Why Former New Yorker Writer Paul Brodeur Launched A $1 Million Libel Lawsuit against “American Hustle” Producers

“American Hustle” is a popular movie produced and distributed by ColumbiaPictures, Atlas Entertainment and Annapurna Pictures. The flick was inspired by the FBI’s two-year ABSCAM operation of investigating public corruption.

In the movie, con man Irving Rosenfeld is forced to work for FBI agent Richie DiMaso. Rosenfeld (played by Christian Bale) is told by his wife (played by Jennifer Lawrence) that microwaves take the nutrition out of food. Rosenberg replies that it’s nonsense. She replies that an article by Paul Brodeur proves her point.



The real Paul Brodeur, a science journalist who was a staff writer at The New Yorker for nearly 40 years, was not amused. Although he has written books such as The Zapping of America (which warns about the dangers of microwave radiation), he has never stated that microwaves take nutrition out of food. He therefore filed a lawsuit at the Los Angeles Superior Court.

In the lawsuit, Brodeur argues that the statement made about him in the movie causes him damage since that statement is “scientifically unsupportable.” He argues that the filmmakers therefore damaged his reputation since “The scene from the movie American Hustle where the defamatory statement was made is highly offensive to a reasonable person.”

Brodeur states that he therefore was the victim of libel, defamation, slander and false light. He seeks damages to to amount of $1 M.

Although it seems to be a clear win for Brodeur, it might be a bit more complicated. The American Hustle filmmakers purposefully maintained that the movie was loosely based on true events. The movie’s opening credits state that “some of this actually happened.” A successful libel claim can show that the defendants made a statement in their movie as being true although they know it’s false.

Paying Brodeur would not be a problem; the movie grossed more than $150 million in the US alone. But up till now, defendants have not tried to settle. Atlas has declined to comment, and Annapurna and Columbia have not responded at all. It looks like parties will slug it out in court.

(Image courtesy of Francois Duhamel - Sony Pictures/AP)

The legal Concept of "Fair Use"

Web designer, bloggers, content writers, journalists, professors/teachers and comedians want to use stunning images, photos, quotes or statements that were created by others. When is it legal to use such content without asking permission or payment?

That is decided by “fair use”. In legal terms: “Fair use was created to allow use of copyright (sic) material for socially valuable purposes such as commentary, parody, news reporting, education and the like, without permission of the copyright holder.”

In plain English: “fair use” allows people or companies to use those materials (text, images, photos, etc.) without it being an infringement of copyright. In such cases, the owners of those copyrighted work must allow their work to be used by designers, bloggers, content writers, journalists, teachers, comedians, etc. without any legal or financial obligations. It must be noted that the burden of proof is the one using it; not the owner of the work. (In legalese: “affirmative defense”)

The reason for “fair use” is to allow reasonable and limited use of the copyrighted work. A journalist is allowed to quote from a newly published novel in the review it. A comedian can quote from copyrighted text, use a copyrighted picture or photo or directly quote a celebrity to make fun of them. Teachers and professors can use passages of copyrighted works to explain something to their students or to make a point.

As a rule of thumb, using text under “fair use” normally consists of using a small part of the copyrighted work and includes crediting the author (with a link to the source/author’s website). Fair use is for non–commercial purposes.

The criteria of what is “fair use” are defined in the opinion of the famous Joseph Story in Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F.Cas. 342 (1841). This so-called Four Factor test consist of:

1. the purpose and character of the use (non-commercial, educational, parody or non-profit)

2. the nature of the copyrighted work

3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used of the copyrighted work

4. the effect of the market use / market value of the copyrighted work

Why the Lawyer cum Champion of the Fictional Black Peter Called It Quits

The lawyer acting as the Erin Brockovich of the (fictional) Black Peter stopped being part of the movement that strives to rectify the image of Black Peter.

For those of you not familiar with the Black Peter phenomena – let me explain. According to folklore, Saint Nicholas travels every year from his palace in Spain to the Netherlands by steamboat, to have his servants (Black Peters) climb roofs and stuff presents down the chimney, or to climb down the chimneys themselves stuff presents for children down chimneys. In short, Black Peter is the equivalent of an Santa elf in the US. Each Black Peter has his own job; there is a Head Peter (manager), Navigation Peters (to navigate the steamboat from Spain to the Netherlands), Packing Peters (for wrapping the presents), etc. Over the years, Black Peter has a valued assistant of the absent-minded Saint Nicholas.

For the last few years, the “anti-Black Peter” movement has been striving to adjust the appearance of Black Peter by getting rid of his skin color and curly hair.

Frank King is a lawyer of Suriname origin who became the figurehead of the anti-racist movement to take down the stereotype of Black Peter. However, this came with a price. He ended up being exposed to rants of people wanting to keep the Black Peter persona. On top of that, his activism also gobbled up “an enormous amount of time”.

He made legal history with a landmark ruling. A Dutch District Court ruled that the prominent role that Black Peter plays in the entrance of Saint Nicholas infringes on the civil rights of persons of color. The District Court argued that although the servant and the saint might be fairy tale characters for many people, the appearance and behavior of Black Peter could be perceived as persons of color being subservient and simpletons.

King was proud of his achievement. “The District Court made it very clear that Black Peter is racist that nobody can deny anymore. Black Peter must change. The dark skin color has to go, as well as the curly hair.”

King was replaced by white civil rights lawyer Wil Eikelboom. King was disappointed that a white lawyer took over. He stated: “I am a person of color. I empathize with those sentiments. That is crucial for a court case like this, since it’s also about emotions.”

Frank King is convinced that the demise of Black Peter is only a matter of time. He predicts that “Within a couple of years, there will be no more Black Peters whatsoever."

Let’s see what will happen in the coming months!

(Image courtesy of photographer Peter Dejong)

Dutch Cable Companies Must Keep on Paying Royalties to Dutch Screenwriters

The district court of Amsterdam has ruled that Dutch cable companies must pay royalties to Dutch screenwriters. This also applies for online viewing sites such as NPO.

In October 2012, three Dutch cable companies (UPC, Ziggo and Delta) had stopped paying royalties to LIRA, the Dutch writers guilt. The cable companies argued that since they already paid to TV networks and film producers, they already paid for the royalties.

The court rejected this defense, since screenwriters are members of and represented by LIRA that can claim royalties on behalf of her members. Almost all screenwriters are members of LIRA (Stichting Literaire Rechten Auteurs).

The ruling is a major victory for writers. A recent research conducted by the Network of Screenwriters (professional organization of screenwriters) among writers of youth drama shows that half of those writers could not survive without those royalty payments.

Franky Ribbens serves on the Board of Directors of the Network of Screenwriters. He writes highly popular TV shows such as Hollandse Hoop and Penoza. 

Ribbens stated: “This ruling marks an important victory for filmmakers. They will finally be able to share in the substantial profits of billions of Euros that companies such as UPC and Ziggo generate with the distribution of their films and TV series. Although the royalty payments will only be a fraction of the total turnover of those companies, for many writers it is an indispensable source of income to survive.”

(Image courtesy of WFI)

Agloe – A Mapmaker’s Protection Against Copycats

Making maps is painstaking work. Mapmakers throughout the ages have been victims of copycats passing their painstaking work off as their own. So how can you prove that someone ripped off the map that you made?

Simple: by adding a fake hamlet! In the 1930s, Otto G. Lindberg was the director of the General Drafting Co. Together with his assistant Ernest Alpers, he created a road map of New York State. To prevent copycats from ripping off their map, they added a totally fictitious place that they named "Agloe" on a remote dirt road. The name is in itself quite brilliant: it’s a mix of their initials OGL (Otto G. Lindberg) and EA (Ernest Alpers).

Lo and behold – the “trap” worked. The map company Rand McNally issued its own New York state map featuring "Agloe." Lindberg promptly sued.

But Rand McNally’s legal defense team came up with an interesting defense. The legal eagles pointed out in court that there was a shop called “Agloe General Store” nearby. Ergo, it must have gotten its name from a nearby village.

The owners of the shop looked at a map distributed by Esso, which owned a plethora of local gas stations. Esso had originally purchased its map featuring Agloe completely legally from Lindberg and Alpers. The store owners assumed that since Esso’s map features Agloe, they might as well name their shop after it. Oh, the irony!

Fast-forward to the 21st century. The all-knowing Google Maps shows Agloe as a destination (including directions!) until recently. Only in 2014 was the Agloe myth exposed and expunged from Google maps.

After 80 years, Agloe has disappeared from the maps. I am pretty sure that AGL and OE up there are laughing their heads off! As for Rand McNally, the company was finally exposed as the map pirate it was.

The Lawsuit Against Kim Kardashian That Has a Bite To It

Kim Kardashian, despite having a healthy chuck of disposableincome from whatever source, does not always pays her bills. Seems to run in the family – little Sis also skipped on paying her dinner bill of $ 33 at MercerKitchen.

In 2001, KK went to Dr. Craig Gordon to have her silver fillings replaced with porcelain ones. After nasal-voice Kardashian refused to pay her bill, the dentist tried everything to get paid.

In 2002, Dr. Gordon got a default judgment for $1,605.73. Still, Calabasas Kim refused to pay. One decade later, the debt has increased to $3,320.48 due to accumulated interest.

Being quite resourceful, the dentist filed a lien on anything Kim would recover from her divorce from husband #2 or #3 aka Kris Humphries to settle her debt. But that didn’t work either.

The dentist is now sinking his teeth in a new way to recoup payment: he is selling the court judgment he got against the reality showchick for $13,000. That makes absolute sense considering her fame/notoriety level. It’s a brilliant move – anyone who loves/hates KK, will be too happy to fork out the money to be able to cash a check directly from the debtbeat K-clan member.

Google Wants to Trademark the Word "Glass"

Google wants to trademark the word “Glass” for its computer-powered glasses. The company has already successfully trademarked the term “Google Glass”. It now wants to trademark the single word “Glass” featuring a distinctive font to make it unique.

The U.S. trademark office has refused to do so. The grounds are obvious:

1. The suggested trademark is too similar to other existing or pending computer software trademarks (e.g., Microsoft's SmartGlass) that contain the word “glass”. This is a main ground for rejection since it would confuse customers or consumers.
2. Even when “Glass” would have a distinctive format or lettering, it would still remain “merely descriptive.” Generic terms cannot receive trademark protection under federal law. 

For more details, click here

Trademark attorneys for Google, Anne Peck and Katie Krajeck from Cooley LLP, claim that Google’s proposed trademark does not confuse consumers, especially given how much media and policy attention the Glass device has received in the last couple of years.

They also argued that “the frame and display components of the Glass device do not consist of glass at all,” but are made from titanium and plastic. The word “glass” would therefore not “inform potential consumers as to the nature, function or use” of the product Google is selling.

However, Google could skirt the issue by marketing its device as “Google Glass”. But that would limit its possibilities of successfully suing competitors for IP infringement. Google lists Glass in its trademarks list as “Glass™ wearable computing device".

Rowen Seibel Sues Busoness Partner ‘Dictator’ Gordon Ramsay for $10.8M

Celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay is in hot water. His business partner Rowen Seibel (owner of the popular Upper East Side restaurant Serendipity 3) is suing him for $10.8 million. According to the filed Manhattan civil suit, “Gordon Ramsay attempted to run the business and make decisions … similar to his television personality on Hell’s Kitchen — as a dictatorship, without the proper authority and without consent of his partner.”

Mr. Seibel owns the Serendipity chain of restaurants and invested $800,000 to open Fat Cow together with Ramsay in September 2012 based on a 50/50 partnership.

Ramsay insisted on naming the new venture Fat Cow, although he knew that this would create trademark issues with a Florida restaurant that already had rights to the same name in Spanish — Las Vacas Gordas.

According to court papers, Ramsay assured Seibel not to worry about the name, bragging, “Don’t worry, I’m the trademark queen”.

But less than two years after opening, Ramsay announced — without consulting his partner — that he would shutter Fat Cow, citing the trademark problems.

According to the lawsuit, Ramsay also used his personal interior decorator for the LA space and turned the restaurant into a TV studio for his reality show “Hell’s Kitchen”.

In his lawsuit, Seibel states: “Ramsay fraudulently induced Seibel to invest over $800,000 in Fat Cow Restaurant — an investment that went towards an expensive build-out of the lease space with a new kitchen, new fixtures and furnishings, and to train the restaurant staff — but then intentionally forced Fat Cow Restaurant to close so that he could use Seibel’s investment to benefit another Gordon Ramsay restaurant”.

The lawsuit also claims that the celebrity chef is planning to reopen a second eatery in the same location with the same staff – under the name “Gordon Ramsay at the Grove” or “GR Roast”.

Seibel wants his investment back plus $10 million in damages for Ramsay’s “egregious misconduct, fraud, self-dealing and theft of corporate opportunity.”

A Ramsay spokeswoman responded: “We’re surprised that Mr. Seibel has the audacity to file this ridiculous suit when he and his team were responsible for the day-to-day running of The Fat Cow and spectacularly mismanaged it, resulting in a string of financial and legal issues. Gordon Ramsay and his team immediately stepped in and tried to resolve these issues, but Seibel refused to engage in any meaningful conversations, rendering the restaurant unsustainable.”

Stay tuned!

A Dead Canary Sparks Court Cases in The Netherlands

It all started when a 40-year old man acquired a canary at the pet shop "Vogelcentrum Goeree-Overflakkee" in the Dutch town of Stellendam in June 2013.

He swapped his two house finches for the bird. According to the new owner, the canary was suddenly dead after only three weeks.

He took the dead bird back to the shop, where Ms. Tanja de Bruin claimed that the dead canary was not the one that the man had originally purchased. She therefore refused to give him a new one.

The man decided to help himself and grabbed a canary from one of the cages and fled. Ms. De Bruin informed the police stating: “I wanted to stop him, but he kicked and slapped me even when I was on the floor.” The police arrested the canary snatcher.

The court convicted the man to a suspended sentence of two months, 120 hours of community service and 1,300 euro in damages, since Ms. De Bruin still needs medical care.

The convicted man still denies everything and appealed the verdict.

The stolen bird was returned to the pet shop by the police and later sold for 17.50 euro.

(Image courtesy of Jim Hoft/The Gateway Pundit)

Philips Delares War on Product Piracy

Philips wants to protect users against counterfeit lighting products. The company developed an easy way for users to check if a Xenon product is the real deal.

Each Philips Xenon package features an authenticity seal (Certificate of Authenticity or COA). It’s an effective way to protect the brand and customers against piracy.

Furthermore, each product package also features a QR Code. Once this code it scanned by a smartphone, it displays a security code which grants access to www.philips.com/original. The user can then access that code to find out the origin of that Xenon product.

This security feature was necessary since a growing number of counterfeit Xenon products flooded the market. This supply is triggered by numerous online and offline shops. These counterfeit products are inferior and pose a serious risk.

Please, avoid cheaper knock-offs and go for the real article! It’s not only the ethical thing to do – there's also the legal matter of liability and insurance.

Be smart, go for the real McCoy!

Daughter's Facebook Post Violates Her Father’s $80.000 Settlement

Patrick Snay, 69, was the headmaster at Gulliver Preparatory School in Miami. In 2010, the school didn’t renew his contract. Snay promptly sued the school for age discrimination. Successfully so - he reached a settlement with his former employer for the sum of $80,000. The agreement contained a standard confidentiality clause quite common in cases like this. It forbids both Mr. Snay and the school to talk about the case. So far so good for the Snay family.

That is, until Dana Snay posted the following on Facebook: “Mama and Papa Snay won the case against Gulliver. Gulliver is now officially paying for my vacation to Europe this summer. SUCK IT.”

Dana has 1,200 Facebook friends among them current and former Gulliver students who happily reposted. It didn’t take a lot of time for Gulliver Preparatory School’s legal team to learn about Snay’s infringement and appeal the verdict.

 The Third District Court of Appeal tossed out the $80,000 settlement.  Judge Linda Ann Wells wrote: “Snay violated the agreement by doing exactly what he had promised not to do. His daughter then did precisely what the confidentiality agreement was designed to prevent.”

Snay’s defense? He had to share the settlement with his daughter since she suffered “psychological scars” from her time at the school. She also knew that her parents were in mediation. He tried to explain: “We knew what the restrictions were, yet we needed to tell her something.”

Snay Pater is currently employed as the headmaster of Riviera Preparatory Academy in Coral Gables. He is allowed to file a motion for rehearing and also appeal to the Florida Supreme Court. (Good luck with that)

Snay Filia is a student at Boston College and works part-time at Starbucks as a “barista”. Needless to say, her brag came with a hefty price – no Europe for you Ms. Snay!

Pappa Snay's chances of getting back his hefty settlement back are slim. Oh irony: if  Dana Snay would have been discreet, the court would never have discovered that her family had violated Snay's settlement agreement!

Moral of the story: Facebook brags are the 21st century equivalent of “loose lips sink ships”

Nicki Minaj Sued for Wig Plagiarism to the Amount of $30 Million

Nicki Minaj is being sued by her former "wig master" Terrence Davidson to the amount of $30 million.

In his lawsuit, Davidson claims that Ms. Minaj stole, licensed and sold his personal designs without sharing the profits.

Davidson and Minaj started working together in 2010. At that time Minaj was making her mark in the hip hop music niche under the recording label Young Money Entertainment. To go mainstream and become a pop sensation, she wanted to restyle herself and turned to Davidson for funky wigs as part of her new brand image.

Davidson's wig creations are described in the lawsuit as "fresh, unique and highly distinguishable". They ranged from black to blonde to any kind of cotton-candy color and carry names such as "Pink Upper Bun Wig," the "SuperBass Wig" and the "Half Blonde-Half Pink Wig". According to the lawsuit, Davidson’s wig creations “significantly contributed to Minaj’s unsurpassed notoriety for her wigs.”

After hitting it big with her debut record album Pink Friday (which went platinum), their business relationship slowly deteriorated. Minaj went on to become a major sensation and was even an America Idol judge in 2013. Their business relationship dissolved in 2012.

According to Davidson, Minaj started selling her own wig line via her website MyPinkFriday.com. He also claims that her management discouraged him from signing a multi-million-dollar deal for a reality show, implying that it would harm their cooperation.

Davidson hired prominent lawyer Christopher Chestnut which does not bode well for Ms. Minaj. Chestnut stated: “Her lawyers may complicate it, but we don’t need to get into intellectual-property law. This is basic American morality. Nicki Minaj lied to this man and cheated him. . . It’s a classic David versus Goliath situation."

Read the full complaint below.

NM suit

(Image courtesy of Neil Mockford / FilmMagic / Getty Images)

How Finjan Monitizes Its Patents

Finjan, a web security company, has a long history of suing competitors for infringing on its patents. Since 2006, the company has sued Secure Computing, McAfee, Symantec, Webroot Software, Websense, and Sophos for the infringement of two of its patents.

