BrownnoneBillie E EilishClaim
22-CCB-0084infringementMy own original music and lyrics all of which I wrote, composed, and recorded with my own voice and my piano.In 2003, according to product labeling, Hasbro, Inc., without my informed consent, virtually trademarked a reproduction of the fable genre, symbolism, and fictional characterization, not just the title, of my own original June 1971 Unity Wee Wisdom (page 35) poem, The Groovy Pig, into the fable character plastic figurine toy, Groovy Peppa, a model of the Hasbro, Inc. trademarked Peppa Pig figurine line of retail toy products. As a result, I see the toy as a reproduction of my poem in that such fable character figurine is an anthropomorphic pig dressed up like a typical housewife with a guitar to be a rock star, whereas my poetic fable depicts an anthropomorphic sheep as a good samaritan giving up fleece to an anthropomorphic pig on the phone like a typical shopper with the fleece as a wig to be somebody.I feel that I should be back-paid, present-paid, future-paid, and publicly acknowledged for my original contributions to successfully realized product developments because such negligence against me defames me, or prevents me from becoming famous, blocking me from any major financial successes in life. As a result, I am asking for my name to be added to the labels of all of the past, present, and future Hasbro, Inc. Groovy Peppa products and for me to collect all of my past, present, and future earnings for creating the Hasbro, Inc. entire Groovy Peppa product line in a negotiated royalty payment split between Hasbro, Inc. and myself.Stephen M RichardsnoneHasbro, Inc.Order Denying Request to Link Stephen M Richards with the Hasbro, Inc. and Stephen M Richards parties
22-CCB-0083infringementCompositionThe infringers willfully used my compositions without leasing or exclusive rights. The label and artist consistently distributed and sold compositions that I own the rights to over several platforms such as: Apple music, Spotify, VEVO, Youtube etc.I never was paid for my work. I had a severe spine surgery. I am disabled. I need to be paid for the damages.Langston M ChildsnoneEmpire Distribution INCClaim
22-CCB-0082infringementPhotograph of MMA fighter Jimi Manuwa at event weigh-inClaimant created the Photograph at issue (“Photo”) on September 28, 2012. Claimant first published the Photo less than 24 hours later when he provided it, with others, to his original client (Vox Media) for its consideration (Vox did not choose to use the photograph). Claimant then licensed the Photo, non-exclusively, to Smuggling Duds on Oct. 1, 2012. Smuggling Duds added its logos (“Logos”) to the Photo, as permitted under its license, prior to its publication of the Photo. Smuggling Duds published the Photo with Logos on the Smuggling Duds website, at https://smugglingduds.com/blogs/news/at-the-ufc-weigh-ins-with-dan-the-outlaw-hardy-and-jimi-the-posterboy-manuwa, on October 2, 2012, under its license (it is still visible at that URL). The Photo, as it appears on the Smuggling Duds website, contains Claimant’s copyright management information metadata, including his name, address, and other contact information. On information and belief, the Photo with Logos had not appeared anywhere other than on the Smuggling Duds website prior to the infringement by Respondent. On information and belief, on or shortly before May 17, 2013, Respondent accessed the Smuggling Duds websiClaimant seeks maximum statutory damages ($15,000). Respondent's behavior in almost 11 months of negotiations demonstrated bad faith, forcing this filing; therefore, Claimant also seeks maximum attorney's fees.Martin McNeilBurns the Attorney, Inc.Blackbelt TV, Inc.Claim
22-CCB-0081-DMCA-noninfringementNANAEveryday that the app isn't on Google Play, we lose at least $1,000 of business. If the app doesn't return to Google Play, that is a financial loss of over $150,000 invested to design, build and market the appHiro LLCnoneDragvertising LLCClaim
22-CCB-0080infringementPhotograph of wine bottleRespondent used subject images in online advertising without licensing or otherwise obtaining permission from Claimant.Statutory damages in the maximum permissible by law Respondent's profits attributable to the infringements Claimant's costs and attorney feesAlan DeHerreraLaw Office of Eric RidleyG. K. Skaggs, Inc.Claim
22-CCB-0079infringement-DMCA-Image of Michael Jordan mid-air, dunking basketballListing derivative products on EtsyMarket dilution, consumer confusion, direct damages as a result of infringing sales.Goatpix, LLCLaw Office of Eric RidleyRaul MateiClaim
22-CCB-0078infringementGroup registration of photographsClaimant Helayne Seidman is a photojournalist based in New York. Claimant is the creator and sole rights holder to a photograph of Golden Krust CEO Lowell Hawthorne. Respondent is the owner and operator of the website www.goldentaxrelief.com which is a website that promotes the Respondent’s tax planning business. On or about February 2021, Claimant discovered that her photograph was being displayed on Respondent's website in an blog post designed to push traffic to the Respondent’s website and promote it’s business.Claimant seeks an award of actual damages and disgorgement of all of Respondent’s profits attributable to the infringement as provided by 17 U.S.C. § 1504(e)(1)(A)(i) and 17 U.S.C. §504(b) in an amount to be proven or, in the alternative, and at Claimant’s election, an award for statutory damages against Respondent in an amount up to $15,000 per work infringed pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 1504(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I), whichever is larger.Helayne SeidmanThe Law Firm of Higbee and AssociatesGolden Tax Relief LLCClaim
22-CCB-0077infringementGroup registration of photographsClaimant Christopher Sadowski is a photojournalist based in New Jersey and working primarily in New York City. Claimant is the creator and sole rights holder to a photograph of a food delivery worker delivering food on a bike in New York City. Respondent is the owner and operator of the website www.joltbike.com which is a website that promotes the Respondent’s electronic bike and scooter service. On or about November 2021, Claimant discovered that his photograph was being displayed on Respondent's website in an blog post designed to push traffic to the Respondent’s website and promote it’s business.Claimant seeks an award of actual damages and disgorgement of all of Respondent’s profits attributable to the infringement as provided by 17 U.S.C. § 1504(e)(1)(A)(i) and 17 U.S.C. §504(b) in an amount to be proven or, in the alternative, and at Claimant’s election, an award for statutory damages against Respondent in an amount up to $15,000 per work infringed pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 1504(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I), whichever is larger.Christopher SadowskiThe Law Firm of Higbee and AssociatesJoltbike LLCClaim
22-CCB-0076infringementGroup registration of photographsClaimant Steven Hirsch is a photojournalist based in New York City. Claimant is the creator and sole rights holder to a photograph of NYC graffiti artist Adam Cole and a photograph of Samantha Barbash, the real life inspiration for the 2019 film “Hustlers”. Respondent is the owner and operator of the website www.thesource.com which is a culture focused editorial website with extensive advertising. On information and belief, Respondent monetizes its website through paid advertising. On or about September 2021, Claimant discovered that two of his photographs were being displayed on Respondent's website, each in separate editorial articles. Claimant never licensed the photographs to Respondent or otherwise granted Respondent permission to use his photographs.Claimant seeks an award of actual damages and disgorgement of all of Respondent’s profits attributable to the infringement as provided by 17 U.S.C. § 1504(e)(1)(A)(i) and 17 U.S.C. §504(b) in an amount to be proven or, in the alternative, and at Claimant’s election, an award for statutory damages against Respondent in an amount up to $15,000 per work infringed pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 1504(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I), whichever is larger.Steven HirschThe Law Firm of Higbee and AssociatesSource Digital IncClaim
22-CCB-0075infringementPhotograph of apartment 9 at 212 E 29th StreetRespondents reproduced, displayed, and distributed unauthorized copies of Claimant’s Photographs to the websites streeteasy.com, zillow.com, trulia,com and hotpads.com. Respondents exploited Claimant’s Photographs to advertise property they own/manage for lease, and upon information and belief, leased the property utilizing only Claimant’s Photographs as sole advertising media. Respondents ignored a takedown demand from Claimant. Claimant had not granted Respondent any license or permission to reproduce, publicly display, or otherwise use the Photograph for any purpose.- $30,000 - Lost license fees/royalties - Disgorgement of Respondent’s profitsBrian TotinnoneBRIGHTON MANAGEMENT GROUP LLCOrder to Amend Noncompliant Claim
22-CCB-0074infringementGreeting CardThe respondent directly copied our design, as well as, a design from Note Card Cafe and then bundled them together and listed them for sale on Amazon under the ASIN:B08G8Y3SWP. I contact Amazon through their Brand Registry team and they removed the listing off the website. The respondent then disputed the claim and now Amazon require us to sue the respondent in order to prevent them from selling this product on Amazon.com.We are seeking to prevent the respondent from selling our copyrighted products in the U.S.A and compensation for the units they sold since the effective date on our copyright registration (01/26/2022).Market On MainstreetnoneYek Cheong LauClaim
22-CCB-0073infringementA 1969 musical recording which includes seven individual works/songs, including the Title "Trip Thru Hell Part 1, first published January 01,1978 in the United States ISWC T9275121829, Th author created music, music arrangement as well as lyricsRakeem Calief Myer, using the professional name “Roc Marciano” knowingly infringed on at least two of my fully copyrighted songs from my copyrighted 1969 album titled “Trip Thru Hell” and a 1995 CD release by Sundazed records with the same music and title. I not only wrote the music I recorded and produced the original album from which he created the derivatives from. The songs of mine that were used to create the derivatives were “Trip Thru Hell Part 1”, “I Shot the King” and possibly others yet to be discovered (Attachments 1,2,3) Mr. Myer created a minimum of five derivative works using my copyrighted music on at least two albums he titled “Marcberg” (9 versions including CDs) and “Reloaded” (8 versions including CDs). There are possibly others yet to be discovered. (Attachments 4,5) The main derivative works Mr. Myer created utilizing my music and that I have been able to locate thus far are… Thug’s Prayer Thug’s Prayer Pt. 2 I Shot the King I Shot the King (bonus cut) Thug’s Prayer Instrumental Attachment 6 is a listing of the derivatives Mr. Myer, or the other respondents involved in this claim registered with SoundExchange prior to my discovery of tI am seeking maximum statutory damages, the costs of this action and such other amounts as the Court deems proper and within the limit authorized by this Court. The respondents acts of infringement were not only willful, intentional, and purposeful, but also in complete disregard of and indifference to claimants’ rights. Accordingly, claimant is entitled to judgment in its favor and against each respondent, jointly and severally, for statutory damages, in the discretion of the Board. By failing to obtain Petitioner’s authorization to use the Copyrighted Work or to compensate Petitioner for their various uses, Respondents have avoided payment of license fees and other financial costs associated with obtaining permission to exploit the Copyrighted Work, as well as the restrictions that Petitioner is entitled to and would place on any such exploitation as conditions for Petitioner’s permission, including the right to deny permission altogether The Respondents have certainly gained an undeserved and unknown amount of revenue/profit from the derivatives by exploiting my original music. This has caused an immeasurable amount of damage, damaging credibility, sullied my originaKenneth D ErwinnoneMass Appeal Records LLCClaim
