Read Adam’s Appeal

Rosebush logo
Radical creativity.©

The Appeal

        In July, Judge Jose Linares dismissed the Brick City Copyright Infringement Lawsuit of E. Adam Jackson, in an unpublished opinion.

        The lawyers for Cory Booker, Forest Whitaker, Cablevision, and the other Defendants told Adam that if no Appeal was filed, they would not come after him for their fees.

        Read below to view the Appeal that Adam filed to get compensation for the theft of his work. It’s 28 pages.

UNITED STATES FEDERAL COURT

THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

Case Number 11-3400

District Case Number 10-05371

EVERETT ADAM JACKSON,

  Plaintiff, Appellant.

vs.

CORY A. BOOKER, LISA DURDEN, MARC BENJAMIN, MARC LEVIN, FOREST WHITAKER, EVAN SHAPIRO, SUNDANCE CHANNEL, ED CARROLL, RAINBOW

MEDIA HOLDINGS LLC,

JAMES DOLAN, and CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORPORATION,

  Defendants, Appellees.

APPEAL BRIEF

Everett Adam Jackson

Newark, New Jersey

Plaintiff, Pro Se

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES………………………..5

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT………………………………6

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES………………………………6

STATEMENT OF THE CASE………………………………7

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS………………………………7

A HISTORY………………………………………………………..9

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT…………………10

ARGUMENT …………………………………………………….. 11

1.DISTRICT JUDGE ERRED IN CITING RULE 59………11

2. DISTRICT JUDGE ERRED IN THE DECISION ON “MATERIAL FACTS”……………………………………………………….12

A. The moving party failed to show that no genuine issue of material fact exists. …………………………………………………………………………………12

B. Plaintiff, the non-moving party, did present specific evidence that a genuine issue of material facts exists — compelling a trial. …13

C. The non-moving party did offer specific facts that establish a genuine issue of material fact………………………………………….14

D. “The court must consider all facts presented and the reasonable inference drawn in the light most favorable to the non-moving party”……..15

3. APPEAL ON “IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT A PLAINTIFF MUST PROVE TWO ELEMENTS…16

A. The District Judge wrote that “…it is rarely possible to prove copying through direct evidence, copying may be proved inferentially…”…………….17

3. IT IS CLEAR THAT DEFENDANTS MISUSED ACCESS TO THE BOOK.……………………………………………………………18

4. DISTRICT JUDGE ERRED IN THE SECOND OF THE TWO CONJUNCTIVE CONSIDERATIONS FOR DETERMINING “SUBSTANTIAL SIMILARITY.”…………19

5. DISTRICT JUDGE ERRED IN FINDING THAT “THE NOVEL “BRICK CITY” (THE “NOVEL”) AND THE TV SERIES “BRICK CITY” (THE “SHOW”) ARE ONLY SIMILAR IN THE FOLLOWING WAYS”…………..20

6. DISTRICT JUDGE ERRED IN FINDING THAT “THE CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS OF BOTH WORK PRODUCTS ARE DISTINCT”………………………….21

7. DISTRICT JUDGE ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT “AN ORDINARY OBSERVER WOULD DETECT THE DISPARITIES, RATHER THAN OVERLOOK THEM OR REGARD THEM AS BEING SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME”…………………………………25

CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………………………………27

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Celotrex Corp. v. Catrett…………………12

Ridgewood BOE v N.E. …………………14

Pa. Coal Assn v Babbit…………………….15

Feist v Rural……………………………….16

Roth Greeting v. United Card Co………….17

RULES

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(C)………………………..12

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(c)………………………..11

STATUTES

17 U.S.C. § 101……………………………..7

17 U.S.C. § 106……………………………..7

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

Petitioner is appealing the Order Granting Motion for Summary Judgment by the Honorable Jose F. Linares of the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, dated and filed on July 27, 2011 A.D.

The Notice of Appeal was filed on August 29, 2011 A.D. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals holds jurisdiction.

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

Everett Adam Jackson, Plaintiff, is author of the book Brick City and owns the oldest and original copyright among all entities titled Brick City. The defendants violated that copyright by adapting the particular manner of expression in that book, creating a derivative work containing hundreds of similarities without the author’s permission, in their movie Brick City. The defense admitted having access to the original Brick City but denied any substantial similarities between the works.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Defense moved for summary judgment. Summary Judgment was granted by the District Court. Appellant respectfully appeals that the Order Granting Motion for Summary Judgment was flawed and in error.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Plaintiff’s Complaint was that “The above named defendants violated that copyright by adapting the particular manner of expression in that book, without the author’s permission, in their movie Brick City.”

That fact was based on the U.S. Copyright law Chapter 1, section 101:

“A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.”

So the Brick City movie is a derivative of the Brick City book. Section 106 of the U.S. Copyright Law covers “Exclusive rights in copyrighted works.” Item 2 in that section states that “…subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: …(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work…”

It is reasonable for the original Brick City author to act on the knowledge that a total of 250 documented similarities, including 75 of 113 pages of his book, are in the Brick City movie. That’s 66% of the pages of the book being similar to specific areas of the movie, with 93 character similarities and 2/5 of the movie content being attributable to the book.

The specific locations of those infringements are listed on      Appendix Pages 82-87, which are part of the Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. No case law is going to make those facts go away. The information was available by reasonable inference to the District Judge from the Substantial Similarities Lists.

Plaintiff told no lies in his Court papers and his rights were violated. The Defense did lie and they have no right to do that in papers to the Court so they did not deserve a decision in their favor.

The Defendants created a derivative work without the Plaintiff’s permission. That’s a copyright violation according to the law. None of the cited case law deters consideration of the derivative nature of the show. That is why the case should continue.

A HISTORY

Plaintiff spent about six years writing and publishing the Brick City book. Through all kinds of weather, over yet more years, E. Adam Jackson went to churches, schools, jails, clubs, bars, meetings, performances, the streets, and Newark City Hall—to build recognition of Brick City. Late one night at Newark Penn Station, E. Adam Jackson handed a copy of the Brick City book to Defendant Cory A. Booker, who went on to star in the Brick City reality series. The author mailed his book to many people, including Defendant Lisa Durden who had a TV show on Cablevision called “Brick City.” Lisa Durden then became associate producer of the derivative movie.

This was the root of the infringement, and in their attempt to beat the suit, the Defense rendered themselves undeserving of a favorable decision by law. Please review Appendix Pages 46-47, Item #4—which is part of the Executive Summary filed by Plaintiff—so you can see what measures the Defense resorted to when they submitted to the Court a provably untruthful Motion for Summary Judgment.

The Defense repeatedly lied in their Motion for Summary Judgment. The Defense’s dishonest attempt to show that no genuine issue on facts exists was not legitimate, because they have no right to give false information to the Court.

In the face of so many faults in their case, and with the reasonable inference be that is supposed to be given in the best light for the Plaintiff, the overwhelming number of similarities are ever more a beacon of truth to follow in continuance of this case.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The decision by the District Judge to grant summary judgment was flawed by an error in citation of Rule 59. The Judge’s decision at times defies the facts presented. The judge failed to infer with the appropriate weight of consideration to Plaintiff, the non-moving party. The Judge erred in showing no consideration of the faultiness of the case law cited by the Defense.

The District Judge unjustly allowed the Defense to do an about-face after they repeatedly described the settings of both the book and the movie as being in Newark. Then, all of a sudden, it was not Newark – a convenient escape from the Defense’s own words they had written numerous times in Court documents.

The District Judge completely misinterpreted the reformative properties of the novel. Also, based on how the author witnessed an actual ordinary person’s reaction after seeing the book and the movie, the Judge misjudged how an ordinary person would react upon regarding both works. The Judge’s thinking process led him to come down on the side of the well-known, powerful Defendants rather than the original author with the truth on his side.

The famous faces on the Defense side and their public persona should never obscure the facts underneath their incredible claims about filming factual history after publication of their still-unexplained announcements of creating a “hybrid” work.

ARGUMENT

1.DISTRICT JUDGE ERRED IN CITING RULE 59

Rule 59 (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

The District Judge’s Order Granting Summary Judgment said that summary judgment is covered under Rule 59, but Rule 59 deals with the granting of new trials. The Judge misstated the Rule and signed his decision containing incorrect information about the rule.

2.DISTRICT JUDGE ERRED IN THE DECISION ON “MATERIAL FACTS”

A.The moving party failed to show that no genuine issue of material fact exists.

