Real Estate Topics Forum :: View topic - Copyright suit against Russ Whitney and his book publisher 2

Guest

Copyright suit against Russ Whitney and his book publisher by Pete and Tony Youngs 2

COUNT ONE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

21.

Plaintiffs have complied in all respects with all laws governing copyright with regard to the series of educational seminars, home study video tapes, home study sound recordings and study manuals pertaining to the process of finding, purchasing, rehabilitating and selling real estate that is in foreclosure. Plaintiffs have registered their claims to copyright and received registrations for the following works set forth in Exhibits A1-A11 to Plaintiffs' Verified Complaint as follows:

Ex Registration Title of Work Author(s)
No.
A1 PA 420-257 A Foreclosure Property Acquisition (on the Tony Youngs
job training) Videotape
A2 TXu 779-419 Foreclosure Boot Camp Intensified Training Tony S. Youngs
Text Roy A.
Pepperdine
A3 PA 862-290 Money for Nothing Videotape Peter M.
Youngs Tony
S. Youngs
A4 TXu 775-170 REHAB-101-Money saving tips to fix up and Pete Youngs
maintain property text
A5 PAu 2-300-543 Atlanta Foreclosure Bootcamp (intensified Tony Youngs
training) Seminar Presentation, Pete Youngs
derivative work of books, tapes,
manuals, and videotape training
A6 TX 5-020-748 The Win Win Approach: Buying Foreclosure Tony S. Youngs
Property Directly from the Homeowner
Text
A7 PAu 2-410-165 Title Search for Investors Videotape Tony Youngs
Pete Youngs
A8 SR 258-715 The Win Win Approach: Buying Foreclosure Anthony S.
Property Directly from the Homeowner Youngs
Audio Cassettes (Tony)
A9 PA 988-133 Win Win Negotiations Videotape Tony S. Youngs
A10 TXu 937-828 Foreclosure Bootcamp Intensified Training Tony S. Youngs
Manual Text
A11 TXu 1-046-088 Win-Win Negotiations Script Tony Stephen
Youngs

True and correct copies of the above referenced Certificates of Registration and Deposit Data are attached to Plaintiffs Verified Complaint as Exhibits A1- A1 1.
22.

At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiffs have been and still are proprietors of all right, title, and interest in and to the United States copyrights in the works referenced above in Paragraph 21.
23.

Defendant Keller had access to and directly copied from Plaintiffs seminar materials during his attendance at the copyrighted Atlanta Foreclosure Bootcamp.
24.

Defendant Keller is an employee of Whitney Education Group, and was acting in the line and scope of his employment during his attendance at Plaintiffs' seminar.
25.

Whitney owns and has access to each of Plaintiffs copyrighted videotapes, audio tapes, home study courses and training manuals. With access to the works, and knowledge that the works have been copyrighted by Plaintiffs, Whitney has been and continues to intentionally infringe on Plaintiffs' copyrights (Plaintiffs' Verified Complaint Exhibits Al-A11) by advertising and selling educational seminars, home study video tapes, home study sound recordings and study manuals regarding the process of finding, purchasing, rehabilitating and selling real estate that is in foreclosure. Said advertising and sales of materials and seminars is being conducted in this judicial district and others.
26.

Whitney has been and continues to utilize the internet to advertise and sell educational seminars, home study video tapes, home study sound recordings and study manuals regarding the process of finding, purchasing, rehabilitating and selling real estate that is in foreclosure; containing information from Plaintiffs' educational seminars, home study video tapes, home study sound recordings and study manuals regarding the process of finding, purchasing, rehabilitating and selling real estate that is in foreclosure.
27.

Defendants Russ Whitney and Whitney Leadership Group, Inc., have been and continue to sell, in this judicial district, books containing information from Plaintiffs' educational seminars, home study video tapes, home study sound recordings and study manuals regarding the process of finding, purchasing, rehabilitating and selling real estate that is in foreclosure; as referenced above in Paragraph 21.
28.
Upon information and belief, Defendants Russ Whitney and Whitney Leadership Group, Inc., have been and continue to sell, outside the State of Georgia, and throughout the United States, books containing information from Plaintiffs' educational seminars, home study video tapes, home study sound recordings and study manuals regarding the process of finding, purchasing, rehabilitating and selling real estate that is in foreclosure; as referenced above in Pararannh 21
29.

The activities conducted by Defendants, as referenced in Paragraphs 23 through 28 above, are without the consent or permission of Plaintiffs or any authorized agents of Plaintiffs.
30.

By reason of Defendants' aforesaid infringements of said copyrights, Plaintiffs have sustained and will continue to sustain, substantial injury, loss, and damage to their rights in the educational seminars, home study video tapes, home study sound recordings and study manuals regarding the process of finding, purchasing, rehabilitating and selling real estate that is in foreclosure.
31.
Further irreparable harm and injury to Plaintiffs is imminent as a result of
Defendants' conduct.

32.

Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Defendants the damages sustained by Plaintiffs as a result of Defendants' wrongful acts as previously alleged. Plaintiffs are presently unable to ascertain the full extent of the monetary damages they have suffered by reason of Defendants' aforesaid acts of copyright infringement.
33.

Plaintiffs are further entitled to recover from Defendants the gains, profits, and advantages Defendants have obtained as a result of their wrongful acts as previously alleged. Plaintiffs are presently unable to ascertain the full extent of the gains, profits and advantages Defendants have obtained by reason of their aforesaid acts of copyright infringement.
COUNT TWO FRAUD

34.

On June 7, 2000, the Whitney Defendants, with the intent to defraud Plaintiffs, represented to the Plaintiffs that information submitted to Whitney for inclusion in a publication on real estate investing would be included in said publication and the Plaintiffs would be credited as co-authors, reaping all benefits inclusive in that designation.
35.

The representations were known by Whitney to be and were false. In truth, Whitney intended to utilize Plaintiffs copyrighted materials in a book that merely credited Plaintiffs as members of Russ Whitney's Wealth Team, not co- authors; thereby gaining access to Plaintiffs' materials and benefitting unjustly from Plaintiffs works without proper credit or reimbursement to Plaintiffs.
36.

Plaintiffs believed and relied upon the false representations, and thus were induced to grant Whitney unprecedented access to their materials, thereby, arguably, voiding Plaintiffs copyrights and otherwise exposing Plaintiffs valuable information to the public without proper credit or compensation.
37.

Plaintiffs' reliance upon the false representations was justifiable because Plaintiffs were in a contractual independent contractor relationship with Whitney whereby Whitney recognized ownership of Plaintiffs' materials in Plaintiffs alone and because Plaintiffs understood the authorship of the book to be a joint project of benefit to Plaintiffs and Whitney alike.
38.

As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs have been damaged by widespread dissemination of their seminar materials, thereby reducing the value of their seminars and by not being compensated for their contribution to Whitney's enrichment from the sale of the book.
39.

As a result of the foregoing, Whitney has been unjustly enriched from the sale of the book
COUNT THREE NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

40.

On June 7, 2000, the Whitney Defendants misrepresented to the Plaintiffs that information submitted to Whitney for inclusion in a publication on real estate investing would be included in said publication and the Plaintiffs would be credited as co-authors, reaping all benefits inclusive in that designation.
41.

The misrepresentations were false and the Whitney Defendants should have know the misrepresentations were false. In truth, Whitney intended to utilize Plaintiffs copyrighted materials in a book that merely credited Plaintiffs as members of Russ Whitney's Wealth Team, not co-authors; thereby gaining access to Plaintiffs' materials and benefitting unjustly from Plaintiffs works without proper credit or reimbursement to Plaintiffs.
42.

Plaintiffs believed and relied upon the false representations, and thus were induced to grant Whitney unprecedented access to their materials, thereby, arguably, voiding Plaintiffs copyrights and otherwise exposing Plaintiffs valuable information to the public without proper credit or compensation.
43.

Plaintiffs' reliance upon the false representations was justifiable because Plaintiffs were in a contractual independent contractor relationship with Whitney whereby Whitney recognized ownership of Plaintiffs' materials in Plaintiffs alone and because Plaintiffs understood the authorship of the book to be a joint project of benefit to Plaintiffs and Whitney alike.
44.

As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs have been damaged by widespread dissemination of their seminar materials, thereby reducing the value of their seminars and by not being compensated for their contribution to Whitney's enrichment from the sale of the book.
45.

As a result of the foregoing, Whitney has been unjustly enriched from the sale of the book.
COUNT FOUR DEFENDANT KELLER'S MALICIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS

46.

Defendant Keller improperly and without privilege maliciously interfered with the contract between Plaintiffs and the Whitney Defendants.
47.

Defendant Keller failed to have any right or privilege in which to base the actions of plagiarizing Plaintiffs' seminar in an effort to substitute his services for those of the Plaintiffs to the Whitney Defendants.
48.

Defendant Keller acted with intent to injure which is demonstrated by his willful and intentional copying of Plaintiffs' materials and later use of those materials in conducting seminars for the Whitney Defendants.
49.

These actions caused the Whitney Defendants to devalue the services rendered by Plaintiffs and has resulted in financial injury to Plaintiffs.
50.
Thus, Plaintiffs should be compensated for Defendant Keller's malicious interference with Plaintiffs' contractual rights.
COUNT FIVE DEFENDANT KFLLER'S MALICIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONS

51.

Defendant Keller improperly and without privilege maliciously interfered with the business relationship of Plaintiffs and the Whitney Defendants
52.

Defendant Keller failed to have any right or privilege in which to base the actions of plagiarizing Plaintiffs' seminar in an effort to substitute his services for those of the Plaintiffs to the Whitney Defendants.
53.

Defendant Keller acted with intent to injure which is demonstrated by his willful and intentional copying of Plaintiffs' materials and later use of those materials in conducting seminars for the Whitney Defendants.
54.

These actions caused the Whitney Defendants to devalue the independent contractor relationship with the Plaintiffs and has resulted in financial injury to the
Plaintiffs.
55.
MOORE NGRAM Thus, Plaintiffs should be compensated for Defendant Keller's malicious interference with the business or employment relations of another.
COUNT SIX PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR INTENTIONAL CONDUCT

56.

Whitney either desired to cause the consequences of their fraudulent misrepresentation or was substantially certain of the result. Whitney knew the repercussions of their actions and yet persisted in taking them.
57.

Defendant Keller either desired to cause the consequences of his malicious interference with contractual relations or was substantially certain of the result. Defendant Keller knew the repercussions of his actions and yet persisted in taking them.
58.

Defendant Keller either desired to cause the consequences of his malicious interference with business relations or was substantially certain of the result. Defendant Keller knew the repercussions of his actions and yet persisted in taking them.
59.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' fraudulent and tortious actions, the Plaintiffs have suffered great emotional and financial injury and have incurred tremendous costs related to these actions.
60.

Because of the actions of the Defendants, herein above described, Plaintiffs are entitled to receive monetary compensntion.
61.

By engaging in the above-described conduct, Defendants showed willful misconduct, specific intent to harm, malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression, or the entire want of care which would raise the presumption of conscious indifference to consequences so as to entitle Plaintiffs to punitive damages in excess of $250,000 against Defendants in accordance with O.C.G.A. § 51-12- 5.1.
COUNT SEVEN BREACH OF CONTRACT

62.

By having Defendant Keller take and plagiarize Plaintiffs' materials before Plaintiffs gave notice of non-renewal under the independent contractor agreement in place between Whitney and Plaintiffs, Whitney breached said agreement.
63.

Whitney breached the contractually implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by having Defendant Keller take and plagiarize Plaintiffs' materials before Plaintiffs gave proper notice of non-renewal under the independent contractor agreement in place between Whitney and Plaintiffs.
64.

Whitney breached the contractually implied duty of loyalty by having Defendant Keller take and plagiarize Plaintiffs' materials before Plaintiffs gave proper notice of non-renewal under the independent contractor agreement in place between Whitney and Plaintiffs.
65.

Plaintiffs have suffered direct loss and damages as a result of Whitney's breach.