22-CCB-0072infringementSong was used in the 2019 film “The Aftermath”Songs were expolited by synchronization usage in the film to enhance the value of the film without permisiion and or compensation to the author who wrote the lyrics to these songs.The clamant has suffered by usage of these songs without being duly compensated with royalties that are required for usage of the songs. As a result, the claimant is seeking $30,000 for the payment of royalties.Scott Douglas Ora, individually, and in his derivative capacity as trustee of the Leo Robin Trust, on behalf of the Leo Robin TrustnoneWarner Chappell MusicClaim
22-CCB-0071infringementTwo photographs of Riley Perez. One of Riley Perez on a jet with a woman. One of Riley Perez in a boxing ring.Representatives of TNT contacted Plaintiff asking him to be a part of their television series ( Rich & Shameless) as a subject and to allow for certain photographs to be licensed. Plaintiff declined TNT request for an interview but allowed for the use of the cover of his book (What Is Real? (Rare Bird Books, 2018)). Plaintiff denied the use of the copyrighted photographs that were requested. When the Rich & Shameless episode aired on 4/23/2022 on TNT and HBO Max, Plaintiff noticed that the TNT producers used his copyrighted work in their television show after having denied TNT a licensing right.Plaintiff is seeking statutory damages. The infringement happened on 4/23/2022 and Plaintiff filed for a copyright on 6/8/2022 (within the 3 month time frame of an infringement to qualify for statutory damages) the U.S.Copyright Office acknowledged receipt of Plaintiffs registration and on 7/3/2022 Plaintiff was granted a copyright. It is best for Plaintiff to seek statutory damages of $30,000 in this venue as it would be a laborious and costly legal fight to seek disgorment of profits of Respondents attributable to their infringement and to include the value of all gains, advantages, benefits of Respondents would exceed the $30,000 limit that this board is authorized to adjudicate.Darnell Riley-PereznoneTurner Broadcasting Sysytems, Inc.Claim
22-CCB-0070infringementThe Joy of Juggling by Dave Finnigan doing business as Juggle Bug, Inc. - instructional juggling bookIn 2010 I signed an agreement with Greg Boehm, then the President of Mud Puddle Books, to be paid a small fee of 10 cents for every copy of my copyrighted book, "The Joy of juggling," which he wanted to sell in juggling kits that he intended to market. I received a payment in 2011 of $3,497, and in 2012 I got $935.40 and in 2013 $809.60, but then the payments stopped. However I saw the books in their Mud Puddle packaging in stores all over the country. So I called and e-mailed Greg repeatedly and asked for an accounting, but he stone-walled me, probably knowing it would be too expensive for me to hire an attorney to sue him. However you can see that they are still selling the book and the kit although they sometimes misspell my name to Finnegan on the cover. https://www.amazon.com/Joy-Juggling-Finnigan-Puddle-Books/dp/B00DJIVQNK https://www.amazon.com/Mud-Puddle-Books-Inc-Juggling/dp/1603110194 https://poshmark.com/listing/The-Joy-of-Juggling-Book-Kit-5f5a6b7f1801362f3099c7db Here is the latest correspondence with him where he acknowledges the issue and says he will be getting back to me, but he never has. On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 8:50 PM Oliver Finnigan I entered into an agreement in good faith and Greg Boehm fulfilled as agreed for a few years and then stopped. $5,000 is nowhere near the amount owed, but it would be sufficient. I would then like to either terminate the agreement or renew it with the new Mud Puddle owners, but with assurance I will get paid.Oliver D Finnigan 3noneGreg BoehmClaim
22-CCB-0069infringementA snake in the shape of a uterusThis person has been warned multiple times that this is my copyright protected art. They refuse to take it down off their Etsy store even though I provided Etsy with the copyright registration number and reported it for copyright infringement.She is selling my art as a file, which is allowing others to create what they want and continue to sell my work without my permission. I am constantly doing take down notices because people are buying her file and selling their own products. I’m looking for the maximum of $30,000 in relief since she clearly refuses to stop stealing my art and causing me to work extremely hard to keep up with others selling my art. She has tried to sell it 4 different ways on Etsy to “beat the system” and continue to profit off of stolen art. I’ve tried to contact her personally many times but she ignores me, and Etsy won’t do anything unless I personally use my money to bring a lawsuit against her.Anne LesniaknoneLeah TuttleClaim
22-CCB-0068infringementIt is a compilation video of my original video and musical works with my interactions with higher dimensional craft, beings and energieThe Corridor Crew, without my permission illegally used tiny snippets of my compilation video to ridicule me and my work to an audience of over a million viewers to date. The video in question @ the 11 minute mark for 46 seconds: https://youtu.be/CVjC1wfovz0 They purposely ignored the nearly twenty minutes of compelling evidence presented in my video and further called me an idiot, that I would be pissing my pants and various other derogatory terms while quickly dismissing me and my work to potentially their five plus million subscribers. To date this video has over 1.16 million views in four months. My video that most of the story snippets were taken from: https://youtu.be/IvBboLBw-qc This compilation is the result of over ten years of dedicated work in this field. I have been on national television twice on CNN and the Travel Channel and am slated for a profile on the History Channel's The Proof Is Out There this fall. The reckless and vicious comments and cherry picking of tiny segments of my original work had been devastating to me personally and has caused grace damage to my name and my YouTube channel. I feel compensatory and punitive damages of $30,000The fact that over a million viewers have now seen my work, with my name and YouTube channel notated at the bottom of the first video clip from their hatchet work to my good name has caused and grave long term harm to me and me work. The fact that they chose to ignore all the other compelling evidence on the compilation video that they culled for their supposed debunking evidence is proof of ill will and malice towards me that was completely unprovoked from me. Indeed, I only just happened to find out what they had done while viewing various YouTube clips on the subject and recognized my work.John C MartinnoneCorridor Digital, LLC, dba. Corridor CrewLetter to Copyright Claims Board on Bad Faith of Corridor Digital
22-CCB-0067infringementLive Sports Pay-Per-View ProgramPlaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. ("Plaintiff") is a Pennsylvania corporation that specializes in commercially licensing premier sporting events to commercial locations such as bars, restaurants, lounges, clubhouses and similar establishments. By written agreement, Plaintiff was granted the exclusive right to license, display, and distribute publicly [17 U.S.C. § 106(4) & (5)] the Manny Pacquiao vs. Keith Thurman boxing program, including all undercard bouts and commentary, on July 20, 2019 (the "Program") for businesses such as the business made the basis of this claim. Commercial businesses such as the business made the basis of this suit were not authorized to receive and exhibit the Program in their commercial business without authorization from Plaintiff. Defendants Fusion Groups, Inc., Maurntee Ttoe, and Cameron D. Williams (collectively the "Defendants") owned, operated, maintained, and controlled the commercial business known as Fusion Spice Bar located at 2801 Lancaster Avenue, Wilmington, DE 19805 (the “Establishment”) on the date of the Program. Defendants Maurntee Ttoe and Cameron D. Williams are individuals who reside in the State of Delaware and were membPlaintiff seeks statutory damages in the discretion of the Board, of up to the maximum amount of $15,000.00 for the Defendants’ willful violation of 17 U.S.C. § 501 and for Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees, interest, and costs of proceedings.Joe Hand Promotions, Inc.Jekielek & JanisFusion Groups, Inc.Claim
22-CCB-0066infringementLive Sports Pay-Per-View ProgramPlaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. ("Plaintiff") is a Pennsylvania corporation that specializes in commercially licensing premier sporting events to commercial locations such as bars, restaurants, lounges, clubhouses and similar establishments. By written agreement, Plaintiff was granted the exclusive right to license, display, and distribute publicly [17 U.S.C. § 106(4) & (5)] the Manny Pacquiao vs. Keith Thurman boxing program, including all undercard bouts and commentary, on July 20, 2019 (the "Program") for businesses such as the business made the basis of this claim. Commercial businesses such as the business made the basis of this suit were not authorized to receive and exhibit the Program in their commercial business without authorization from Plaintiff. Defendants Jesses Pizza LLC and Jose O. Hernandez (collectively the "Defendants") owned, operated, maintained, and controlled the commercial business known as Jesse’s Pizza located at 2997 Desert Street, Unit 4, Rosamond, CA 93560 (the “Establishment”) on the date of the Program. Defendant Jose O. Hernandez is an individual who resides in the State of California and was a member, manager, officer and/or principalPlaintiff seeks statutory damages in the discretion of the Board, of up to the maximum amount of $15,000.00 for the Defendants’ willful violation of 17 U.S.C. § 501 and for Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees, interest, and costs of proceedings.Joe Hand Promotions, Inc.Jekielek & JanisJesses Pizza LLCClaim
22-CCB-0065infringementLive Sports Pay-Per-View ProgramPlaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. ("Plaintiff") is a Pennsylvania corporation that specializes in commercially licensing premier sporting events to commercial locations such as bars, restaurants, lounges, clubhouses and similar establishments. By written agreement, Plaintiff was granted the exclusive right to license, display, and distribute publicly [17 U.S.C. § 106(4) & (5)] the Manny Pacquiao vs. Keith Thurman boxing program, including all undercard bouts and commentary, on July 20, 2019 (the "Program") for businesses such as the business made the basis of this claim. Commercial businesses such as the business made the basis of this suit were not authorized to receive and exhibit the Program in their commercial business without authorization from Plaintiff. Defendants Cabo Tacos & Beer Inc., Mario M. Arce Jr., and Fernando Zarate Flores (collectively the "Defendants") owned, operated, maintained, and controlled the commercial business known as Cabo Wabo Grill located at 831 E. 8th Street, National City, CA 91950 (the “Establishment”) on the date of the Program. Defendants Mario M. Arce Jr. and Fernando Zarate Flores are individuals who reside in the State of CaliforPlaintiff seeks statutory damages in the discretion of the Board, of up to the maximum amount of $15,000.00 for the Defendants’ willful violation of 17 U.S.C. § 501 and for Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees, interest, and costs of proceedings.Joe Hand Promotions, Inc.Jekielek & JanisCabo Tacos & Beer Inc.Claim
22-CCB-0064infringementLive Sports Pay-Per-View ProgramPlaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. ("Plaintiff") is a Pennsylvania corporation that specializes in commercially licensing premier sporting events to commercial locations such as bars, restaurants, lounges, clubhouses and similar establishments. By written agreement, Plaintiff was granted the exclusive right to license, display, and distribute publicly [17 U.S.C. § 106(4) & (5)] the Manny Pacquiao vs. Keith Thurman boxing program, including all undercard bouts and commentary, on July 20, 2019 (the "Program") for businesses such as the business made the basis of this claim. Commercial businesses such as the business made the basis of this suit were not authorized to receive and exhibit the Program in their commercial business without authorization from Plaintiff. Defendants Dollar Hits Temple, Inc. and Elvira F. Chan (collectively the "Defendants") owned, operated, maintained, and controlled the commercial business known as Dollar Hits located at 2422 W. Temple Street, Los Angeles, CA 90026 (the “Establishment”) on the date of the Program. Defendant Elvira F. Chan is an individual who resides in the State of California and was a member, manager, officer and/or principal oPlaintiff seeks statutory damages in the discretion of the Board, of up to the maximum amount of $15,000.00 for the Defendants’ willful violation of 17 U.S.C. § 501 and for Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees, interest, and costs of proceedings.Joe Hand Promotions, Inc.Jekielek & JanisDollar Hits Temple, Inc.Claim
22-CCB-0063infringementLive Sports Pay-Per-View ProgramPlaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. ("Plaintiff") is a Pennsylvania corporation that specializes in commercially licensing premier sporting events to commercial locations such as bars, restaurants, lounges, clubhouses and similar establishments. By written agreement, Plaintiff was granted the exclusive right to license, display, and distribute publicly [17 U.S.C. § 106(4) & (5)] to authorize the public exhibition of (1) the Manny Pacquiao vs. Keith Thurman boxing program, including all undercard bouts and commentary, on July 20, 2019 and (2) the UFC 240: Max Holloway vs. Frankie Edgar mixed martial arts program, including all undercard bouts and commentary, on July 27, 2019 (collectively the "Programs") for businesses such as the business made the basis of this claim. Commercial businesses such as the business made the basis of this suit were not authorized to receive and exhibit the Program in their commercial business without authorization from Plaintiff. Defendants Tiki Sports Lounge and Grill LLC, Maria E. Arevalo, and Naomi R. Henson (collectively the "Defendants") owned, operated, maintained, and controlled the commercial business known as Tiki Lounge located at 165 LPlaintiff seeks statutory damages in the discretion of the Board, of up to the maximum amount of $30,000.00 for the Defendants’ willful violations of 17 U.S.C. § 501 and for Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees, interest, and costs of proceedings.Joe Hand Promotions, Inc.Jekielek & JanisTiki Sports Lounge and Grill LLCClaim
22-CCB-0062infringementLive Sports Pay-Per-View ProgramPlaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. ("Plaintiff") is a Pennsylvania corporation that specializes in commercially licensing premier sporting events to commercial locations such as bars, restaurants, lounges, clubhouses and similar establishments. By written agreement, Plaintiff was granted the exclusive right to license, display, and distribute publicly [17 U.S.C. § 106(4) & (5)] to authorize the public exhibition of (1) the Manny Pacquiao vs. Keith Thurman boxing program, including all undercard bouts and commentary, on July 20, 2019 and (2) the UFC 240: Max Holloway vs. Frankie Edgar mixed martial arts program, including all undercard bouts and commentary, on July 27, 2019 (collectively the "Programs") for businesses such as the business made the basis of this claim. Commercial businesses such as the business made the basis of this suit were not authorized to receive and exhibit the Programs in their commercial business without authorization from Plaintiff. Defendants Wolves Enterprise, LLC, Roberto F. Gonzalez, and Sal Vargas (collectively the "Defendants") owned, operated, maintained, and controlled the commercial business known as La Barrita Bar located at 546 Grand AvePlaintiff seeks statutory damages in the discretion of the Board, of up to the maximum amount of $30,000.00 for the Defendants' willful violations of 17 U.S.C. § 501 and for Plaintiff’s attorney's fees, interest, and costs of proceedings.Joe Hand Promotions, Inc.Jekielek & JanisWolves Enterprise LLC d/b/a La Barrita BarClaim
22-CCB-0061infringementhand painted and then digitally enhanced Red glitter Christmas Digital paperEtsy is continuously criminally culpable in allowing infringement to occur on their platform and are aware of are aware of it, Evidence was provided to three other platforms the Creativemarket, HungryJpg and CreativeFabrica, market places and after an investigation was completed they removed the offenders shop for posting pirated content and infringing material on their platform. Etsy refuses to remove the offender and offending content from their platform even after receiving numerous complaints of copyright infringement from various sellers for the offender, Etsy is allowing this shop owner to sell not only my copyrighted works but others as well. Ive contacted etsy over a dozen times to no avail and no response. Etsy then allowed this person to relist my content and retaliatory remove my shops content, and allowed the user to list myself my name and my address for sale as an item in her shop for $10 and as far as I know you cannot sell human beings. Etsy also allowed this person to defame my character and write 1 star reviews of my content claiming that it was poor or not my own. The extent of the harassment's forced me to close my shop and to have to close permaI suffered extreme mental and physical ailment due to the harassment and bullying, The stress and anxiety and the incredible amount of loss of sleep due to the strain of having my art stolen. I received a huge loss to my business and loss of sales due to etsys incredible reach and platform millions of people were able to view the defamatory listing and reviews and allowing another shop to sell my art has diluted my brand and destroyed my business.charlotte SalcedononeEtsyClaim
22-CCB-0060infringementCircular, diamond vector background displaying multiple shades of blue, with the alias "Acerthorn" overlaying it.There is a Twitch user who currently goes by the username jelmerve334. You can find his account by going to the URL of www.twitch.tv/jelmerv334. On or around March 20, 2022, I noticed that he was using my copyrighted Channel Icon #6 as his channel icon without my authorization, and so on March 20, 2022, I issued a DMCA takedown to Twitch asking for it to be taken down. However, Twitch did not take the infringement down. They replied to my DMCA Takedown Notice and asked that I provide proof that I actually own the copyright to this icon. This is not a valid request. 17 USC § 512(c)(3)(A)(i)-(vi) sets forth six things that a DMCA Takedown Notice must include. I included all six of these things and can easily provide proof thereof once this case gets underway. At no point does the DMCA require me to provide proof of copyright ownership when I issue a DMCA Takedown Notice. The law does not entitle the ISP to request additional details, other than those set forth in § 512(c)(3)(A)(i)-(vi), to verify an otherwise statutorily-compliant takedown notice. It was not until May 10, 2022 that it was finally taken down. This means that Twitch allowed the act of infringement to continueSee my section on "describe the infringement."David A StebbinsnoneTwitch Interactive, Inc.Amended Claim
22-CCB-0059infringementThe sound recording and underlying composition "Boxed-Up Memories" by Kerry Muzzey, copyright owned by Kirbyko Music LLC1) The sound recording and underlying composition "Boxed-Up Memories" were used as underscore in a motion picture posted to the "Online Cinema" YouTube channel. 2) I o/b/o Kirbyko Music LLC issued a takedown on the unlicensed music use via Content ID. 3) Mr. Chen filed a false counter-notification with YouTube, under penalty of perjury, in order to release the legitimate strike, which causes monetization on his YouTube channel to be turned off. This is a common tactic by ex-US YouTube streamers because they know that reaching them with litigation is nearly impossible. 4) I emailed Mr. Chen directly asking him to remove his false counter-notification. He has not replied. 5) per the DMCA I now have only a few days' time in which to file a suit against the false counter-notification. 6) I do not know the original date of infringement as I believe this film (created in China) has existed for some time, and now this YouTube channel has acquired the streaming rights to it. However, the underlying musical score - my work "Boxed-Up Memories" - is unlicensed and is the commercial copyright infringement at issue here. 6) Mr. Chen wrote the following to YouTube in order to expedite theI have lost a synchronization and master recording license fee, as well as performance royalties, for both the original creation and broadcast/streaming of this motion picture, as well as losing license fees for the subsequent streaming on YouTube. This is an unlicensed use of my copyrighted composition and sound recording. In addition to this loss, once Mr. Chen's false counter-notification is processed, the infringing content will go back online, where it will continue to be monetized by both Mr. Chen and YouTube, resulting in continuing loss of income by me, the owner of the work, and a continuing erosion of my rights under copyright law.Kirbyko Music LLCnoneKevin ChenOrder to Amend Noncompliant Claim
22-CCB-0058infringementsound recording embodying the following copyright controlled compositions by Michelle Shocked: 1. Five AM in Amsterdam 2. The Secret Admirer 3. The Incomplete Image 4. Who Cares Down on Thomas St. 5. Fogtown 6. Steppin Out 7. The Hep Cat 8. Necktie 9. (Don't You Mess Around with) My Little Sister 10. The Ballad of Patch Eye and Meg 11. The Secret to a Long Life (Is Knowing When It's Time to Go)unauthorized distribution of a counterfeit product on an online third-party marketplace, advertised as "used." The listing includes unlicensed distribution of claimant's registered copyright Works (11), unauthorized display of the copyright protected artwork, as well as unauthorized use of claimant's registered mark, "Michelle Shocked," as well as unauthorized use of claimant's registered mark as a search keyword.complete market failure due to devaluation of claimant's intellectual property rights and claimant's ability to exercise exclusive distribution and display rights.Michelle ShockednoneJames BillingtonClaim
22-CCB-0057infringementPortrait of male with glassesThe infringer displayed this image on their website inferring that it was a portrait of a past client giving a testimonial.The claimants primary source of income is through the licensing of photographic imagery. This infringer used the claimants copyrighted imagery without permission, payment, or license, depriving the claimant of their primary source of income from works created for such purpose.Dana HurseynoneDavid VignolaClaim
22-CCB-0056infringementPhotograph of Family having a picnicThe Image was used without authorization or license to advertise a product on the infringers website.The claimants primary source of income is through the licensing of photographic imagery. This infringer used the claimants copyrighted imagery without permission, payment, or license, depriving the claimant of their primary source of income from works created for such purpose.Dana HurseynoneLavaca LLCWaiver of Service
22-CCB-0055infringement-DMCA-noninfringementA novel about how Christians and sinners come together to seek out God for all their trials and tribulations.My manuscript entitled, "From the Greenleaf to Greener Pastures, somehow ended in the possession of the infringers, OwnTV Network, in which substantial and in certain parts, identical information from my manuscript was copied and used by the television network. It could have been the direct result of the publishers who had copyright access to my manuscript and sent to the copyright office in 2005. After I sent to the copyright office in 2003. The publishers was New Age World Publishing Inc.My artistic works have been shown in the TV series, entitled "Greenleaf", in which I am still seeking punitive and statutory damages for the use of my work, which has apparently been out on the black market due to my work not being fully protected by the US Copyright Office.Freda J DaynoneDayOrder to Amend Noncompliant Claim
