91 thoughts on “Are You Pondering What I’m Pondering?

  1. I’m sure that would become our friend Evi L Bloggerlady’s favorite chewing gum! Probably last longer than her cud …

  2. Can someone answer a few serious questions?

    If a certain person is who is accusing another individual of filing a false DMCA takedown notice, has themselves filed a couple false DMCA takedown notices ( one back in July 2013, Jabba the Hut photo), what’s his potential civil liability? And did he perjure himself? Because I know the statute of limitations hasn’t run. So the owner of a certain blog could easily pursue the matter.

      • http://www.aaronkellylaw.com/internet-law/consequences-of-filing-a-false-dmca-takedown-request/

        This might be of interest as it seems to address exactly those questions.

        “What many who abuse the DMCA system do not realize is that they can be sued and held civilly liable for the havoc they wreak by sending these fake notices.
        …..it is important for people to refrain from sending unsubstantiated takedown requests lest they face monetary damages and other court orders. It is also important to remember that, even if someone is willing to risk these civil damages, there are also criminal sanctions available for false DMCA takedown request senders since the requests are sent under the penalty of perjury.”

      • So, what you’re saying is that the blog owner could feasibly pursue, not only civil remedies, but criminal ones for the previous violations?

        Oh my.

      • Hey, I’m just giving you what a lawyer who claims to specialize in internet law says….. }8)

    • you know, I was wondering the exact same thing, considering how a certain person has played fast and loose with what exactly he did and did NOT own while accusing others in the past…

    • IANAL, but I bet if the aforementioned certain blogger were to pursue the matter, he’d know the right agency to talk to about it.

    • It looks like the question has been answered on point below, but I must say I am feeling absolutely zero risk regarding the blog post which led to the DMCA takedown.

      There is an electronic agreement between myself and our host, and it was a value-for-value exchange. I can also say that, almost purely for spite, my proceeds from the deal were donated to the National Parkinson’s Foundation.

      There is not a single doubt in my mind that both John and I are safely protected by that agreement.

      And besides the actual material terms of the deal, I got something more, which is only of value to me.

      I’m feeling fully armored right about now. There’s not a single thing false about that takedown.

      Let him come.

      • Actually, there is another individual that a certain person is targeting. Apparently he is upset that a DMCA take down was filed because he used a baby photo that didn’t belong to him in his latest “book”.

        However, it appears that even if the hospital took that picture, it is still owned by the patient and/or the parents, since it is a part of the baby’s medical records. Or is considered by law, work product paid for by the client. Meaning, either way, the parents own the photo.

        But yeah, he tried that line with you too.

      • He says the paper who own the online site where he found it, gave him permission to print the baby photo in the book. But they got it from the hospital who said they had to have the parents permission to send it to the paper. Which sounds to me like the parents do indeed own it. Certainly the paper does NOT, having presumably merely been given a limited license to use it, and they seem to be the only ones of whom permission was asked.


        • If someone had prior permission from a newspaper to use a picture, why would he have to contact the newspaper today about whether they had the rights?

          Also, Congress has given the federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over copyright matters. If someone in Arizona made a false DMCA claim, any civil or criminal action would have to be brought in a U.S. District Court in that state.

      • Exactly Gryffon.

        I recently sent a set of photos to Mr. Hoge that I had taken of the Blood Moon. I gave him license to print any of them that he wished at any time for any purpose. He can even alter them if he chooses. And the readers here may see some of them in the future. I don’t know. But that doesn’t mean he can sell them or allow someone else to print them without my permission.

        It’s the exact same thing. A newspaper cannot give permission to reprint a photo they don’t own.

      • I will note that since he does have limited licensing rights on my photos, if someone uses a picture that he posted on this blog…he has the right to file a DMCA.

        I believe that is the law. Someone correct me if I’m off here.

    • Remember that your actual liability can be no greater than your wealth and/or future earning potential. As for perjury, you’d have to find a prosecutor with jurisdiction interested enough to do something about it and those are rare.

  3. A photograph taken by a hospital employee incident to medical treatment (or a birth) may a part of the patient’s medical records and may belong to the patient (or his parents) under the work-for-hire doctrine.

    • The tremulous pile of goo that will remain nameless, is under the impression that his county’s S.A. will be coming after me for a takedown of a pic in one of his fliers…I mean, books.

      I invite him to pursue that course with the utmost vigor. Since I had absolutely zero to do with it, I will be happy to be first in line to point and laugh at him. AGAIN.

      It is only a shame that the serial adjudicated harasser has already collected my state’s restraining order. I would love to help him with his collection.

      • apparently Wonder Turd harassed someone he thinks is Howard and they didnt care for it and got a restraining order on him…

        yet it seems Twinkie feels that since the parents filed a DMCA on his lastest “book” for his use of their child’s pic, one of them HAS to be Howard ( i guess cause anyone else would’ve been perfectly happy letting someone they have a restraining order on, print their childs pic in their “book” without permission)


    • Since it is part of a medical record would not HIPPA regulations hold regarding distribution? In that case, only the patient (or parents/guardians) may allow release of any contents of the medical record per incident? I know that every time my records, test results, etc need to be shared with another person, even my wife, I have to sign a release form. Every time to every individual. Makes one think, doesn’t it? I imagine the parents could file a violation of HIPPA violation civil case against the ‘publisher’ of unauthorized medical information …

  4. I guess what I was really asking was: Is it worth it for a certain person to pursue this course of action? Considering that he would almost certainly lose and in the process be sued himself for multiple frivolous take down violations of his own?

    I think I have my answer.

  5. I do believe Mr. Hoge is correct. When my kid was born the hospital took pictures. They then asked our permission to publish them. Apparently we DID own the photos since they were part of the hospital bill. What do you know about that. I say the Cabin Boy should go for it and get his ass handed to him……again.

  6. A certain person claimed to own the photo onto which the Salt Vampire’s head appeared. Sent complaints to Twitter, etc. Then his sister said she took the photo. Is that perjury I smell?

    • Robin Causey (the real one, not embryriddlealum) filed a DMCA takedown request on Bill’s latest parvissimum opus because of the baby photo that Bill printed in it. Bill says that because the picture has already been published by the local paper, he can print it too. (Which is flat out wrong and makes you wonder how much copyright violation occurred under Bill’s tender editorial ministrations in the past). It turns out the picture was taken by the hospital, and according to Bill that means that Robin doesn’t own it, and has therefore perjured himself be filing the DMCA notice.

      However….. in most cases, hospital baby photos do indeed belong to the parents as either part of the medical record or as works for hire (I think that’s what my kids’ photos were, since we got proofs, and got to choose what sorts of prints we wanted, how many, size, etc.). That the hospital had to get the Causeys’ permission to give the picture to the paper to print would also seem to suggest that is the case here. But if the parents don’t own the picture, then the hospital does, and they certainly didn’t give Bill permission to print it in a book.

      Of course Bill is also claiming that Paul Krendler didn’t really sell the rights to his parody to Mr. Hoge, and that therefore Mr Hoge’s DMCA filing was also perjury. So he has a blog post up talking about how he has talked to the HoCo SA about filing perjury charges against everyone who’s placed DMCA requests against him lately.

      Good luck with that Bill!

      I’m sure I’ve missed something. It’s very confusing, much as Bill’s thought processes are these days.

      • Let’s roll with it for a minute.
        Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over copyright cases.
        Party A claims that party B perjured himself in filing a DMCA takedown notice.
        Part A goes to his State’s Attorney, in his state, at the state level, to “file charges.”
        Does everyone now see the problem with that little scenario?

      • Once again Shakey’s Legion of Imaginary Midnight Experts (S.L.I.M.E.) have proven to be the dedicated low-level public servants we have come to know and love. I’m sure they’ve been up all nights preparing the cross-jurisdictional efforts necessary to finally end this caper.

    • A certain adjudicated harasser is upset that his latest “book” was taken down for yet another DMCA violation. This one was because he posted a picture of a baby. The picture belongs to an individual whom this adjudicated harasser has been…harassing. Anyway, he is now claiming that the individual filed a “perjurious” DMCA take down notice because the individual doesn’t own the picture of his baby (the picture was allegedly taken in the hospital by a staff member and was billed to the parents).

      The problem with the adjudicated harasser’s argument is that everything points to the individual (parent) owning the photo. And the adjudicated harasser is guilty of filing false DMCA take down notices himself. Which would put him in the precarious position of being sued and prosecuted for the very things he is vowing to go after this individual for.

      My original question was more about why this adjudicated harasser would do this to himself? But truthfully…I think we all know.

  7. https://twitter.com/LobotomyRadio/status/466922940458491904

    Sort of. Causey can file in Arizona.

    Lobotomy Radio ‏@LobotomyRadio
    …in Baltimore defending their DMCA takedown, or the books go back up. Mr. Hoge will need to prove his ownership of the “blog” and… 5:48 AM – 15 May 2014

    Lobotomy Radio ‏@LobotomyRadio
    He will also have to prove my use did not constitute “fair use.” In the meantime, I am asking @CreateSpace and @Amazon to look into…
    5:49 AM – 15 May 2014

    No, he won’t. “Fair use” is an affirmative defense that the defendant (that means BS) bears the burden of proving.

  8. DANGER, WILL ROBINSON! Biased Befuddled Bill Schmalfeldt is once again going to attempt legal and statutory analysis. He’s already failed to jump through certain hoops, but apparently he has great faith in Acme.

      • I think the question is how does Twinkie the Wonder Tard think he’s going to force companies like Amazon, Lulu etc to carry his “books” with no actual proof, just his say so that there is no copyright infringement, especially after they have been informed there is ???

    • He’s also completely ignoring that the there is no perjury in sending a claim if you own or otherwise have the rights to the material, or are acting as the legitimate agent of the owner.

      As far as I can tell, if A claims copyright, even if B can prove “fair use”, A has not committed perjury, because A is merely attesting that A has the rights to the material, and that A did not grant permission. A does not have to attest under pain of perjury that the use is “fair”, although if A knows it is fair use, it’s a waste of A’s time and effort and perhaps money to go after B.

      And last time I checked, doxing someone or defaming them, especially when they aren’t a public figure doesn’t count as fair use.

  9. With all the legal lectures we’ve been subjected to by Prof. Willy, can anybody point to one where he was actually, you know, correct about anything???

  10. From BS’s blog:
    “The upshot is, Mr. Hoge and Mr. Causey have 14 days from today to file a lawsuit in the district court of MY jurisdiction to prove their ownership of the material and prove I used it improperly. ”
    No, Causey doesn’t have to file there. BS’s consent to jurisdiction in Maryland is nice, but Causey can file in AZ and move to find that the court there has jurisdiction.

    “Mr. Hoge will be required to prove he purchased the rights from an actual individual, not a pseudonym.” No, he won’t. All he will have to do is prove that there is an executed contract.

    “Mr. Causey will have to defend not only the photo, but he will have to explain the vile filth sent to me under his twitter handle @embryriddlealum. And if I am incorrect and he is NOT @embryriddlealum, he knows who the individual is. And he will have to say so under oath.” No, he won’t. A suit filed in federal court would be for an injunction. The court will not entertain extraneous issues, like BS’s butthurt and snipe hunts.

    • “And if I am incorrect and he is NOT @embryriddlealum, he knows who the individual is. And he will have to say so under oath.”

      IF you are incorrect??

      And no, Shkey. He does not know me. But please proceed. You have not been mocked a sufficient amount for May and the 29th allows you to make your quota for the month.

      And I “sent” you nothing. I reply to your @mentions, you silly bastard.

      You never learn, Porky. GOD BLESS you for that!!!

      • It is (almost) stunning that Willy is stupid enough to admit he has attacked a person online without knowing for sure the person he harassed was actually the right person.

        My God, how clueless do you have to be to come right out and admit that?!

    • Barrister Schmalfeldt takes exception to the assertion that the contract need not reveal the real identity of the pseudonymous author:


      Penetrating legal analysis, that. But look what I found!

      Question: Is there a way to legally enter into a contract with a literary agent/publisher without revealing one’s real identity?

      There is no problem in entering into a publishing or agency agreement under a pseudonym – it’s done frequently by writers who are prolific, or wish to switch genres, or publish in an genre that would be embarrassing (e.g. erotic), or just want to hide their writing identity from their day job. (Mystery and thriller writers who have published under pen names are legion – e.g. Steven King, Evan Hunter, Lawrence Block, Dean Koontz.)


      Regarding copyright, when filling out a copyright registration form (FormTX), the Copyright Office allows you or your publisher to list either just a pen name or your real name.


