The plaintiff in the latest Indiana copyright lawsuit is a privately funded Christian non-profit that provides public school families with released time religious instruction. The defendant, an individual from Fort Wayne, Indiana, is alleged to have posed as a volunteer of plaintiff in order to gain access to internal documents and curriculum, which he then posted to his own website criticizing the nonprofit.
Attempts to “reason” with the defendant were apparently met with a snarky meme response, usually a great way to escalate a legal dispute. The defendant allegedly then made a false DMCA Counter Notice, leading directly to this lawsuit. Stay tuned to find out whether the defendant is willing to defend his position that “it’s called fair use bitch.”
LifeWise, Inc. v. Parrish
Court Case Number: 1:24-cv-00268-HAB-SLC File Date: July 2, 2024 Plaintiff: LifeWise, Inc. Plaintiff Counsel: Joseph P. Asbrook, Chris-John Bosch, James S. Kresge of Ashbrook Byrne Kresge LLC Defendant: Zachary Parrish Cause: Federal Copyright Infringement Court: Northern District of Indiana Judge: Holly A. Brady Referred To: Susan L. Collins
The parties to this copyright lawsuit have a long personal history.
The Plaintiff, Fitzgerald, was the executor of the estate of Frithjof Schuon (“Schuon”), a Swiss metaphysician and author, who died in Bloomington, Indiana in May 1998.
The Defendant, Murray, was a close friend of Schuon and his wife until 1992. From 1992-1995, Murray allegedly made aggressive communications, including threatening letters, to Schuon. Murray repeatedly violated a Protective Order, leading to her incarceration. Murray then filed four lawsuits against the Schuons, two of which were dismissed and two which were settled via a Settlement Agreement that included a confidentiality provision.
Photo by Michael Fitzgerald, CC BY 2.5, No changes made.
After Schuon died in 1998, his wife inherited his right of publicity and copyrights. Those rights were subsequently assigned to Plaintiff World Wisdom, Inc. (“World Wisdom”) in 2003. Mrs. Schuon’s rights under the Settlement Agreement were assigned to Fitzgerald and World Wisdom in 2021. World Wisdom also was assigned rights in Mrs. Schuon’s own right of publicity and copyrights.
In April 2018, Murray published a website that contained many criticisms of Schuon. The website allegedly infringes some of Mrs. Schuon’s copyrighted works and violates the confidentiality provision of the earlier Settlement Agreement. Further, in 2021, Murray published a book, Third Wife of the Muslim Shaykh Frithjof Schuon, that allegedly infringes numerous copyrighted works of Mrs. Schuon. Murray’s publisher, Defendant Beacon Books and Media, discontinued print publication of the book in March 2021 but electronic versions remain available. The Defendants have apparently intimidated that further print versions of the book are forthcoming.
In addition to copyright and breach of contract claims, the Complaint (below) also includes a claim for a RICO violation based on alleged racketeering activity by the Defendants.
Given the long history between the parties and the seemingly contrary position of the Defendants, the Answer should be an interesting read. Stay tuned for updates.
Fitzgerald et al. v. Murray et al.
Case Number: 1:21-cv-01822-TWP-TAB File Date: Friday, June 18, 2021 Plaintiff: Michael Fitzgerald, World Wisdom, Inc. Plaintiff Counsel: Louis T. Perry, Jason M. Rauch, Elizabeth A. Charles of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP Defendant: Maude Murray, Beacon Books and Media, LTD Cause: Civil RICO, Copyright Infringement, Right of Publicity, Breach of Contract, Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations Court: Southern District of Indiana Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt Referred To: Tim A. Baker
The Author’s Guild – the nation’s leading advocate for writers’ interests in effective copyright protection, fair contracts and free expression since it was founded as the Authors League of America in 1912.
Poets and Writers, Inc. – the primary source of information, support, and guidance for creative writers, and the publisher of Poets & Writers Magazine.
What are your favorite online writing resources that I should add to the list?
Defendants, creators of a horror movie titled The Lazarus Effect (starring Olivia Wilde and Mark Duplass), are accused of infringing the pro se Plaintiff’s literary work, Lazari Taxa. The Complaint doesn’t specify which copyrightable elements from Plaintiff’s manuscript were allegedly copied by the horror film.
Stay tuned for updates.
Fillmore v. Blum et al.
Court Case Number: 1:16-cv-01423-SEB-MPB File Date: Thursday, June 9, 2016 Plaintiff: Christopher “Chris” Wayne Fillmore Plaintiff Counsel: Pro Se Defendant: Jason Blum d/b/a Blumhouse Productions, Jeanette Brill, Luke Dawson, Matthew Kaplan d/b/a Chapter One Films, Robyn Marshall, Jimmy Miller d/b/a Mosaic Management, Rick Osaka d/b/a Catchlight Films, Jeremy Slater, Cody Zwieg d/b/a Supergravity Pictures, Does 1-10 Cause: Copyright Infringement Court: Southern District of Indiana Judge: Sarah Evans Barker Referred To: Matthew P. Brookman
This dispute arises between an author and his book publisher. In addition to writing a book, the author also designed his own original artwork for the cover. After two rounds of artwork proofs, the publisher allegedly went ahead and published the book without the author’s final approval (the author had actually signed the final approval form but claims to have later redacted his approval via email…the full story is laid out in the Exhibits below).
The book publisher is alleged to have “knowingly published and printed Plaintiff’s Works even after Plaintiff made very clear to Defendant of his displeasure and dissatisfaction of the cover art for his Works as proposed by Defendant.”
In case you’re wondering, the VARA right of attribution – by which the author could prevent the use of his name in connection with a prejudicial modification of his work – doesn’t apply here due to the exception in 17 USC 106A(c)(3):
(3) The rights described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) shall not apply to any reproduction, depiction, portrayal, or other use of a work in, upon, or in any connection with any item described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of the definition of “work of visual art” in section 101
Here’s that section from 17 USC 101, my emphasis added:
(A)(i) any poster, map, globe, chart, technical drawing, diagram, model, applied art, motion picture or other audiovisual work, book, magazine, newspaper, periodical, data base, electronic information service, electronic publication, or similar publication;
(ii) any merchandising item or advertising, promotional, descriptive, covering, or packaging material or container
Stay tuned for updates.
Murdock v. Author Solutions, LLC
Court Case Number: 1:16-cv-01398-SEB-DML File Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 Plaintiff: Antara Murdock Plaintiff Counsel: Mathew K. Higbee, Esq. of Higbee & Associates Defendant: Author Solutions, LLC Cause: Copyright Infringement Court: Southern District of Indiana Judge: Sarah Evans Barker Referred To: Debra McVicker Lynch
Indiana Intellectual Property Blog 