When M86 Security took over Finjan in 2009, it wanted to distance itself from any legal entanglements. Finjan was split into two companies (“reverse merger”). The operations\al side was merged into M86 and the IP side ended up in a new company (FSI Inc.)

At the time, M86 issued the following statement to clarify matters:

“M86 Security acquired the technology, people and operating assets of Finjan. The ownership of the patents remained with FSI Inc. and M86 acquired a license to use the patents. The original suit against Secure Computing, now McAfee, we understand is still being pursued by FSI Inc. This recent action appears to be related to new infringement suits. M86 Security is issuing this statement to clarify that it is not affiliated in any way with the lawsuit recently filed by FSI.”

FSI is a patent monetizing company partly owned by Iroquois Capital LP and Hudson Bay Capital Management LP both known for equity financing of microcap companies. The two hedge fund companies released Finjan from all its debts, liabilities and other claims. FSI’s main revenue stream consists of going after companies for infringing of its patents, which makes it a patent roll – an intellectual property portfolio company making a living by going after anyone infringing on any of the patents it holds. The IP portfolio contains numerous patents and other intellectual property with expiration dates extending through 2030.

The company is not always successful in its legal pursuits. In December 2012, a jury decided that Symantec, Websense and Sophos did not infringe Finjan’s patents for protecting computers and networks from “hostile downloadables”.

FSI was more successful with Webroot, maker of SecureAnywhere, when it reached a settlement.

FSI’s most recent lawsuit is aimed at Proofpoint, Inc., and its subsidiary Armorize Technologies, Inc. The company accuses Proofpoint of infringing its patents relating to endpoint, web, and network security technologies.

Apart from owning Finjan’s portfolio of online security technology patents, FSI also owns Converted Organics Inc., which operated a small fertilizer processing plant in Gonzales, California.

FSI latest move is investing in a new $60 million cyberfund, which will specialize in investments in start-ups dealing with information security.

(Image courtesy of www.anp.nl)

Google’s French Faux Pas

Google got on the wrong side of the French authorities. The Commissions Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL) investigated Google’s privacy policy change from 2012. About two years ago, Google bundled all its services (Google+, Gmail, Blogger, YouTube etc.) into one. This also changed the privacy policies of the separate accounts that users managed separately.

The CNIL came to the conclusion that Google’s new privacy policy didn't give users enough control over their private information. Furthermore, the agency also found that Google did not explain properly what it would do with the user data.

The ruling of the CNIL is quite interesting. Google was forced to pay a fine of €150,000 which is peanuts for the multinational. That’s why the CNIL added some interesting conditions to its ruling.

Google was forced to post a notice about its misconduct on its homepage. Once accessing google.fr, the following message (translated into English, for the original text go to google.fr) features under the search field:

“Statement: The sanctions committee of the Commision Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés has ordered Google to pay a €150,000 fine for violations of the ‘Data-Processing and Freedoms’ law. Decision available at the following address: http:www.cnil.fr/linstitution/missions/sanctionner/Google/”.

Not underestimating the cleverness of Google, the CNIL also dictated the text of the notice. To avoid the age-old legal trick to use a small font and bury the text as much as possible in order to deter readers, the CNIL also dictated the size of the font and the colors to be used as well as the position of the notification on the Google.fr homepage.

Google was not happy to say the least. It promptly turned to a French court to petition suspension of the ruling. It argued that posting the CNIL’s notification would do "irreparable damage" to its reputation. The French court was not convinced and rejected the petition, ordering Google to comply with the order.

It’s not the first time Google ran into trouble in Europe; it recently came to an agreement with the European Commission to pay a $5 billion fine following a three-year-long antitrust investigation.

France is the first European country to order Google to post such a notice. It will be interesting to see if more European countries will follow suit.

Why Kanye Hates Coinye Currency and Promply Killed It

As you might now, the virtual currency Bitcoin is becoming more and more popular. Needless to say, its success triggered quite a few copycat cryptocurrencies trying to get a piece of the action. Virtual money talks!