The Defense can “show” their opinion by alleging and pleading in their legal document, but they failed to prove in a logical way that the differences were more than the similarities. Logic says that the 250+ similarities identified by Plaintiff are more than the tiny number of differences cited by the Defense and the District Judge combined.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(C)

Rule 56 says the Defense is entitled to a judgment, not that they are entitled to an affirmative judgment. The Court erred in granting summary judgment without the Defense having met the burden in showing logical proof. Therefore, the Defendants were not entitled to an affirmative judgment for dismissal.

Celotrex Corp. v. Catrett

In Celotrex v Catrett the evidence was argued to be hearsay. That is not the case here. Plaintiff’s evidence would prevail in a trial unlike with Mrs. Catrett because the Brick City evidence was pure to the sources.

B.Plaintiff, the non-moving party, did present specific evidence that a genuine issue of material facts exists — compelling a trial.

The facts presented by Plaintiff were so specific that they solidly established a genuine issue of facts. The evidence is extremely specific, including a 5-page list comparing specific pages of the book with specific minutes and seconds of the movies. The high quality, quantity, and frequency of listed specifics establish that the similarities are substantial.

The District Judge in error did not acknowledge the preponderance of specific material facts documented by the Plaintiff. The error not to even mention the hundreds of page-by-page, minute-by-minute specific instances of copying, altering, revising, and elaboration is a compounded curiosity because the decision-maker also did not provide or require any explanation for how all these likenesses came to exist.

The substantial and clearly identified similarities could not exist by

chance. The “historical facts” that the District Judge believes in include staged, revised, altered, and elaborated-upon enactments of the Brick City text. The Defendants used the book as a script.

C. The non-moving party did offer specific facts that establish a genuine issue of material fact and did not simply rely on unsupported assertions, bare allegations, or speculation.

Plaintiff, the non-moving party, did offer specific facts. Plaintiff offered plenty of specific support for his assertions. His specifics had plenty of meat on the bone; bare allegations does not describe the glut of truth in his sentences, paragraphs, and 48 pages of Response to the Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff did not speculate, but instead showed the Judge clear evidence of the Defendants having made a derivative work from the novel by E. Adam Jackson. Plaintiff did not speculate, he specified. Plaintiff’s case was clearly delineated.

Ridgewood BOE v N.E.

The Ridgewood BOE v N.E. wasn’t a copyright case. But it did involve evidence produced and reviewed by experts, not laymen. Yet the District Judge cited the case in contradiction of the low standard the District Judge deemed acceptable for the Brick City case: Ridgewood v. N.E. saw years of educational, psychological, and health expert assessments, while the Judge allowed that the Brick City Copyright Infringement case should just be judged by an imaginary layman.

D.“The court must consider all facts presented and the reasonable inference drawn in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.”

The District Judge’s decision does not show consideration of Plaintiff’s main points of proof. Most significantly, the District Judge’s words dictating that reasonable inference in the best light was to be given for the non-moving Plaintiff were not evident in the Order.

For the Motion for Dismissal, Plaintiff was the non-moving party. The Defense was the moving party; it was the Defense’s Motion for Dismissal that the Judge ruled on. The District Judge did not show reasonable inference in the best light favorable to the non-moving Plaintiff, whose exceptional creativity was infringed on by intentional copyright violators. The District Judge erred in that he did not reasonably infer the weight of more than two hundred more similarities over differences. That means there should be a trial.

Pa. Coal Assn v Babbit

This case law indicates that reasonable inference drawn in the light most favorable to the non-moving party was not observed in the decision of the District Judge, and that order should be overturned.

3.APPEAL ON “IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT A PLAINTIFF MUST PROVE TWO ELEMENTS (1) OWNERSHIP OF A VALID COPYRIGHT; AND (2) COPYING OF CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS OF THE WORK THAT ARE ORIGINAL”

Feist v Rural

Plaintiff did indeed prove ownership of the original Brick City

copyright, a fact conceded by the Defense. The Brick City book is the original Brick City copyrighted work, a preexisting work from which 66% of the pages were copied with changes and verbatim by the Defendants.

