minneapolis

<p>If you are in the United States, you have written permission to publish photos of other people, in the form of the first amendment to the constitution.</p>

<p>My website has photos of me as a baby, my late brother (sick and in the hospital), my wife, my baby girl, and thousands of other strangers. I have a removal policy on my website, which allows for removal based on privacy or obscenity reasons, but doesn't grant people who don't like a photo to have it removed. I was asked to remove a photo of a corporate officer from an essay about his copyright infringement. I refused and was sued in federal court -- case 06-cv-01164, D. MN. It went to trial, I presented a first amendment defense, and I won (see <a href="http://www.cgstock.com/essays/copyright_lawsuit">Gregerson v. Vilana</a> ). I also collected 20k from him for his aforementioned infringement.</p>

<p>My wife found me through my photography website. If we didn't each have photos online, my baby girl wouldn't exist right now. Many people have benefited from the medical photos of my brother online, they have been used in nursing education programs and been published by the CDC (because there are special rules surrounding medical photos, I got my brother's permission before he died, but the point is that even private moments can be of legitimate social benefit to others).</p>

<p>Anyone who really thinks it's wrong for other people to publish a photo of them without permission (not counting advertising use or moments expected to be private), should seek to repeal the first amendment. Otherwise, you are essentially asking someone "I don't like how you exercised your freedom of speech/freedom of the press rights, it bothers me -- please stop". You are expecting them to make their freedom of speech subject to your personal whims. Would you also ask someone "I don't like the religion you practice -- please stop it, because it bothers me" -- ?</p>

<p>Hi, this is Chris Gregerson, the photographer in question. I was informed of this thread after I started one here:

<br><a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00OcdY">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00OcdY</a></p>

<p>I did report Andrew Vilenchik to the US Attorney and FBI. They

started a file. I also reported him to the Dept. of Commerce, who

is investigating his mortgage originator's license.</p>

<p>It's implied on my website that he and his attorneys face a lawsuit

for malicious prosecution based on having sued me with forged

evidence. I will continue to post updates, the latest info is a

page about Andrew Vilenchik's two new corporate identities:

<br><a href="http://www.cgstock.com/essays/andrew_vilenchik">Andrew Vilenchik, Community Finance Group, and Custom Properties, Inc.</a></p>

<p>I've posted an update today about how Andrew Vilenchik has created two new corporate identities since the trial, owns a home appraised at over a million dollars, and has refused to pay the judgment:

<a href="http://www.cgstock.com/essays/andrew_vilenchik">Andrew

Vilenchik, Community Finance Group, and Custom Properties, Inc.</a></p>

<p>I will obtain discovery on the two corporate defendant's

assets. If Vilenchik lies, has siphoned them or transferred them,

and continues to refuse to pay the judgment, there will be

consequences (e.g. being found in contempt of court, which

can mean being jailed). I updated my complaint with the

Minnesota Department of Commerce; there are rules against

those who hold a mortgage originator's licenses

and refuse to pay federal damages awards.</p>

<p>Regarding the damages amount: the statutory maximum

of $150,000 is only awarded to

repeat offenders and when the infringement was more

substantial (in terms of number of copies, for example).

I was awarded $10,000 in statutory damages for

thumbnail size use of a photo in a brochures with an alleged

press run of a couple thousand copies; if he infringed again,

and I uncovered more use that the brochure, it might be

closer to $150,000.</p>

<p>In reply to the occasional comment that it wasn't worth it:

I was sued for six causes of action (and sued first); you don't have the option of saying "I decline to litigate" when someone

sues you! They demanded I replace my critical website with one endorsing Vilana, so their potential customers would be

unaware of their behavior. I would also have to

give up any compensation for my photographs,

and sacrifice my first amendment right. These things

are "worth it" to me.</p>

<p>Hi, I wanted to share the news of a favorable verdict in a copyright lawsuit

I've been litigating for the past two years (I'm a photographer, and represented

myself). It went to trial last Nov. 5th and I was awarded $19,462.00 for the

unauthorized use of two photos on Feb. 15th.</p>

<p>They were used by Vilana Financial, Inc., who refused to pay the licensing

fee and got my small claims court case tossed on jurisdiction. I wrote about

their unauthorized use of my photos on my website. They sued me for defamation.</p>

<p>I didn't have the money for an attorney, so I defended myself pro-se. They

produced a sales agreement to prove the photos were taken by Michael Zubitskiy,

who sold them the rights. There is no such person as Michael Zubitskiy, and

after 2+ years of litigation, a judge finally ruled as such -- they made up the

whole story, and had just swiped the photos from my website.</p>

<p>I submitted this story to Slashdot, so perhaps some of you know about it.

There are more details on my webpage about the case:

<a href="http://www.cgstock.com/essays/vilana">Gregerson v. Vilana Financial,

Inc. (06-cv-01164)</a>. The judgment is here: <a

href="http://www.cgstock.com/essays/gregerson_v_vilana_judgment_152.pdf">Findings

of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order for Judgment</a>.</p>

<p>I will check back and respond to any follow-ups below, but I can also be

reached at chris@cgstock.com.</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Chris Gregerson

<p>[<em>Signature URL deleted. Not allowed under forum rules</em>]