A group of seven coders took a different direction – they decided to have some fun with the new hype. They created a virtual coin with the name “CoinYe West”, which they later shortened to “Coinye”. They even came up with a catchphrase: we ain’t minin’, we pickin’.

The seven coders decided that the maximum number of Coinyes that could ever be mined in the currency would be 66,666,666,666. They also had fun with the design - it featured a cartoon fish wearing West's signature shutter shades.

Kanye West was not amused. The musician is not known for his sense of humor which might explain why his facial expression often resembles that of Grumpy Cat. He promptly instructed his lawyers to take action.

Since the entity of the powers behind Coinye was unknown, West’s legal team decided to also go after 0daycoins.com (a currency exchange) and Amazon.com as the provider of web hosting services to virtual currency exchanges. The legal eagles were hoping to flush out the John Does they wanted to sue.

Kanye’s law office Pryor Cashman LLP sent out a cease and desist letter of January 6, 2014 on behalf of Grumpy Kanye. In it, they state: “Mr. West is an internationally renowned musical artist, songwriter, producer, film director and fashion designer, to name just a few of Mr. West’s endeavors.” 

The Coinye currency would take advantage of/harm his brand. They go on to point out that the logo resembles their client and that the name of the currency was “substantially similar” to Kanye’s name. They demanded that all websites and social media accounts (Facebook and Twitter) associated with Coinyes would be shut down.

The developers quickly moved their website to India and issued the following statement:

“We are just a few guys who are excited about the future of cryptocurrency and would like to see it become a more mainstream phenomenon. We would like to make it clear that we are entirely independent of the Kanye, and there should be no confusion as to the intent or origin of this project. The name "Coinye" is intended solely as parody, not an indication or implication of endorsement or involvement.”

After considering their options, the creators of Coinye decided to back down and pulled the Coinye currency. They posted on their website "Coinye is dead. You win Kanye".

RIP Coinye

(Image courtesy of Coinye)

Shia LaBeouf’s Weird Plagiarism Case

On December 17, 2014 Shia LaBeouf released his short film Howard Cantour.com. It did not take long for sharp eyes to detect the uncanny resemblance to a comic strip by famous creator Daniel Clowes.

LaBeouf took to Twitter to apologize for the mishap. Funny enough, even his mea culpa tweet seems to be plagiarized!

LaBeouf obviously does not know how to apologize. His tweet “[getting] lost in the creative process” doesn’t justify ripping off Daniel Clowes, especially considering the amount of time and work Clowes put into it.

LeBeouf also answered numerous questions about the origins of the short movie without pointing out that he adapted it from the comic strip,

Funny enough, even his apology about his plagiarism seems to be plagiarized! Andrew Hake noticed on Twitter that LaBeouf has already been caught once before in plagiarizing an apology. It seems that LaBeouf prefers trolling the Internet to find "his" apology instead of writing it himself.

According to Andrew S. Allen “We were led to believe by Shia and the filmmaking team that the story and script for HowardCantour.com was completely original,. There is a global outcry about the uncredited use of Daniel Clowes’ work. That didn’t come until it hit online. If it wasn’t for the legions of online Clowes fans, this may never have come to light.

As curators of a powerful but under-appreciated medium like short film where filmmakers spend years of work to make little or no money, the recognition you get from your work, and therefore attribution, is often all you have, so we take it seriously. Until Clowes grants permission and is credited in the work, we’ve pulled the film offline.”

Meanwhile on Twitter, users came together with the tongue-in-cheek hashtag #shialaboeuffilms to offer some suggestions for future projects LaBoeuf could create that would also be “inspired by someone else’s idea”:

Shia LaBeouf tried to close the unpleasant incident by stating that his behavior, tweets, plagiarism and public apologies were all part of his "performance art" for a project called #stopcreating. Guess what? He got the idea from Joaquin Phoenix.

Curious minds want to know - was that LaBoeuf's final act of plagiarism?

The Tale of the Two Wine Label Tulips

HEMA is a leading Dutch discount retailer selling household goods. As part of its range, it sells the South African Kleintuin wine. The label features a red tulip.

Slight problem - the label closely resembles those on the bottles of artisan winemaker and TV show host Ilja Gort.

His tulip brands his La Tulipe wine since 1997. It was painted by his then 6-year-old son.

Mr. Gort was upset when he saw HEMA's wine abel and claimed that the discount retailer was trying to cash in on his success.

His lawyer sent a cease-and-desist letter; originally without success. When Mr. Gort threatened to take HEMA to court, the retailer finally responded. HEMA announced that it would pull all bottles with the disputed label.

The retailer also emphasized that it “never intended to copy the wines of Mr. Gort” and that it would redesign the labels “to avoid any confusion in the future.”

Mr. Gort would have won the court case. His La Tulipe wine has been winning international awards for years. Any confusion with the HEMA’s table wine would harm the exclusive La Tulipe brand.

Gort also uses another drawing of his then 8-year-old son. The kid's painted rose features on the label of the Tulipe de la Garde wines. In 2000, Dutch painter Jan Cremer sued Gort claiming that he was the original artist of that rose design and never got royalties. The case was dismissed by the District Court of Utrecht.


(Image courtesy of www.wijngekken.nl)

Hell Hath No Fury Like a Top Attorney Scorned – Even From Beyond The Grave

Norman Sheresky was an elite New York divorce lawyer. He was banned by partners during a nasty falling out.

The prominent New York divorce attorney died last October 19 from pneumonia. His dying wish was to ban partners from his funeral.

Sheresky’s client list included Peter Cook and the exes of James Gandolfini, Dustin Hoffman and Robert Duvall.

His former partners David Aronson and Allan Mayefsky were informed that they were not welcome at the funeral, following a dramatic falling out with them that forced him to leave the firm in 2010. Once he was forced out, he joied with Pamela M. Sloan to establish the law firm Aronson Mayefsky and Sloan, which represented clients such as Katie Holmes.

Norman Sheresky got his revenge from the grave. He had  wife play a video titled “Norman’s Reflections on his 80th Birthday”. It showcased Sheresky being endorsed by many of his peers, including top divorce attorneys Robert S. Cohen, William Herman, Bernard Post, Raoul Felder and Jeffrey R. Cohen.

In the ultimate revenge from beyond the grave, Sheresky was able to leave his former law partners with egg on their faces – a delicious revenge fom the grave!

Nelson Mandela and Oliver Tambo – The Ideal Lawyers

Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela was apart from an amazing human being and statesman, also a great lawyer. The same applies to Oliver Reginald Tambo who passed away in 1993.

In 1952, Mandela and Tambo opened the first black law firm in South Africa. It was located in Chancellor House, a small building just across the street from the Magistrate's Court in central Johannesburg. The building was owned by Indians and one of the few places where Africans could rent offices.

At that time, Black South Africans would routinely end up in court due to the draconian Apartheid laws. Furthermore, white lawyers were too expensive and even charged Africans higher fees for criminal and civil cases than they did their white clients.

Mandela and Tambo provided legal aid to those Africans who would otherwise not be properly represented. Their legal services were similar to those of a public defender.

This makes Mandela and Tambo exceptional lawyers who stayed true to the core mission of the legal profession: providing access to justice for everyone regardless background.

Lawyers everywhere can learn from Mandela and Tambo. Dear fellow lawyers - let’s start by truly listening to our clients. Please remember -a law firm should be a place where no one will be turned away or cheated purely based on bias.

Ius est ars boni et aequi - Publius Iuventius Celsus

(Image courtesy of: “Long walk to freedom” – the autobiography of Nelson Mandela)