22-CCB-0054infringementMind maps for students to learn content to take exams.The owner of the website is selling pirate copies of my product without my consent and ilegally using my brand's name without autorization for his own benefit, harming my business. My original work is sold only on my website: https://mapasdalulu.com.br/ and I also advertise it through Instagram at https://www.instagram.com/mapasdalulu/.Through ilegally selling my products at less than 10% of the original price, the owner of the website is harming my business as well as committing a crime here in Brazil. I claim that the page containing my produt is taken down and he is prevented from putting it up again.Mapas da Lulu Comercio de Ebooks LtdanonePirata DigitalClaim
22-CCB-0053infringementBook of Narrative NonfictionThe scrip writers used many scenes drawn from my book, Recounting the Anthrax Attacks. They used the timing and interpretation of scenes as interpreted by me.The respondents produced a derivative work, an TV mini-series, based on my which was under option by an independent producer at the time. The respondents refuse to provide any royalties or monetary compensation.Scott DeckernoneKelly SoudersOrder to Amend Noncompliant Claim
22-CCB-0052infringementMr Shellenberger and his wife sitting on couchMr Shellenberger has used my copyrighted works on his business and political websites without copyright notice/credit. He has also used my images on his social media pages without copyright notice/credit. He has altered the images, distributed the images freely from his website, and used them for campaign ads (commercial use). His license to use these images expired in 2/2020 but he continued to use the images without requesting an extension of the license. When I reached out to Mr Shellenberger to request that he renew the license he refused. He has ignored my requests to remove the images and continues to offer them as downloads from his website. At least one of my images was being used to make t-shirts for Mr Shellenberger's campaign.The majority of my work comes from referrals both direct and indirect. By not crediting me with use of the images, Mr Shellenberger is denying me a potentially wide audience of prospective clients. He also has been using my images without paying licensing fees for nearly 2.5 years. I am seeking statutory damages.Gabriel HarbernoneMichael ShellenbergerOrder Dismissing Without Prejudice
22-CCB-0051infringementI'm from Malaysia. Copyright need not be registered (https://www.kass.com.my/copyright/#:~:text=Unlike%20trademarks%2C%20designs%20and,creator%20of%20the%20work%20automatically.) The nature of my work is a fiction (shifter romance) novel that has been broken up into 199 chapters on the infringing sites. I've only licensed this work to certain pay-to-read platforms, namely GoodNovel, iReader, MoboReader, NovelCat, Popink, Noveltells, VolcanoEbook, and FishNovel, all of which are companies, not individuals. And these authorized companies charge a fee to readers for access to the material in question. The respondents and I did not sign any contract. Both respondents are not authorized to use my work.The infringing sites have taken my book that I've licensed to other platforms and put it in public for free. Once a person types the title of my book and add the word "free", the respondents' sites become visible. The download steps are easy and they are all pdf documents.Due to the fact that they'd been circulating my book for free, my income significantly dropped until I filed a DMCA with Google. They issued a counter notification, stating that they belong to a group where they have access to such material. I'm copying and pasting their allegation here: Respondent 1: "I am authorised to use the materials on this addresses as the materials published are available for public use and distribution in Chinese language. We translated these copies to English for our audience" Respondent 2: "I am not the owner, but I am authorized to use the content" "Hello, This item wasn't lifted from the quoted website, rather it's a material that's accessible in the public domain (although must use a translator to access it fully). We belong to a group where we have access to these materials to use, share, read, etc." My book was NEVER translated. It was and still is only in English. I would know if my book was available in a different language. And it's a lie that the second respondent is authorize to use the material. I didn't and still don't authorize his use. Relief sought: court order to compel the removal of infringing material.Christina WongnoneEbenezer ObasiOrder to Amend Noncompliant Claim
22-CCB-0050infringement2D fairy wing designMy photos of my fairy wings creations were used without permission and reproduced as stickers in a booklet that SHEIN is selling on their website. A friend recognized one of them and messaged me to ask if it was my photo, and indeed it was my photo from my Titania Painted Fairy Wings Etsy listing, the copper / rose gold colored one as seen here: https://www.etsy.com/listing/171521829/titania-iridescent-fairy-wings-with?show_sold_out_detail=1&ref=nla_listing_details. She sent me the listing (1st url provided above in previous section) and there I could see small thumbnail photos, of my Titania wings and also my green painted Teasel Fairy Wings. I'll call that one Sticker Book A. The photo of my Teasel Fairy Wings design can be seen in my old Etsy listing here: https://www.etsy.com/listing/60733733/teasel-iridescent-fairy-wings-with They're selling those sticker booklets containing my Titania and Teasel fairy wing photos for $2, described as '50pcs Scenery Pattern Random Material Paper'. So far it has 1773 customer reviews, indicating at least that many purchases. I then found another sticker book listing containing the same Teasel Fairy Wings photo that is in the firsI am the only company that sells these fairy wings designs in any format, and did not license SHEIN to sell these images. SHEIN is profiting off of my IPs without permission or payment to me, which deprives me of potential licensing income from my own IP. The sales of my images as cheap stickers dilutes their value, and when in addition they're displaying models wearing knock-offs of those designs, it implies to the public that I am collaborating with their company somehow when I am absolutely not. In fact, I would not choose to work with this company as the entire economy of 'fast fashion' and the negative impact it has on the environment conflicts with my values. I am seeking the maximum amount of damages that the CCB deems I should be awarded, should they decide in my favor.Angela M JarmannoneSHEIN Distribution CorporationProofOfServiceTDocument_75337715.pdf
22-CCB-0049infringement-DMCA-Sound recording from a anime..RZA disappeared with the masters.We recorded two songs at 47th and 7th Street in Manhattan. RZA said we was going make 5,000 a song. He ended up disappearing with those songs, released them and my family died. Oliver Grant said he had this big meeting. I guess with the CIA or FbiCat 6 equipment damaged my vocal s and blocked my broadcast. We are currently getting a MRI soon but we are damaged.Danny A Valentine ShabazznoneRobert DiggsAmended Claim
22-CCB-0048infringement-DMCA-Forever I Love America is recorded material for the Forever I love America OTT network and communications firm that signed Courtney Salter aka Ari LennoxWe working on our products and production and walked to the store. We ran into Brian Jones, a affiliation of Naheem Bowens and Andy Hilfiger. We spoke about the show he was filming and I told him we had a similar show. He said the girl name is Ari and the show is called Impact. I said we have sound recordings and a show called Forever I Love America with Ari. We spoke about 55 million. He introduced me to Gennifer Garner, a exec at eone. We spoke and exchanged numbers. We did a DNA test and than we kept having issues. A contract was pushed in front of me and we thought it was a clearance, not a deal. We also were induced from the Covid 19 test which we passed. It made us dizzy. Me and Gennifer spoke via text a few times to work this out and she stop responding. Brian called me a terrorist.Shut down of Sovereign Sweets and Eone. Mental harm and physical harm due to no pay and no products.47th and 7th LLCnoneEntertainment OneAmended Claim
22-CCB-0047infringementArtwork of cartoon character headshots drawings drawn by me. This work is not allowed for reproduction and the creation of product by unauthorized users.Reproduction of artwork and distribution in the form of charms with no authorization. They are publicly displaying it on their Etsy and Ebay page without permission.Profiting off of my artwork copyright property. I wish for them to cease the selling and distribution of my artwork.Cathy PhamnoneMark O HarrisOrder to Amend Noncompliant Claim
22-CCB-0046infringementPhotographic imageClaimant Mary Oakes is a professional portrait photographer. Claimant is the author and sole rights holder to one photograph ("Abby Image") and one marketing flyer ("Michalea Ad Image"). In late 2021, Claimant discovered that the Abby Image had been incorporated into a number of marketing materials for Respondent Heart of Gold and posted to its website www,usaheartofgold.com. Claimant also discovered that her Michalea Ad Image had been incorporated into a video posted on the Heart of Gold Facebook page, and on a video uploaded to the Youtube Channel operated by Respondent Heart of Gold. Claimant also discovered that her Michalea Ad Image had been incorporated into marketing materials for Respondent Heart of Gold and uploaded to the Facebook page for Respondent Jameson. Claimant did not grant a license or permission to use her works in this manner. Claimant is informed and believes that Respondent Jameson is responsible for creating and uploading the infringing materials. Claimant, through counsel, attempted to resolve the matter prior to filing this claim. Respondent Jameson email Claimaint directly and stated that she had a "team of attorneys" waiting to represent Claimant seeks an award of actual damages and disgorgement of all of Respondent’s profits attributable to the infringement as provided by 17 U.S.C. § 1504(e)(1)(A)(i) and 17 U.S.C. §504(b) in an amount to be proven or, in the alternative, and at Claimant’s election, an award for statutory damages against Respondent in an amount up to $15,000 per work infringed pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 1504(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I), whichever is largerOaksHigbee & AssociatesHeart of Gold Pageant System Inc.Amended Claim
22-CCB-0045infringementaerial photograph of buildingDisplay of infringed work on websiteStatutory damagesDavid G OppenheimerL/O Lawrence G TownseneDouglas A PruttonClaim
22-CCB-0044infringementLive TV broadcast of Sky Sports channel.They are showing Sky Sports live broadcast through their mobile applications on Google Play Store without the permission of our client Sky Group.We just need to protect the copyrighted work of our client.Copyrights ProtectionnoneHA Sports StudioOrder Denying Request to Link Haris Ahmed with the HA Sports Studio party
22-CCB-0043infringementmusical composition, words and musicnon-compliant compulsory mechanical streaming licensemarket failure of my own self-distribution efforts due to willful infringement that encouraged other distributors to engage in similar activityMichelle ShockednoneTunecore, IncOrder to Amend Noncompliant Claim
22-CCB-0042infringementMotion PictureOn May 1, 2021 and possibly at other times and dates otherwise, Respondent reproduced, transmitted, and showed to Respondent's subscribers Claimant's Oscar-shortlisted, duly-registered, motion picture without obtaining permission from Claimant or paying for a license.On May 1, 2021, Respondent showed its subscribers for profit the Claimant's duly registered copyrighted motion picture (which had been short-listed for an Oscar), and for which licenses could cost $7500 per showing or more without obtaining permission from Claimant.Myfilms (dba Mayfilms)Law Office of Julian LowenfeldMatvil, Inc. d/b/a etv.netWaiver of Service
22-CCB-0041infringementDocumentaryOn Thursday September 30th I, John Davis, CEO of RealToonTv Productions & Entertainment LLC gave Larry Smiley- El also known by the alias “Siyf Smiley,” the files to my documentary, MurdaWorth “The Story of How Gangs came to Texas” (which contains my image, likeness, and copyrighted intellectual property) in order to clean the sound, which he told me was his speciality after I had interviewed him. On October 7th I was informed that Larry Smiley was finished editing the files and was subsequently paid for the services rendered; However I never received my files. Some time after that Siyf quit returning my calls. On October 7th I sent Brian Hall a copy of the rough draft that syfe had completed, so that he knew what was going on with the project and for feed back. On October 11th Larry Smiley sent a request for permission to view a second project that I was working on through google drive; the only other person to have been given access to view the project was Brian Hall also known by the alias Bob MCGRIFF (Supreme). When questioned about the odd request Syfe came up with an elaborate story of how a hacker hacked his gmail account some time ago and sometimes sends emai3 Years of Hard work, thousands of dollars, chronic stress, and time wasted dealing with this.RealToonTV Productions & Entertainment LLCnoneLarry SmileyWaiver of Service - Larry Smiley
22-CCB-0040infringementStandard Character MarkGGL Projects, Inc. publishes Sitejabber.com a public website where its users can openly submit content. GGL Projects, Inc is buffered by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, this protection, however, does not give them latitude to use a competitors trademarked term to unfairly compete and be unjustly enriched. Sitejabber.com contains a webpage that uses Relevant Ads trademarked term: "Local Splash". Relevant Ads and GGL Projects, Inc. are business competitors that offer the same, or very similar, business services. GGL Projects, Inc. is using Relevant Ads' trademarked term in a matter that simultaneously damages Relevant Ads as well as enriches their Sitejabber property and which they profit from sales. Sitejabber.com is causing their webpage to be promoted and found by search engines, including Google and Bing, using the “Local Splash” trademarked term. Sitejabber.com sells a “paid plan” that is the same or very similar services that compete with the services that Relevant Ads provides its Local Splash customers.Relevant Ads suffers direct economic losses due to the tortious interference by GGL Projects. Relevant Ads existing and prospective online customers are illicitly drawn away to the Sitejabber.com website in which Sitejabber sells a competing offering. Relevant Ads Customer-X has been lured to Sitejabbers website through their promotion of the “Local Splash” term to search engines and, as a result, it has caused Customer-X to sever their services contract. Moreover, Customer-X has gone on to provide material benefit to GGL Projects, Inc. through usage of the Sitejabber.com website including purchasing the Sitejabber "paid plan". Sitejabber’s "paid plan" is a service that competes for the same, or very similar, service offer that Relevant Ads provides. Relevant Ads has a direct loss of revenue due to the severed agreement of Customer-X is $3,289 as well as damages to process the loss.Relevant Ads, Inc.noneGGL Projects, IncOrder to Amend Noncompliant Claim
22-CCB-0039infringement-DMCA-Forever I Love America is recorded material for the Forever I love America OTT network and communications firmChris Bruce and Yusef Ali recorded Forever I Love America on the U47 microphone in November of 2019. After Shyneika Taylor spent a whole night at the location working on a TMZ segment and Mitchell and Ness deal, Chris installed streaming and communications equipment with Why Fly Internet. Cameras were installed as well. After a argument ensued, Chris Bruce building manager Jamie Paglie admitted they used cat 6 equipment. He admitted harm to Danny vocal production and OTT network. We had to go through a series of legal proceedings to get out copyright filed to get him removed from the building. The building was not up to code and a NDA was breached with Chris Bruce name on it.30,000 dollars and the removal.of the equipment at 727 Market St. Wilmington De 19891. It's harm to my body and people have died since they breached the NDA.Danny Amen Valentine ShabazznoneChris BruceAmended Claim
22-CCB-0038infringement7 inch vinyl recordJay Rowe used "Stop Sign's" musical composition to make his song "Side Stepping" without my permission with the feel of the groove which can be heard throughout the song.I am seeking compensation for using my music without getting permission and licensing to do so. Unauthorized use of my music is priceless at this time because it is ongoing everytime it's played on tv, radio, concerts and other musical outlets. We are seeking the maximum relief allowed.Elton J White SrnoneJay RoweOrder to Amend Noncompliant Claim
22-CCB-0037infringement2D artwork of fantasy characterThe Respondent sold Halloween masks and Halloween costumes based on the artwork. The Respondent was not licensed.The Claimant was not compensated for the the use of his original artwork. The Claimant requests all profits made by Respondent from the sale of the Halloween masks and costumes.Thomas E WoodRay Wood, Attorney at LawSpirit Halloween Superstores LLCWaiver of Service
22-CCB-0036infringementPhotograph of Actress/Model/Tv Host Cindy TaylorThe infringement involves a wholly unauthorized photo print of Cindy Taylor that was posted, publicly displayed, disturbuted and offered for sale on ebay.com as item 233857273682 by the infringer using the seller id 807miami.The harm was monetary and involves statutory damagesBarry W RosennonePatricia A ClarenAmended Claim
22-CCB-0035-DMCANANAAs a result of this, the content is not available to users attempting to reach it. Due to marketing and other outreach efforts which cost hundreds of dollars per month to send interested users to the content (via the website https://passportapp.io and directly to the Chrome Web Store, where it is unavailable), this is resulting in active monetary harm. The relief I seek is for the claim to be withdrawn, and for the respondent to cease filing takedown notices with false statements.Michael FloresnoneMichael MitrakosWaiver of Service
22-CCB-0034infringementNone givenHello Respected Team, We are legal partner of Sky Group (“Sky Sports”) to protect their intellectual property rights which includes the rights to broadcast live audio-visual coverage of various properties licensed to Sky Sports, for the entire world (“Licensed Properties”). Sky Sports holds broadcasting rights for Australia vs Sri Lanka T20 Cricket Matches (AUS vs SL T20). These rights includes, without limitation, the TV live broadcast rights, the TV highlights rights, mobile rights and internet rights for live, deferred, delayed broadcasts and highlights for all matches relating to the Licensed Properties on television and on the internet (“Exclusive Rights”). As an authorized agent we are entitled to enforce these rights which have been licensed to Sky Sports. The mobile applications being made available through the URLs below are making available footage from the Licensed Properties (“AUS vs SL T20”). To our knowledge, the developer's use of the footage in the mobile applications has not been licensed by the rights owner and therefore violates the Exclusive Rights granted to Sky Sports. Accordingly, we request that you remove the infringing mobile applications from google pUsers mislead Servers bandwidth used Brand with Logo usedCopyright Brand Protection Pvt. LtdnoneHA Sports StudioOrder to Amend Noncompliant Claim
22-CCB-0033infringementA one-hour pilot for a fashion television seriesOn Friday, May 1, 2015, I answered an ad on Craigslist with the headline: “Narrative Script Needed ASAP.” The description said an experienced documentary producer was seeking a writer for an hour biography/documentary show. I sent a resume in response. (I worked at E! Entertainment Television on the non-fiction series “Celebrity Profile” and “True Hollywood Story,” and had written several award show red carpet scripts for TV Guide Network.) I heard back quickly from the producer, Tara Pirnia. She needed a short turnaround on a script for a show about the fashion evolution of Kate Middleton. When I quoted a price of $1000, she talked me into lowering it by half to $500, saying that it was the pilot for a series and she would pay me more for the next script. I agreed. She sent me a rough outline that included bullet points for each segment, divided up into nine blocks plus a cold open. After researching and writing the script, I submitted my first draft with my original title “Kate Middleton: Duchess of Style.” Tara praised my work in subsequent emails. She seemed pleased with my writing. I stayed in touch with Tara during the revision process, and she gave me additional noteI am entitled to damages because this was no accident. Tara Pirnia has practiced this kind of fraud and deception before. In documentation which I will attach I will demonstrate that she has a history of legal actions being brought against her to collect on rents, wages, and other monies that went unpaid due to her repeated deliberate actions meant to defraud others. Copies of these complaints are attached, as well as a list of all small claims cases brought against her. As recently as 2021, a complaint was filed by Amanda Raymond, the writer and director of a feature film Tara Pirnia produced. The cause of action was breach of contract. In the complaint the Amanda Raymond states that Tara Pirnia had no intention of paying the deferred compensation, contingent compensation or travel expenses as outlined in her contract. A copy of the complaint is attached. In my case, Tara Pirnia took one script I wrote and used it for two shows. She then resold these shows around the world in streaming and international distribution deals, including DVDs. While her career advanced into the area of directing feature films, with accompanying self=promoting interviews and red carpets, my contrDan BartonnoneTara PirniaService Packet
22-CCB-0032infringementThree Dimensional Jewelry CharmCopying and producing, advertising,distributing and selling my copyrighted designs, Selling my designs thru their website, in person sales at their business location, and offering for sale, copies of my original design at major trade shows throughout the USA.The infringer was afforded many opportunities to contact me thru online communication.A formal cease and desist letter and multiple DMCA take down notices were issued to their web host. The defendant is knowing of the infringement and willfully continuing to disregard the law. They have willfully failed to communicate and cease their copyright infringement. Copies of these designs have been found on Etsy and Amazon. My main source of income comes from sales on the Etsy platform. The financial harm caused by competing with unauthorized copies of my designs is one concern. Copies of my designs are being placed into brick and mortar establishments because the defendant is selling these designs through large, national trade shows. This distribution is allowing retailers to sell infringing goods throughout the world. Their actions are causing unknowing retailers to resell infringing goods and also leading them to copyright infringement claims. Because I voluntarily do not sell at a wholesale level, it has caused irreparable damage to the uniqueness of my designs. When a consumer sees unauthorized copies of my design in a retail establishment, the design is not considered to be an artistROBERT SAPAnonePUKA CREATIONS LLCWaiver of Service
22-CCB-0031infringementGroup registration of photographsClaimant Steven Hirsch is a photojournalist based in New York City. Claimant is the creator and sole rights holder to two photographs of disgraced Columbia gynecologist, Robert Hadden, who was indicted for sexually assaulting his female patients for more than two decades. Respondent is the owner and operator of the website www.scdaily.com which is a Chinese-language editorial website. On information and belief, Respondent monetizes its website through paid advertising. On or about February 2020, Claimant discovered that two of his photographs were being displayed on Respondent's website in an editorial article. Claimant never licensed the photographs to Respondent or otherwise granted Respondent permission to use his photographs.Claimant seeks an award of actual damages and disgorgement of all of Respondent’s profits attributable to the infringement as provided by 17 U.S.C. § 1504(e)(1)(A)(i) and 17 U.S.C. §504(b) in an amount to be proven or, in the alternative, and at Claimant’s election, an award for statutory damages against Respondent in an amount up to $15,000 per work infringed pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 1504(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I), whichever is larger.Steven HirschHigbee & AssociatesSouthern Chinese Daily News, LLCService Packet
22-CCB-0030-DMCANANAActual Damages and Profits: It is estimated by the use of Spotify streaming revenue calculators, in conjunction with information obtained via the spotify for artists website that the infringing party has taken roughly $40,000 in Spotify streaming royalties for Solfeggio Harmonics Vol.1 alone. Specific amounts prior to an injunction into the account’s records are not available, but could be much higher depending on the duration and degree of the offense. Royalties from Amazon, Pandora and other streaming services as well as digital downloads from iTunes and other digital download stores are only visible through the TuneCore account records. Statutory Damages: The infringing party has interfered with the publication, distribution and accounting mechanisms of Source Vibrations music by defrauding the account (TuneCore) under the email: fogleolina33@gmail.com. It's my belief that the infringing party altered the original account email, willfully falsified copyright ownership information within the TuneCore account and in statements made directly to TuneCore copyright agents in order to unscrupulously withdraw royalties. This has caused significant distress and financial hardship onJason WildnoneDeborah A CalkinOrder to Amend Noncompliant Claim
22-CCB-0029infringementOne (1) photograph from the Greenacre group registration depicting Paul Simon's Greenacre estate at night.In 2019, Claimant was commissioned by William Pitt and Sotheby’s to photograph Paul Simon's “Greenacre” estate under a limited, nonexclusive license for the sole purpose of Sotheby’s own advertising, on its own website and social media, of the listing for Greenacre, plus one limited use in the Wall Street Journal. Without permission, Respondent reproduced and publicly displayed at least one (1) of the Greenacre photographs (the “Photograph”) in the attached Ultimate Classic Rock article, dated April 29, 2019. Claimant never authorized Respondent to use the Photograph for any purpose whatsoever. In addition, Respondent falsely attributed the copyright in the Photograph to “William Pitt,” which is a violation of the DMCA Section 1202.$15,000 - Lost license fees/royalties - Disgorgement of Respondent’s profits - Omitted attribution induced, facilitated, and encouraged further downstream infringementLane Coder Photography, LLCLeichtman Law PLLCTownsquare Media, Inc.Order Granting Request to Link Alexander B Katz with the Lane Coder Photography, LLC party
22-CCB-0028infringementNone givenRespondent produced, distributed and licensed Johnny Winter derivative recording of "Kiss Tomorrow Goodbye" in the 1984, 1991, 1992, 2011, 2016 and 2018 Johhny Winter "Guitar Slinger" CD, LP and DPD album(s), crediting Cervalin Music as the publisher. Additionally, the respondent reissued the derivative recording in the 2001 Johnny Winter "Deluxe Edition" CD and DPD albums, crediting the composition renewed on 12/26/1990 with the Copyright Office as RE0000558123 in the "Public Domain".$30,000 Statutory Damages False and misleading author information False and misleading publisher informationChervalin Publishing CompanynoneAlligator RecordsOrder to Amend Noncompliant Claim
22-CCB-0027infringementA LOVE SONGIn 1965, respondent John M. Hill brought the Claimant two Susan-Christie demonstration [dubs] “No One Can Hear You Cry” & *When Love Comes [I] knew, they were potential hits for my Chanté Record Label. *Forty years later they were included as the final two [Chanté-Soundtracks]***Paint A Lady Album*** had earned much critical praise (i.e. Industry Awards for New Albums) see: https://www.wikiwand.com> "They had earned much critical praise i.e. Industry Awards for New Albums.Claimant: Good Faith vs. Respondent: Bad Faith. As stated in the Wikiwand Post; "Columbia Records rejected the two Chante Soundtracks and granted a one-time-only-release, to Susan Christie, to find an independent recorded label for distribution. Mr. Hill knew that Chante Records had a P&D [deal] with Sam Hodge Sr. of Hodge Record Pressing [P] Co & [D] Distribution by Paramount Wholesale to Retail Stores of Philadelphia, Pa. Mr. Hill would not sign ownership of the listed agreements (mechanicals/soundtracks) with and to Mr. Alfieri until the Chante Records were pressed and ready for immediate distribution by May 21, 1965. In 2018, Mr. Alfieri's attorney notified Mr.Hill (voice & emails) of the infringements and offered a reasonable settlement of &600,00, for only attorney's fees with complete control over the signed agreements. At the first offer, Mr. Hill was inclined to settle; but, after two weeks, Hill [bad faith] through his attorney off Alfieri a flat fee of $400, and, rereleased full control of the copyrights back to Mr. Hill. Mr. Alfieri is seeking nothing less than the full, CCB amount of, $30,000 plus attorney's fees and full control of the copyrights Note: I will sLOUIS D. ALFIERI SnoneJOHN M HILLOrder to Amend Noncompliant Claim
22-CCB-0026infringementPhotograph is an image of a coastline with earth, water, and cloudsQuinn posted the photograph to Pinterest in support of her d/b/a, "Quinnspiration," which is dedicated to dispensing advice on: "health and wellness, self-esteem, life transitions, stress management, effective communication, and healthy relationship building."Mr. Graf is a commercial photographer who relies on the proper licensing of his copyrighted images. Mr. graf has a history of licensing his copyrighted images. Mr. Graf timely registered the image at issue in this case and is eligible for statutory damages.Mark GrafThe Law Office of David C. Deal, P.L.C.Mary QuinnService Packet
22-CCB-0025infringementGroup registration of photographsClaimant is a professional photographer. Claimant is the owner and sole rights holder to a real estate photograph. On or about April 2022, Claimant discovered his real estate photograph being displayed on multiple pages of Respondent's website with his permission. Between April 2022 and early June 2022, Claimant's attorneys corresponded with Respondent's legal representation regarding the infringement. However, as of June 4, 2022, Claimant's real estate photograph had still not been removed from Respondent's website. The parties were unable to reach a resolution and ceased communication on or about June 10, 2022, after which the photograph was apparently removed from the website.Claimant seeks an award of actual damages and disgorgement of all of Respondent’s profits attributable to the infringement as provided by 17 U.S.C. § 1504(e)(1)(A)(i) and 17 U.S.C. §504(b) in an amount to be proven or, in the alternative, and at Claimant’s election, an award for statutory damages against Respondent in an amount up to $15,000 per work infringed pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 1504(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I), whichever is largerJohn NaschinskiHigbee & AssociatesCirca Group, LLCService Packet
22-CCB-0024infringementNone givenButter Lutz Interiors reproduced and publicly displayed the works on its website beginning in October 2013 without having first secured the permission of the author of the works to do so. The photographs were commissioned by publications such as Architectural Digest and Elle Decor; the author, Björn Wallander, is represented exclusively by Claimant, OTTO Archive, LLC, for the licensing of his photographs. Upon its discovery of the infringement in late 2021, Claimant conducted a thorough search of its records and consulted with the author, determining that permission had never been granted to Butter Lutz Interiors for its use of the works, nor had a license fee been paid by them.The harm suffered is a loss of licensing fees to which the author was entitled had Butter Lutz Interiors properly licensed the images via Claimant. The Claimant is seeking actual damages of $500.00 per image infringed for a total of $13,000.00.OTTO Archive LLCPeppercorn Partners LLCButter Lutz Interiors, LLCOrder to Amend Noncompliant Claim
22-CCB-0023infringement-DMCA-PhD's video interviewthe use the audio of my interview and these individual mixed with other materialThey are misleading my work, and making money for a confidential material. I also think that they intimidate me sending email to my other email. I think that they are the same people who send me death threats from another copyright claim.Catalina M JaramillononeApple Inc.Claim
22-CCB-0022infringementPicture of the Langley Covered Bridge from a drone.It has come to my attention that your company Green Line Media, LLC designed the website for Francoy’s Resort, L.L.C (hereafter “Francoy’s) under its website Francoysresort.com (hereafter “website”) have made unauthorized use of my copyrighted work entitled “Langley Covered Bridge from above (hereafter the “Work”) (Exhibit 1). I have reserved all rights in the Work, which was first published on September 13, 2016. I have registered the image with US Copyright office. (Exhibit 2) I uploaded this work to Wikimedia Commons under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International License (hereafter “Share Alike License”). , Under this license I allow anyone to use my work provided two conditions are met: 1. “Attribution: You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any what that suggests the licensor (myself) endorse you or your use. 2. Share Alike-If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.” Francoy’s website for 30 Things to do in Southwest Michigan, number 22: Visit the CoveThe loss of control of my most popular image, loss of licensing fees. Loss of tracking of use, loss of marking, loss of future income.Joshua S GoodrichLighthouse Litigation PLLCGreen Line MediaOrder Dismissing Without Prejudice
22-CCB-0021infringement-DMCA-It was a video interview for my PhDThese individuals has taken and alter parts of my work and they had even made a photomontage imitate me and ridicule me. They had used my material to intimidate me and I even received death threatsThe individuals who published the material claimed my work with fake notification. They send me death threats that they will kill me if I keep claiming my work. I send all these documents to YouTube and Google. I even open a case of data protection in Ireland. The individuals who published my material are related to a Colombian drug cartel. I opened a case in Colombia because of the intimidation and YouTube ignored it. They even keep online material, which defames me and threatens me. I had to get psychological help, I had panic attacks and I had a problem with my PhD and my personal life. I can not return to the country, I was born because these individuals want to kill me. This claim make my life in danger because I had even been intimidate with the Miami police and FBI. My academic material has been defamed and damaged and my image had been related to prostitution and a drug cartel. I had been the victim of every psychological abuse. I had also spend so much time and money, fighting this fraud of my work.Catalina M JaramillononeYouTubeOrder to Amend Noncompliant Claim