  11. Oh, here’s another one:
    “Mr. Causey can not claim copyright to a photo he did not take.” Yes, he can. I own the rights to my wedding photos, which I did not take. I purchased all the rights from the photographer. If Arizona is like 99.999% of other places, the Causies own the rights to their daughter’s photo, and they granted permission to the hospital (which charged them for taking the photo) to allow it to be published. Just because you give A permission to do something with your property, it does not mean that every Tom, Dick, and Harry can do the same.

    • Bill is also claiming that he got verbal permission from the Prescott Daily Courier to use the birth announcement.

      If the PDC is anything like my local paper, they were giving him permission to link to the announcement on his website. I’m sure he didn’t tell them that he was going to actually put up a screen shot of the announcement on his site, with no credit to the PDC. And I’m even more sure that they didn’t just give him “verbal permission” to use a photo they did not have copyright ownership of in a book which is being sold for profit. (My local paper requires that a person pay for a copyright release to do that, it’s a single use release, and it requires crediting both the paper and the photographer, neither of which credits are on Bill’s site or in the book.)

      • Give him credit, he isn’t settling for just his family, he’s now working on the entire internet.

        And has anybody else noticed that the 2 or 3 people who are occasionally nice to him on twitter completely disappear when he’s melting down?

        With friends like that…..

    • I’ll take Bill’s legal information/advice with a pinch of salt about twice the size of Lot’s wife. In the time I’ve been following this, since shortly after he started harassing Mr. Hoge, I don’t think he’s provided an accurate legal interpretation even once.

      • Hope you don’t mind me posting the relevant info from your link:

        Question: Is there a way to legally enter into a contract with a literary agent/publisher without revealing one’s real identity?

        There is no problem in entering into a publishing or agency agreement under a pseudonym – it’s done frequently by writers who are prolific, or wish to switch genres, or publish in an genre that would be embarrassing (e.g. erotic), or just want to hide their writing identity from their day job.

        Well, Willy?????

      • Seriously, he pulls a lot of stuff out of thin air, without bothering to do a rudimentary Google search.

      • You can also register a copyright with the copyright office under a pseudonym. See the registration form and instructions at copyright.gov

  12. What is fascinating to me is watching a liar maneuver and adjust to suit the narrative. He tweeted that WJJH had to prove BS’s use was not fair use. When I explained that fair use is an affirmative defense that the DEFENDANT must prove, he simply adjusted his tweets, pretending that’s what he’d said all along. Only it wasn’t, as you can tell from the screen shot above.

    • ^^^^^This! Been watching it for a long time. He lies, gets caught, then just changes the narrative and continues like he never made a mistake or was caught in a lie.

      • his constant handle changing and memory holing his blog helps him hide that he lies like a badly woven rug…

    • And that was a second category error by Cabin Boy, the correction of which I won’t provide as a courtesy to our host.

  13. One of the hurdles that a plaintiff must clear, especially when filing in federal court, is jurisdiction. I won’t go into the details, but I do find it interesting that in MPAA vs. RealNetworks Inc., MPAA (based in Los Angeles, CA) filed suit against Real Networks (Washington) for DMCA violations. Guess where? No, not Washington. In Los Angeles. Oops, again. Guess this law stuff isn’t so easy, huh?

    • You know what’s really crazy? Why did he want to do that? There was no need for the photo at all, unless the point was to attempt to harass or intimidate the man and his family.

      • That’s the same with all the photos he published.in that book. They are all violating copyrights, and the stuff he took from local papers he did without permission, and without even giving credit as they would require even with permission.

  14. To the best of my understanding from reading up on copyright and the DMCA is that all one is attesting to under perjury in a DMCA take down request is that you are the owner (or owner’s agent) of the disputed item, and that to the best of your knowledge no-one who coud legally give permission for the work to be used in this manner has done so. You are NOT attesting that you know for a fact that it is NOT “fair use”.

    • it’s not up to the person who files a DMCA to prove whatever of theirs was used without permission isn’t covered under fair use. It’s up to the person the DMCA is filed on to prove they had the right to under the defense of fair use…

      but Twinkie is an idiot and will jump at any hope of dragging someone into court for bullspit.

      I wonder how much else of his last two “books” are material that belongs to others he didnt get permission from to use…

      could be a lot more DMCAs in his near future…

      • I doubt the Day is going to do anything, but their managing editor didn’t exactly sound happy when I told him about the Candidate Profile being used without even attribution, never mind permission….

  15. Pingback: On the issue of Doxing | Running Wolf

Leave a Reply