Response in Opposition to Dismissal of the Lawsuit

Rosebush logo
Radical creativity.©

On April 29, 2011-16, the Defense lawyers made a motion to dismiss the Brick City Copyright Infringement Lawsuit. The Executive Summary below is a short version of Adam Jackson’s Response to the motion.

For the full, 48-page version of the Response, please click on the link underneath the Executive Summary.

Say the mayorship of Newark is not mentioned in the book, being proved wrong by Plaintiff (p31)

Claim that the book “contains no references to gangs” when the complete opposite is proven abundantly true (p32)

Claim that “No politician makes a speech” being contradicted by page 102, paragraph 4 of the Brick City book, when Councilman Mizzetti makes a politically-motivated speech to Orleen Broadway at a public appearance (pp31-32)

Claim that no politician holds a meeting in the story, contradicted by page 52 and 53 of the Brick City book, where Councilman Mizzetti is having a meeting with his lawyer (p32)

Make the unequivocal statement that “the Documentary uses no specific expression…or dialogue” from the book, in the face of contradictory evidence (p32)

Draw deceitful conclusions (p32)

Use convoluted logic to lead the Judge down the path of incredulity (p40)

Claim the Brick City book does not feature a montage of interspersed images underscored by urban music, but the evidence again shows the opposite is true (pp45-46)

For these reasons, and the full opposition contained in the Response, the Defense failed to meet the burden of proof and the Motion should be denied.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF REASONS WHY THE MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD BE DENIED IN THE BRICK CITY COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT CASE

Dear Judge _______,

The following page numbers specify locations in the Plaintiff’s Response, unless otherwise indicated.

1.The strong similarities between the works outweigh the differences, could not have happened by chance, and could only have happened if the book was used in a production capacity by the movie’s associates; please see the lists starting on p35 of the Response

2.The Defendants violated Plaintiff’s Constitutional right to copyright protection when they failed to communicate for permission to use his book, despite the Defendants’ vast legal resources and deep experience in moviemaking, they failed to act with due diligence to respect the copyrights of the author of the book used as the basis for their motion picture series

The subject is spoken to in 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”.”

3.The Defendants intentionally violated Plaintiff’s Constitutional right to copyright protection by altering, transforming, and creating a derivative work, violating the particular form of expression in the copyrighted Brick City book by E. Adam Jackson to create their Brick City motion picture series; Section 106 of the U.S. Copyright Law covers “Exclusive rights in copyrighted works” and 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…”

4.The Defense, in their Motion, did:

Misstate the main premise of Plaintiff’s claim (p5 in the Response)

Mislabel their derivative reality series as a documentary (p5)

Try to limit the Judge’s access to facts and testimony (p6)

Downplay, diminish, and disregard relevant data (p11)

Try to pull the wool over the Judge’s eyes about relevant chapters (p14)

Dishonestly offer eleven chapters of the motion picture series for review, when only the first five pertain to this case, wasting the court’s time (p14)

Try to disrespect Plaintiff’s work as scènes à faire (p4, 13, 19, 20, 21, 24, 26…)

Claim that most of the movie is made up of “Political meetings, interviews, speeches, campaigns, ribbon-cuttings, ground breakings, and strategy sessions” with no specific time breakdown of where or how much. That’s a weakness (p31)

Leave a Reply

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