22-CCB-0020infringement-DMCA-None givenInfringing products sold by respondent contain Mr. Wright's artwork as the central feature. Respondent sold the product as a digital file that the purchasers can freely use, resell, redistribute, etc.Mr. Wright regularly licenses his artwork for minimums in excess of $5,000 per year. The sale of digital files is particularly harmful to the value of the artwork as it floods the market, thereby diminishing its value.Jon Q WrightAxenfeld Law Group, LLCGeoffrey PotterWaiver of Service
22-CCB-0019infringementVoice memo recorded into Iphone that was meant for the hook of the song.Infringement upon the delivery of the song, the thematic material, and lyrics.Resulted in having to change the name of the song, and rewrite the lyrics to avoid being accused of plagiarizing my own song due to being an unknown artist in the public eye. Seeking monetary relief due to most likely having to scrap the song all together due to Columbia Records stealing my intellectual property from my iphone for personal gain as if my creative work belongs to them, and is there for them to steal for free.Cory D PalmernoneColumbia RecordsOrder Dismissing Claim Without Prejudice
22-CCB-0018infringementA black Great Dane spinning around facing the camera in a tan leather chair with the caption "The Dog Father"Zesty Paws illegally downloaded my short motion picture and used it on their social account without my permission.On March 16th, 2022, Zesty Paws intently stole my content from another platform to use on their TikTok. I have messages from Zesty Paws in my direct messages on Instagram dated October 15th 2021, in which they asked permission to use my content. My reply was "which one are you looking at? and let me know what you're thinking". There was never any reply from Zesty Paws and permission was never granted. My brand, Love Margot is trademarked. I am under a contractual obligation with another dog supplement brand. By Zesty Paws illegally using my content under Zesty Paws social profiles implemented to at least 1.4 million people that I represent the Zesty Paws brand when in fact, I never have. I am seeking damages of $30,000. for loss of other brand campaigns.Sabrina GiardinanoneZesty PawsOrder Dismissing Without Prejudice
22-CCB-0017infringementPhotographDefendant reproduced, displayed, and distributed Plaintiff's copyrighted photograph without her consent on its commercial website and continued to do so after she provided notice of the infringement.Plaintiff lost licensing fees and the market for her work, this photograph in particular, was damaged. Defendant obtained profits from selling advertising against this photograph that should be disgorged. Defendant built the value of its site by exploiting this photograph, and a portion of that value should be disgorged.Dana LixenbergDoniger / BurroughsHypebeast, Ltd.Waiver of Service
22-CCB-0016Not availableNANANot availableSee captionNot availableSee captionOrder Dismissing Claim Without Prejudice
22-CCB-0015infringementFull length Young Adult novel; urban fantasy; paranormalThe author is a minority female writer based in Australia. Disney-Hyperion, an imprint and/or subsidiary of the other two respondents, sublicensed the rights to the two titles in question from the author’s primary publisher, HarperCollins Australia via its UK sibling entity, HarperCollins UK (“HCUK”) on 23 September 2010. The author sought a reversion of those rights back from Disney-Hyperion to HarperCollins due to repeated contractual breaches by Disney-Hyperion. Rights were reverted as between Disney-Hyperion and HCUK effective 29 July 2014. On 31 January 2022, HarperCollins Australia reverted the rights to the two titles in question under the head agreement to the author who, on that date, assigned the copyright in those two titles to the claimant. Both HarperCollins Australia and HarperCollins UK have since confirmed to the author and claimant in writing that all rights in the 'Mercy' Series (including Mercy and Exile) by Rebecca Lim have been reverted to the author by both entities and that the author is free to dispose of rights in her works as she will. On 5 March 2022 (Australian time), the author discovered that Disney Publishing has continued to distribute the twThe claimant seeks statutory damages of $7,500 per title ($15,000 in total for this proceeding) as the continued existence, availability and distribution of the Disney-Hyperion versions have caused reputational damage to the author, lost sales to the author, exposed the author to continued piracy (over a period of successive years, both the author and the claimant have issued multiple DCMA takedown notices from Australia in relation to the Disney version of the titles) and competed with the claimant's own re-issued editions of the two titles. The claimant cannot prove, based on the claimant's relative lack of bargaining power, its jurisdiction of domicile and inability to seek proper discovery and accounting from Disney, through which channels Disney has distributed the two titles, and how Disney has profited from the infringements.Morly Investments Pty Ltd (imprint: The High Street Publishing Company)noneThe Walt Disney CompanyCCB Format Proof of Service to be read with Affidavit of Service
22-CCB-0014infringementPictorial and graphic features identified separately from and capable of existing independently of the utilitarian aspects of a useful article.As set forth above, the Dolls Kill Copyrights are valid and owned by Dolls Kill, and have been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. Defendant, without the permission or consent of Dolls Kill, has designed, manufactured, produced, distributed, marketed, promoted, offered for sale and sold the infringing Materials which is identical and/or substantially similar to the Dolls Kill Copyrights. Specifically, The website located at https://www.anotherchill.com/ ("Defendant") contains works that infringe upon Dolls Kill’s Copyrighted photos and designs ("Copyrighted Material"). Dolls Kill sent a first takedown notice per the Digital Millenium Copyright Act ("DMCA") to Defendant's service provider on January 31, 2022. The work was removed but more infringing content was discovered in April 2022. Dolls Kill sent another takedown notice and the work was allegedly removed from Defendant's website. On June 15, 2022 Dolls Kill discovered several additional copies on Defendant's websites. It thus appears that Defendant willfully and repetitively infringes upon Dolls Kill's rights, despite Dolls Kill's efforts to resolve this issue without court intervention.By reason of the foregoing, Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe, the Dolls Kill Copyrights in violation of, without limitation, the exclusive rights of reproduction and distribution and the exclusive right to prepare derivative works under section 106 of the Copyright Act, and section 501 of the Copyright Act. Defendant’s infringement of the Dolls Kill Copyrights has been and continues to be intentional, willful, and with full knowledge of Dolls Kill’s rights pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. As a direct and proximate result of its infringing conduct, Defendant has made and will continue to make substantial profits and gains to which it is not entitled to actual damages, and Defendant's profits attributable to Defendant's infringement. Alternatively, Dolls Kill is entitled to the maximum statutory damages, the costs of this action and such other amounts as the Court deems proper and within the limit authorized by this Court.Dolls Kill, Inc.noneAnother ChillService Packet
22-CCB-0013infringementA historical fiction/ fantasy work published in the juvenile fiction categories under the imprint "Pacific Books"Copies of this work were produced, distributed, and sold prior to publication, including manuscript/drafts of this work that were not released to the public. Formal letters to cease and desist unlawful distribution were knowingly ignored and unacted upon.Formal letters to cease and desist unlawful distribution were knowingly ignored and unacted upon, resulting in several works distributed to the public prior to publication. Many of these works were incomplete manuscripts of our authors work. This caused an immeasurable amount of damage to our organization and the author, damaging author credibility, damaging company reputation in the field as a new publishing agency, establishing a significant loss in marking/public credibility and perception, resulting in poor reviews which further damaged sales, and causing extreme mental duress to our author and publication team.Tactical Training Academy LLC, DBA Pacific BooksnoneIngram Content Group, Lightning Source LLCOrder Dismissing Without Prejudice
22-CCB-0012infringementInstructions and paper prompts for an essay that students were required to write in a university course that I teach.EssayZoo markets itself to college students and describes itself as "the Most Reliable Place to Buy Pre Written Essays" (essayzoo.org, accessed 6/16/22). Between 5/8/21 and 3/21/22, a subpage on essayzoo.org publicly displayed the instructions provided to EssayZoo by a past customer. Those instructions provided to EssayZoo by the customer included material for which I own the copyright, namely, instructions and paper prompts for an essay that students are required to write in a course that I teach. This claim is not being brought against EssayZoo due to their storage of or referral or linking to infringing material posted by others. The infringing material was not posted directly by the customer in this case. Instead, that material was submitted by the customer to EssayZoo through fillable forms available on the latter's website, as part of the process by which the customer ordered written work from EssayZoo, and EssayZoo later posted the customer's instructions along with (1) a preview of the work produced for the customer, and (2) an option to download the entire work for $4.32. In addition, even if this claim were being brought against EssayZoo due to their storage of or rI intend to ask for statutory damages in the amount of $7,500. I am asking for such damages in order to deter future infringements, as they undermine the integrity of the courses that I teach and the grades that I assign in those courses.Benjamin BronnernoneEssayZooAttachment to affidavit of publication
22-CCB-0011infringementFour Photographs of The Residences at 66 High Street in Guilford, CTSee supplementary materialSee supplementary materialDennis CarboHigbee & AssociatesLuchs Consulting Engineers, LLCWaiver of Service
22-CCB-0010infringement2D fairy wing designMy own photos of my design were used in image edits and displayed on 11:11 Digital / Paris Hilton's social media accounts without my permission. The same IP, Titania Fairy Wings, has actually been infringed 3 different times by Paris Hilton / 11:11 Digital. The first time I became aware of one on Instagram, I sent a DMCA notice to Paris' company, at management@parishiltonentertainment.com on 9/17/2020 for the Sept. 2020 infringement, as that was the one I became aware of first, requesting removal of the infringing work from Paris' Instagram account. I received no response, but it was removed roughly a week later after gaining over at least 800,000 views. That content used the wing image directly from my listing graphic for the digital overlays I sell for the purpose of photo editing, seen in my store here: https://fancy-fairy-wings-things.myshopify.com/products/titania-fairy-wings-transparency-stock-png-files An error is showing for the documents I'm trying to attach which show how my work was used, but you can see more details in a blog post I made about it here: https://www.fancyfairy.com/news/2020/9/17/infringement-is-not-hot-paris-hilton The 2nd time I noticed an infrinThe use of my IP by Paris Hilton companies has harmed my market, by exposing it to potentially millions of people without my name attached. My infringements of this IP have increased greatly in the last 3 years but especially in the last 2. I believe these infringements played a part in that by giving Paris' viewers the impression that my IP is a freely available work to use should they find it being distributed (illegally) online. I believe it may also be causing brand confusion between myself and a competing fairy wing maker, HelloFaerie, who engaged in slandering me a few years ago when she was trying to compete in the market. HelloFaerie has been providing Paris with her fairy wings for the last 2 or 3 years. Her business was built upon the foundation my work created. Since these infringements, I have been incorrectly credited or tagged as the wing maker in posts showing HelloFaerie's work quite a few times. This has been adding insult to injury. I am seeking roughly $12,000 in relief, based on previous copyright settlements for online displays of my work and due to the frequency with which the same IP has been infringed by Paris / 11:11 Digital.Angela M Jarmannone11:11 DigitalOrder Dismissing Without Prejudice
22-CCB-0009infringementSound recordingA single entitled, “Def Mix” recorded by Ondamike and released by Ravesta Records which interpolates DM’s track, “Techno Bass (Eurobass Mix)" performed by BASS 305. DM Records, Inc. (DM) is the sole and exclusive owner of the copyright to the master recording and music composition. In direct and willful contravention of DM’s exclusive rights under 17 U.S.C. Section 101 et seq., and in particular those enumerated in 17 U.S.C. Section 106, Ravestra is infringing on DM’s rights by sampling and reproducing the above-listed song.Both the sound recording and composition have been blatant and intentional acts of infringement by Ravestra. DM tried to negotiate with them, but had no response. DM asked them to take down the infringing material, but they did not. DM is requesting the maximum award for damages.DM Records, Inc.noneRAVESTA, LLCService Packet
22-CCB-0008infringementPhotographs taken of a trip down the Mississippi River for the upcoming book by author RINKER BUCK. The book will be released August 9 through Simon & Schuster. I was brought along as the photographer. I own all contentThe owner of this offending website, Scott Mandrell, has stolen content for his website. The images where all taken by me and are part of a book project soon to be published by Simon and Schuster. The book is on the history of the great American rivers specifically the Flatboat era to the present written by RINKER BUCK. Mr. Buck is a longtime associate. Rinker Buck is a New York Times best-selling author of several books. I was along on the trip as the official photographer among other duties. We build a replica 18 century Flatboat and sailed it from Elizabeth Pennsylvania to New Orleans in the summer of 2016 to prepare to write the history. Mr. Mandrell was on our replica boat for a bit. He was thrown off after erratic, racist and violent behavior at the very beginning of the trip. He took the images from the official website for the project. I texted him and asked him politely to remove them and he refused and threatened me. I then sent him two registered emails asking him to take down the contact. . He is doing this simply to undermine the value of the images for the book. I am the copyright holder and the photographer who took them. I spent 20 years as a photojournalist at theThese images were created specifically for Bucks Book and for the official website promoting the trip. Some of the images will appear in the book but have lost their value because I have lost control of them. Mr. Mandrell stated in his text the vindictive nature of his use of these images. Because of Mr. Mandrell's activities the images may not be used in the book. And if they are at a significant loss in value.Daniel C CorjulononeScott MandrellAmended Claim
22-CCB-0007infringementPhotograph of Local Politician regarding Environmental ActivismRespondent reproduced, displayed, and distributed unauthorized copies of Claimant’s Groby Photograph on its website, thehayride.com. Respondent reproduced, displayed, and distributed unauthorized copies of Claimant’s Flooding Photograph on its website, thehayride.com, and additionally created an unauthorized derivative work by superimposing the text “Everyday I’m Hustlin’” over the Flooding Photograph and otherwise altering that Photograph. In addition, despite the presence of Claimant’s authorship credit when the photographs were first published on two separate authorized third-party websites, in each case with authorship credits indicating Julie Dermansky as the author, Respondent omitted Claimant’s name from the infringing articles, inducing, facilitating, and encouraging further downstream infringement. Claimant never authorized Respondent to reproduce, publish, display, or make use of any kind of the Photographs.$30,000 (15 x 2) - Lost license fees/royalties - Disgorgement of Respondent’s profits - Omitted attribution induced, facilitated, and encouraged further downstream infringement - Creation and exploitation of unauthorized derivative work.Julie DermanskyLeichtman Law PLLCHayride Media, LLCOrder Dismissing Without Prejudice
22-CCB-0006infringementPaintingPetitioner was commissioned by a company called NINE Dot Arts, which advertises itself as an art consultant and art curator, to have the Copyrighted Work reproduced and affixed upon the walls of a parking garage located at 410 17th Street in Denver, Colorado. Respondent has numerous multimedia initiatives, including the magazine publication of Graphics Pro. In or around May 2021, Respondent exploited the Copyrighted Work by unlawfully reproducing and distributing a copy of it in its magazine, Graphics Pro. Further, Respondent unlawfully reproduced and distributed photographs of the Copyrighted Work on its social media platforms in order to promote an upcoming exposition it was hosting. These unlawful and repeated displays of Petitioner’s Copyrighted Work were done without Petitioner’s permission or knowledge, resulting in potential lost sales and future marketing of the Copyrighted Work.By failing to obtain Petitioner’s authorization to use the Copyrighted Work or to compensate Petitioner for their various uses, Respondents have avoided payment of license fees and other financial costs associated with obtaining permission to exploit the Copyrighted Work, as well as the restrictions that Petitioner is entitled to and would place on any such exploitation as conditions for Petitioner’s permission, including the right to deny permission altogether.Max KauffmanHoward O. Bernstein, P.C.National Business Media, Inc.Proof of Service on National Business Media, Inc.
22-CCB-0005infringementPhotograph of Exxon oil refinery.Respondent, through its Healing Properties’ website, reproduced, displayed, and distributed unauthorized copies of Claimant’s Photograph on healingproperties.org. In addition, despite the presence of Claimant’s authorship credit when the photograph was first published on an authorized third-party website, with an authorship credit indicating Julie Dermansky as the author, Respondent omitted Claimant’s name from the infringing article, inducing, facilitating, and encouraging further downstream infringement. Claimant never authorized Respondent to reproduce, publish, display, or make use of any kind of the Photograph.$15,000 - Statutory damages - Lost license fees/royalties - Disgorgement of Respondent’s profits - Omitted attribution induced, facilitated, and encouraged further downstream infringementJulie DermanskyLeichtman Law PLLCRule 62, Inc.Service Packet
22-CCB-0004infringementBLACK & WHITE PORTRAIT OF MILES DAVIS WITH FINGER TO LIPSRESPONDENTS REPRODUCED, DISTRIBUTED, DISPLAYED AND ALTERED THE WORKS ON RESPONDENTS' WEBSITES, AND ON SOCIAL MEDIA INCLUDING FACEBOOK INSTAGRAM OPEN TABLE YELP AND OTHER PLATFORMS, EXPLOITING THE WORKS FOR COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING PURPOSES AND FOR BRANDING PURPOSESLOST LICENSING FEES, DEFENDANTS ILL GAINED PROFITS, DEVALUATION OF WORKS. SEEKING ACTUAL DAMAGES AND PROFITS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, STATUTORY DAMAGES. SEEKING COSTS OF SUIT.JEFFREY B SEDLIKnoneCULINARY INVESTMENTS, LLCProof of Service - John Prepolec
22-CCB-0003infringementPhotograph of Herman Cain at political rallyRespondent reproduced, displayed, and distributed unauthorized copies of Claimant’s Photograph on its website, wrcbtv.com. In addition, Claimant believes that WRCB-TV, which is an NBC Television affiliate, obtained the Photograph from some other entity within the NBC family of companies, which had many years earlier licensed the Photograph from Corbis/Getty Images. That license expired before WRCB-TV’s use and required the crediting of Claimant in connection with the license. Therefore, at the time of Respondent’s reproduction, display, and distribution of the Photograph on its website, Claimant had not granted Respondent any license or permission to reproduce, publicly display, or otherwise use the Photograph for any purpose. Further, Respondent omitted Claimant’s name from the infringing article, despite the expired license requiring authorship credit, therefore, inducing, facilitating, and encouraging further downstream infringement. Claimant never authorized Respondent to reproduce, publish, display, or make use of any kind of the Photograph.$15,000 - Lost license fees/royalties - Disgorgement of Respondent’s profits - Omitted attribution induced, facilitated, and encouraged further downstream infringement - Used beyond temporal limitation and scope of licenseJulie DermanskyLeichtman Law PLLCSarkes Tarzian, Inc.Waiver of Service
22-CCB-0002infringementPaintingPetitioner was commissioned by a company called NINE Dot Arts, which advertises itself as an art consultant and art curator, to have the Copyrighted Work reproduced and affixed upon the walls of a parking garage located at 410 17th Street in Denver, Colorado. Respondents operate a print shop in Denver, Colorado that creates custom vinyl prints and offers large format printing and design services. After commissioning the project from Petitioner, NINE Dot Arts independently hired Respondents to reproduce and install the Copyrighted Work onto the parking garage. Respondents did not have any relationship or contract with Petitioner. Respondents completed the installation of the Copyrighted Work for NINE Dot Arts on the parking garage on or around July 17, 2020. After the Copyrighted Work was installed on the parking garage, Respondents began to repeatedly use and share the Copyrighted Work for its own commercial purposes without notice to or authorization from Petitioner. Respondents have exploited the Copyrighted Work by publicly displaying it on their website without authorized use, using the Copyrighted Work to promote their personal services, and passing off the Copyrighted Work asBy failing to obtain Petitioner’s authorization to use the Copyrighted Work or to compensate Petitioner for their various uses, Respondents have avoided payment of license fees and other financial costs associated with obtaining permission to exploit the Copyrighted Work, as well as the restrictions that Petitioner is entitled to and would place on any such exploitation as conditions for Petitioner’s permission, including the right to deny permission altogether.Max KauffmanHoward O. Bernstein, P.C.AAS Printing Inc. d/b/a Ink MonsterOrder Dismissing Without Prejudice - AAS Printing Inc.
22-CCB-0001infringementPhotograph of Donald Trump at political rallyRespondent reproduced, displayed, and distributed unauthorized copies of Claimant’s Photograph on yellowhammernews.com in three separate articles. In addition, despite the presence of Claimant’s authorship credit when the photograph was first published by Claimant, with a copyright notice indicating Julie Dermansky as the rightsholder, in some places Respondent omitted Claimant’s name and copyright notice from the infringing articles, and in other places Respondent attributed the Photograph falsely to another photographer, inducing, facilitating, and encouraging further downstream infringement. Claimant never authorized Respondent to reproduce, publish, display, or make use of any kind of the Photograph.$15,000 - Statutory damages - Lost license fees/royalties - Disgorgement of Respondent’s profits - False and missing attribution induced, facilitated, and encouraged further downstream infringementJulie DermanskyLeichtman Law PLLCYellowhammer Multimedia, LLCWaiver of Service