Plaintiff did present strong evidence, including that the Defendant’s

movie did lift dialogue from the original Brick City. There is no word-copying minimum under copyright law. Three words with an alteration at the end are a similarity. The Defense did copy words, where “I know the kid” became “I know the guy.”  On Appendix Page 82, item #7, the Court will see that similarities can be found between page 89 of the book and the 10th minute of the movie. Please also see Appendix Page 83, item #15, where the Court will see that similarities are listed between pages 90-91 of the book and the 41st minute of the movie. When the book is opened to the right page, and the video is put at the right minute, the Court will see that the Defense lied and denied about the use of dialogue. The evidence was presented, and the District Judge erred in not recognizing this infringement.

The copying of words is a legitimate copyright issue and there is no minimum number of words to constitute a copyright violation. The District Judge did not mention this monstrous, red flag, look-at-me-judge-I’m-a-substantial-similarity. In an impartial Court of Justice this red flag should not be ignored.

A. The District Judge wrote that “…it is rarely possible to prove copying through direct evidence, copying may be proved inferentially by showing the defendant had access to the allegedly infringing (sic) copyrighted work and that the allegedly infringing work is substantially similar to the copyrighted work.”

Roth Greeting v. United Card Co.

The Brick City Copyright Infringement Case is one of those rare cases when the Plaintiff in a copyright case can prove the copying through a smorgasbord of direct evidence. The Substantial Similarities Lists provide page-by-page, minute-by-second proof of what the copying is and where it occurs. For a reviewer who takes the time to leaf through the book as indicated and read the itemized points and patiently use a DVD to fast forward through the movie – the reality of the infringement materializes.

A law enforcement officer sometimes must look deeper than does the ordinary public to detect violations. This is like the stolen car that has been painted. It might have even had the VIN scratched off. But it’s still the same car. When law enforcement looks closely at a possible violation, sometimes just under the surface they begin to see they see the alterations that constitute infringement.

The Defendants admitted to having access, and the substantial similarities were laid out so clearly that a reasonable reviewer would see it and say it.

Similar does not mean “exactly alike,” not in the dictionary and not in a copyright case. “Similar” means  “sharing some qualities but not exactly identical.” If the Court is using the dictionary definition, “Substantial” means “considerable in amount, extent, value, or importance…consisting of or involving substance…large, extensive, sizeable, significant.” That means what Plaintiff used to describe the infringements is accurate and necessitates a trial.

3. IT IS CLEAR THAT DEFENDANTS HAD ACCESS TO THE BOOK.

With every other necessary component of the case being covered – the proof of copyright, the admission of access – the sticking point is where the Court must “decide” as in make a conclusion, not as in “make a choice” because the Judge legally does not have the option to choose according to which side they want to win.

The Defendants had access and violated that access by infringing. Plaintiff made a demand for a jury trial yet the Judge overlooked this demand to insert his opinion where the people’s decision should be. The Judge stepped in and used the rules to unfairly save the day for the Defendants. The District Judge did not given reasonable inference in the best light to the non-moving party, he did the opposite and contrarily came out with a decision that gave unreasonable deference to the moving party.

The similarities between the works are not coincidental; they are too numerous to be.

4.DISTRICT JUDGE ERRED IN THE SECOND OF THE TWO CONJUNCTIVE CONSIDERATIONS FOR DETERMINING “SUBSTANTIAL SIMILARITY.”

“First, the fact-finder must decide whether there is sufficient similarity between the works at issue” in order to conclude that the alleged infringer ‘copied the work’…then decide… without the aid of expert testimony, whether a ‘lay observer’ would believe that the copying was of protectible aspects of the copyrighted work…The second consideration has also been described as determining whether ‘the ordinary observer, unless he set out to detect the disparities, would be disposed to overlook them, and regard their aesthetic appeal as the same.”

The District Judge was provided with evidence of substantial similarities. A lay observer in real life told the author that he should look at the movie. The lay observer said it in a way that indicated he thought the works were substantially similar.

5. DISTRICT JUDGE ERRED IN FINDING THAT “THE NOVEL “BRICK CITY” (THE “NOVEL”) AND THE TV SERIES “BRICK CITY” (THE “SHOW”) ARE ONLY SIMILAR IN THE FOLLOWING WAYS”:

Both the novel and the show have the same title, “Brick City.”

Both the novel and the show discuss the difficulties of urban life

On page 99 of the novel, Mr. Shell discusses the lack of facilities and little money given to students who attend inner city schools.1”

The District Judge’s decision cited a few instances where the works are more identical than similar. That’s an unfairly high standard that does not give reasonable inference in the best light to the Plaintiff. It’s a misuse of the requirement for similarity by substituting the definition of identical for similar. That is especially true when the Plaintiff’s Substantial Similarities Lists provides formatted, numbered, measured, cited evidence with at least 250 occasions of incidence that adds up to at least 2/5 of the Brick City derivative movie series and derives from 66% of the pages in the book– all facts that appeared in long form within the Substantial Similarities Lists of the Plaintiff Response in Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment.

The Lists begin on page 82 of the Appendix.

Like a laser, the first list pinpoints the plethora of similarities between the text and the movie. The second further details characters from the book that were altered, recast, and transformed for the movie.

The similarities are abundant and the Judge erred in not fully acknowledging them.

6. DISTRICT JUDGE ERRED IN FINDING THAT “THE CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS OF BOTH WORK PRODUCTS ARE DISTINCT

The novel and the show are dissimilar in the following ways:

The novel is fictional; the show is a fact-based documentary.

The novel does not specify a setting and in fact states that “Brick City “could be a Newark, a New York, a Philly, Chicago, Baltimore…” The show is specifically about Newark, New Jersey.

The novel and the show have different focuses and each is told from a different perspective. The show focuses on the city of Newark’s efforts to stop criminal; activity from the local administration’s perspective. The book is a fictional story about five teenagers growing up in “Brick City.”

The novel does not discuss any attempts to reform “Brick City.” The show focuses on the city’s attempt to make Newark a model and example of urban transformation across the nation.”

Regarding the Judge’s error on “Constituent Elements”: The Defendants chose their constituent elements based on what the original’s constituent elements were. The book had a couple (Liana and Jeep); so the movie producers selected a couple, (Jada and Creep). The book had a high school principal (Mr. Shell); so the movie had a high-school principal (Mr. Ras Baraka). The book had a heroic football player hero who admonished his force to stop the crime in Brick City (Jeep Thomas); so the movie had a heroic charismatic football player hero who admonished his force to stop the crime in Brick City (Mayor Cory A. Booker). Those are some really alike constituent elements.

There are more: The book had a flamboyant mentor character who dressed in doctor costume (Mr. Abdullah), plus an ex-con who transformed into a community activist, (The Hustler); so the movie had a flamboyant mentor character who dressed in doctor costume and an ex-con who transformed into a community activist (The Street Doctor). The book had parents of main characters Scottsboro Wood (mother: Violet Wood/ father: Prof. Robert Burns), Liana Vine (mother: Iris Vine), Jeep Thomas (mother: Willamina Thomas), Casher (grandmother: Miss Ella Mae), and Tyrone Broadway (mother: Orleen Broadway), so the movie had the parents of reality series star Mayor Cory A. Booker. The so-called distinctive elements are obliterated by the 200-something similarities that would not exist without infringement.

Regarding “The novel is fictional; the show is a fact-based documentary”: Chapter 1, section 101 of the Copyright Code says, “any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.” So the Copyright law shows the understanding that a work can be changed into another media and still be a derivative work. That covers the distinction between the media forms but still keeps Plaintiff’s claim of alteration intact. The mediums are distinct, but the constituent elements are substantially similar.

Regarding “The novel does not specify a setting and in fact states that “Brick City “could be a Newark, a New York, a Philly, Chicago, Baltimore…” The show is specifically about Newark, New Jersey”: Plaintiff said it could be all of those cities as in, it is those cities. The Defendants certainly thought the book was about Brick City Newark and they stated so numerous times in their Motion for Summary Judgment: on Appendix Page 105, from their motion the Defense said the book was a coming-of-age-story in Newark, on Appendix Page 111 Defense said “The Story is a coming of age story about five adolescents living in the Newark projects”, on the same page they wrote “The Story describes several consecutive days in the lives of five African-American high school classmates living in a Newark, New Jersey, housing project”, on Appendix Page 112 they wrote, “The reader is introduced to “Brick City,” the name of the Newark projects in which the main characters live”, on Appendix Page 127 they said “Both works take place in Newark, New Jersey”, on the same page they said “Both works depict low-income high-rises, city pools, high school football games, church services, drug dealers, and other aspects of Newark’s urban backdrop.” The Defendants thought it was Newark in the book all the way through their Motion; the District Judge erred in allowing them to escape their own words.

