Reply to Bad Art Friend

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Bad Art Friend"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]19:28 - are you aware the the lawyer for 1C1S found that the revamped version of the letter still contained to many phrases/structure from the original letter and than 1C1S believed even the revamped story would open them up to litigation.

The problem is the Larsen was wedded to keeping that letter in the story, probably because it continued hint at the stories origins. Honestly it’s mystifying that she did just remove the letter completely. [/quote]

[b]I mean, are you aware that while the judge dismissed Dorland's emotional distress damages claims, most of Lawson's claims remain (the judge dismissed Lawson's intentional interference with contract claims but allowed them to be replead in an amended complaint as intentional interference with advantageous business relationship claims, which she then refused to dismiss)?  The claims against Dorland's original lawyer also remain and were not dismissed despite the lawyer moving for that, and the judge denied the lawyer's motion for judgment on the pleadings.  What I'm saying is that while 1C1S may have taken a defensive posture for not wanting to risk being subject to the massively threatening $180K lawsuit, [u]what is actually going on in the litigation is that Lawson is doing pretty well[/u].[/b]

I'm not sure exactly what 1C1S lawyer doc you are referring to (I don't recall reading any discovery directly from their lawyer), but I did see that the 1C1S people took one tone with Lawson when trying to get her and de Leon to stop bothering them about shutting down the conference (i.e., you should never have submitted a story that was plagiarized, it violated the document you signed when you submitted it) and quite another tone when initially informing Lawson about their decision to shut it down (something like, even though this is wrong, we cannot appease Dorland's lawyers so unfortunately we must shut down 1C1S).

Finally, I don't know copyright, but surely we can all agree that there is some version of the story that exists with a non-plagiarized letter in it (different structure, if needed) that Lawson can still publish and seek to benefit from?  Anything that she openly took from Dorland has got to go, but the inspiration of the story, however wrongheaded, is something writers do, and are allowed to do, all the time, and Lawson is similarly allowed to do that, even if it now reflects badly on her.  [/quote]

What I mean is, I feel like people are sympathizing so much with Dorland and against the mean girl dynamic of the Chunky Monkeys that we have lost a little bit of perspective on what the law actually allows.  I think what the law actually allows is pretty dangerous for Dorland (and why I keep wishing that someone who knows how would start a GoFundMe for her legal bills).[/quote]

Tell me you're not a lawyer without telling me you're not a lawyer.  NP and I thought the PP upthread calling you a CM was a bit harsh, but this is . . . wrong.  Really wrong and just a misunderstanding of how claims in pleadings work on a basic level.  Not getting a judgment on the pleadings is not a failure.  Having some claims dismissed doesn't mean what you think it does.  And the law isn't interested in "allowing" some not-yet-written non-plagiarized version of the story.  It's interested in judging whether the version she already submitted for publication and awards was, in fact, plagiarized.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics