Han Shot First...

All content creators begin by releasing a first edition of their content. If the first edition is successful, those creators will revise it and release a second edition. Sometimes, the revisions are merely to spelling and grammar, like a change from "Thou shalt commit adultery" to "Thou shalt not..." but sometimes the revisions are to substance.

For example: George Lucas famously released his "remastered" versions of Star Wars beginning in 1997. He made several changes to the originals in his remastered versions. One of the changes was to make a scene, where Han shooting Greedo quite adeptly, into a scene where Han only returned fire after Greedo beat him to the first shot.

Some people liken these changes to vandalism. The argument is that the movies would not have been the phenomenon it was were it not for the fans. Therefore, changing the movies to, perhaps, entertain the younger fans, does a disservice to the fans of the original three movies.

A few years ago in law school, I wanted to write a paper on this, but was stopped before beginning. My professor told me that the copyright owner could do what he pleased with the copyrights. In fact, the copyright owner has the exclusive right to copy, adapt, perform, distribute, and display his works. Here, George Lucas is adapting his three original Star Wars movies to his liking, and it is his prerogative to do so. Even the directors, like Stephen Spielberg, who later regret such changes, like digitally changes guns into walkie talkies in E.T., have the right to mutilate their films.

Lucas however, has little to fear. If I were to take a movie by George Lucas and make changes that I saw fit, I would likely be sued into oblivion. But because Lucas owns the copyrights, he can do whatever the hell he pleases.

That's why it's important to know who the copyright owner is. If you are a content creator who works with one or more other people, do you know who owns the works you create? Do you need help stopping unauthorized uses? If so, email me at David@likelyconfusion.com or call 8018 - PATENT.

Teaching CItiBank the meaning of CEASE AND DESIST

A few months ago, I decided that CitiBank wouldn't push me around or intimidate me as a student lender/loan servicer any longer. I requested verification of any loans that I may have with their company as well as any supporting documentation such as applications. What I received can't really be called responsive, but CitiBank must have felt that they fulfilled their obligation because they started to call me more and more often.

At this point, I read them the Riot Act - I told them that they were to cease all contact with David Greene the citizen and should instead direct contact to Attorney David J. Greene at his office. The representatives that I would speak with would tell me that an oral cease and desist is no good. Below, find my correspondence thread that changed the mind of CitiBank.If you click the images, you will be presented with a higher resolution and larger image.

First, we have CitiBank's letter which followed a cease and desist that I made over the phone one day. Notice how much the Customer Service Department seems to know about Federal law and about the law of several states.

After I got the above letter, I spoke to CitiBank representatives on the phone many times, and the below letter was sent to me. This letter states that my request was limited to phone contact, when it was not. 

A week later, I got the below letter, stating that all correspondence will cease - this is certainly not what I requested. Why would I tell someone like that to never contact me again?

This one is the closest to the bulls eye. It was sent to my law office in response to a letter that I wrote to CitiBank. You will see my letter immediately follows the CitiBank letter.

I have found that there are many people are being harassed by student lenders and servicers. If you are one of those people, you should call Attorney David J. Greene at Greene and Greene at 603-742-5457.