Plaintiff has lived in Newark for about 20 years, and Newark was where plaintiff handed the book to the future mayor of Newark. For all intents and purposes, the setting is indeed Newark and the Defendants knew that. When Forest Whitaker says in his remarks that the Brick City concept can be meaningful for other cities, he is adapting the Brick City book yet again.

Dealing with the Judge’s statement that Plaintiff’s book does not discuss reforming Brick City, the District Judge could not have been more wrong. The whole book is a reform device. The book was written and published to reform Brick City. Brick City by E. Adam Jackson is a model for reform: of young men and women in relationships, reform of poor parenting, reform of corrupt politicians, reform of a status quo church, reform of criminally-acting young men, reform of father interactions with their sons, reform of the African-American woman, reform of the African-American man, reform of the African-American athlete, reform of African-American neighborhoods, reform of ethnic interactions, reform of the concept of race…the book was the catalyst for a movement that included the Defendants picking up on the reform component of the book and making it into the reform movie based on the book.

7. DISTRICT JUDGE ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT “AN ORDINARY OBSERVER WOULD DETECT THE DISPARITIES, RATHER THAN OVERLOOK THEM OR REGARD THEM AS BEING SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME.”

“As the fact-finder, this Court has determined that these works lack sufficient similarity to conclude that the alleged infringer “copied the work.” Thus, there is no genuine issue of fact as to whether these works are substantially similar and the Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

Plaintiff’s Appeal holds that an ordinary observer would detect the

disparities and the similarities. The ordinary person imagined by the Court happens to “behave” the opposite of the real-life ordinary person who told E. Adam Jackson it was his Brick City book in the Brick City movie. A former co-worker, the ordinary person had read the book and seen the series in real life. Not in a reality show. Not in a Judge’s mind.

The ordinary man approached the author with arms open wide, saying, “Brick City! Congratulations, baby!” The District Judge erred in guessing about what a ordinary person would observe. Allowing the reasonable inference to go to the non-movant Plaintiff, as the District Judge’s Order says was called for (please see page 2 of the Appendix), the decision to dismiss should be overturned.

Plaintiff strongly presented specific facts that establish a genuine issue of material fact, compelling a trial. Plaintiff should be compensated for the theft and pilfering of his published, copyrighted work and Federal Court is the place to have that done by Justice.

A layman is not what is needed, but a person who has been specifically told specifically where to look for the specific similarities. If Plaintiff wanted an ordinary observer to judge this case he would have gone to a casual organization. Plaintiff came to court to be heard by a professionally trained observer, not a lay observer who had not experienced both works.

The District Judge echoed the Defense assertion that the reality series was fact-based. In truth, a staged scene becomes a fact as it is planned and executed. Calling the movie “factual” does not make it spontaneous reality. Statistically, the chances would be astronomical that the very many similar characters, actions, and the copied dialogue were not derived from the original work.

The Defendants called their derivative work a “hybrid” and the Judge showed no curiosity and gave no explanation of this term, which red flags the unique combination that their work was in incorporating the fiction of   E. Adam Jackson’s original Brick City.

The statement that the series shows real-life history would suppose that the similarities just happened to result so closely to the book the author handed to Cory A. Booker and mailed to assistant producer Lisa Durden.

That statement would ignore how movies get made: real-life actors follow roles from a script, with some ad-libbing. That’s how the Defendants made their derivative work and that’s why they should not be allowed to get away with their video violation.

CONCLUSION

The Court should not leap from, “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…” to “Cory A. Booker et al did nothing wrong.” Because the logical solution to the old adage and the current case are both: it’s a big, fat, duck. There is a genuine issue of fact as to the similarities between the works so the Brick City Copyright Infringement case should continue with a reversal of the District Judge’s decision.

Dated:   November 5, 2011 A.D.

Plaintiff pro se:

EVERETT ADAM JACKSON

Newark, NJ

           Use the side menu to reach other pages.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *