Sylvia Browne plagiarizes Joe Nickell. Seriously.

Um, just one minor correction to the thread title. Should read:
Sylvia Browne totally copied Joe Nickell. :biggrin:
 
Psi Baba said:
Um, just one minor correction to the thread title. Should read:
Sylvia Browne totally copied Joe Nickell. :biggrin:
Click to expand...
slap.gif


Of course!

:D
 
Ladewig said:
Ah, but the other attorney would say, "Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence - no one has yet proven she has any character."
Click to expand...
"Further, your honour, this court's repeated requests for evidence are restricting my client's religious beliefs - which are that we should all believe what she says with no evidence whatsoever - thus curtailing her civil rights.

My client would like to remind the court that she is, in fact, very wealthy."
 
This should be sent to national-level reporters. Silvia is a big celeb, so this blatant theft could very well catch the attention of major media outlets.
 
You guys seemed to have missed a point. She's citing a 14th century bishop and will just say he was citing him, too.
 
Ah, but I'm sure the 14th-century Bishop didn't write it in the concise form that Nickell did. It's no different than stealing from a condensed version of a book that appears in Reader's Digest or Cliff's Notes -- even if the original book is public domain, the condensation isn't.
 
jlam said:
He can sue, but I'm not sure it would practical. He would have to show damages, which would probably be pretty hard to do.
Click to expand...

Actually, a copyright plaintiff does not have to show actual damages. He has the choice of suing either for actual damages or for statutory damages (one of the rationales for this is to deter infringement without forcing the holder of the copyright to make an often difficult evidentiary showing).

Specifically, a copyright holder may elect to recover, instead of actual damages, a statutory damages award of between $750 and $30,000 ("as the court considers just") per work. If a court determines that the infringement was willful, it can increase a statutory damage award to $150,000 per work.

This probably doesn't apply here, but for non-U.S. works, the copyright must have been registered in the United States prior to the infringement in order for the copyright holder to be eligible to seek statutory damages. This requirement was a serious disadvantage for a foreign artist I represented some years back. The prospect of paying statutory damages can make an infringer much more willing to settle on terms favorable to the copyright holder.
 
ceo_esq said:
Actually, a copyright plaintiff does not have to show actual damages. He has the choice of suing either for actual damages or for statutory damages (one of the rationales for this is to deter infringement without forcing the holder of the copyright to make an often difficult evidentiary showing).

Specifically, a copyright holder may elect to recover, instead of actual damages, a statutory damages award of between $750 and $30,000 ("as the court considers just") per work. If a court determines that the infringement was willful, it can increase a statutory damage award to $150,000 per work.

This probably doesn't apply here, but for non-U.S. works, the copyright must have been registered in the United States prior to the infringement in order for the copyright holder to be eligible to seek statutory damages. This requirement was a serious disadvantage for a foreign artist I represented some years back. The prospect of paying statutory damages can make an infringer much more willing to settle on terms favorable to the copyright holder.
Click to expand...

Thanks for setting me straight!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom