Shattered Hopes (film by Ric Osuna & Katco)

[sherbetbizarre]

Ladies and Gentlemen, this thread is 10-years old today!

No Ric... No please, don't do it... Say it isn't so Ric.... NOOOooooo!!!

Now that I got that out, I can't believe someone is gonna actually put his lies on film(In 2006)... All the power to him but... I hope they sell it as "Very loosley" based on a True Story. And not the "True Events" of that night in November... Damn him!! I still wanna see it though... heh heh.

From Ric's site, looks like George will have some more suing to do...

For Immediate Release

Katco Media and The Amityville Murders? Further the True Story in 2006

Las Vegas, NV (October 30, 2005 ) ? Autumn 2006 promises to be an exciting season with the revisiting of America's most infamous, alleged haunted house. Katco Media Publisher Ryan Katzenbach explained, "Next fall, Katco Media will release a 90-minute exploration of the tragedy that befell the DeFeo family in November 1974. The untitled documentary project is based on Ric Osuna's The Night The DeFeos Died*, and will mark the company's debut to the world of multimedia and film entertainment."

The project will incorporate on-screen interviews with author Ric Osuna, whose five-year research endeavor resulted in his true-crime book, which continues to sell today. The documentary will incorporate not only on-camera interviews with various eyewitnesses, including Geraldine DeFeo, but it will also incorporate archive footage, crime-scene photos and re-enactments of the murders and Ronald DeFeo's subsequent trial. While interviews will begin taping in November, the reenactments will likely be shot throughout winter and early spring in California and New York.

Katco Media and Ryan Katzenbach plan to take the Amityville story one-step further. In February 2006, Katco Media will release The Amityville Courthouse that will expose nearly 30 years of legends, lies, and litigation centered on the alleged haunting of the "Amityville Horror" house. The book is being developed in-house by Katco Media.

"The book will take a historical look at the various lawsuits filed through the years," Katzenbach said, "as the Amityville players fought to maintain control---and money---by perpetuating a hoax upon the public."

Also in 2006, Ric Osuna will be publishing The Amityville Murders? in paperbook format through Noble Kai Media. More details on this project will appear at http://www.amityville98ders.com over the coming weeks.

2006 wasn't quite as exciting as Katco hoped... maybe 2016 make up or that.

Will we still get Amityville Courthouse? Up-to-date to include Katzenbach VS Peter Pisasni?


Anyway, Shattered Hopes and proved to be the gift that keeps on giving. So let's raise a glass to...

10 YEARS OF SHAT

[PeterPisani]

https://www.facebook.com/ShatteredHopes ... =3&theater




Here ya go. Ask Ryan for a full copy!

[Beetsie]

The page REPOSTED copyrighted material . The owner of the intellectual property asked that it be removed , which is his right and by law they have to do so . They may not have control over the original post , but they DO have control over their own page .

Ryan has been illegally using my image for YEARS to sell movies. BOO HOO. Crazy Bird!

What image is that Peter ? Your Image is not in the Docudrama . It is not in the book . Not only that . If your mother allowed him to use a photo that had your image in it , there is nothing you can do . It is HER property to do so as she pleases . At that point once a picture is public .. or in another s possession it can be used . YOUR image is NOT copyrighted Peter , that photo being used is .. get over yourself .

[Exsecratio]

It is HER property to do so as she pleases . At that point once a picture is public .. or in another s possession it can be used . YOUR image is NOT copyrighted Peter , that photo being used is .. get over yourself .

Not strictly true Beetsie, The Lanham Act governs federal protection of personality rights, and the doctrine has much in common with the laws defining federal protection of trademarks.In fact, an individual’s identity could be considered their personal “mark”, the misappropriation of which is sufficient to constitute infringement. In addition, both trademark and publicity rights appear to be designed somewhat to combat infringement for the sake of consumers, granting a cause of action for false descriptions, false representations, and false endorsement claims. Just as there is a cause of action for implying a certain brand sponsors a product when it really does not, there is a cause an action if a celebrity’s identity is used to imply endorsement for a product they are not, in actuality, affiliated with.

It's akin to me taking a picture of Say, one of the admins here then using it for commercial purpose, I may well own the physical print but what I don't own is that persons likeness for purposes of commercial gain or promotion.

It is however something that is decided by a court as the statutes do vary state by state.

cheers

Dave

[PeterPisani]

The page REPOSTED copyrighted material . The owner of the intellectual property asked that it be removed , which is his right and by law they have to do so . They may not have control over the original post , but they DO have control over their own page .

Ryan has been illegally using my image for YEARS to sell movies. BOO HOO. Crazy Bird!

What image is that Peter ? Your Image is not in the Docudrama . It is not in the book . Not only that . If your mother allowed him to use a photo that had your image in it , there is nothing you can do . It is HER property to do so as she pleases . At that point once a picture is public .. or in another s possession it can be used . YOUR image is NOT copyrighted Peter , that photo being used is .. get over yourself .

You really dont read a thing. The first sentence and off to the races. This one. he is using my image, to sell movies, that I told him not to do. (Posted that email too)

http://www.amityvillefilm.com/FamilyTies.html http://www.amityvillefilm.com/images/CummingsAve.jpg http://www.amityvillefilm.com/images/KMicon.jpg


My image can not be used for profit without consent. I own my image. Wasnt that the argument you used against ? Pretty sure it was. My image, without consent, is used under KATCO MEDIA. So shut up with your nonsense.

Can You Sue If Your Photo Is Used Without Your Permission?
By Daniel Taylor, Esq. on July 7, 2014 9:31 AM
Opening up a magazine or surfing the Web and unexpectedly seeing a picture yourself can certainly be surprising. And although some may be flattered by the extra exposure, some may be a little bit less than thrilled.

Actress Jennifer Love Hewitt was certainly not amused when she discovered a company called Slim Spray had been using a photo of her holding their product to promote its line of weight loss sprays without her permission. She's now taking the company to court.

So if you come across a photo of yourself being used in a way that you didn't agree to, what can you do about it? Here are three possible legal routes you may be able to take:

Appropriation of likeness. In Jennifer Love Hewitt's case, she brought suit alleging an invasion of privacy by appropriation of her likeness. Also known as the right to publicity, laws about the appropriation of likeness prohibit using another's image to advertise or sell products without that person's consent. Along with the common law right to publicity, some states also have their own statutory right to publicity.
False light. If the photo is being used to portray you in a misleading or unflattering way, you may have a lawsuit for false light. For example, a Georgia teen whose Facebook bikini photo was used without her permission by a school administrator at a seminar about the dangers of social media brought suit for false light against thedistrict. In a false light suit, the plaintiff typically must prove that an image was shown to a third party with reckless disregard of placing the plaintiff in a false light that would be highly offensive or embarrassing to a reasonable person.
Intrusion of solitude. If the photo in question was taken somewhere other than a public setting, you may have a case for intrusion of solitude. As you may recall, TV sports reporter Erin Andrews sued for intrusion of solitude after a man took video of her through a peephole into her hotel room and posted the video online. Unlike other invasion of privacy torts such as false light and appropriation of likeness, the images don't even need to be made public; the taking of the pictures in the first place is sufficient to violate the law.
To learn more about potential legal recourse for the unauthorized use of your image, check out FindLaw's page on Invasion of Privacy.

Injured? Exercise your legal rights. Get in touch with a knowledgeable personal injury attorney in your area today.
Related Resources:

Disabled Girl's Pic Used Without Permission: $5M Suit (FindLaw's Injured)
Unwanted Facebook Photo: Invasion of Privacy? (FindLaw's Injured)
Katherine Heigl Sues Duane Reade Over Twitter, Facebook Pics (FindLaw's Celebrity Justice)
5 Ways Instagram Can Lead to Legal Trouble (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)

Enjoy this post? Find it helpful? Let us know by sharing it with your friends...
Tags: Erin Andrews, Facebook, false light, intrusion of solitude, invasion of privacy, Jennifer Love Hewitt, permission, photo


11/17/2015


So, I was older than 18 when I asked to not use my image. It doesnt matter who OWNES the pic. It is MY LIKENESS and INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, BEING USED TO MAKE PROFIT, WITHOUT MY PERMISSION. Dumbass.

[jimmysmokes]

https://www.facebook.com/ShatteredHopes ... =3&theater




Here ya go. Ask Ryan for a full copy!

I would but he banned me. must be really pissed, he never does that to anyone.

[Beetsie]

Peter , seriously . He is using YOUR IMAGE to sell movies ? Good GOD man GET OVER YOURSELF . LOL . Where the hell is your image in the movie . Not only that you appear on no promotional or marketing material . Lets see what he has used ? Post a still of your image he used .

[Beetsie]

Not strictly true Beetsie, The Lanham Act governs federal protection of personality rights, and the doctrine has much in common with the laws defining federal protection of trademarks.In fact, an individual’s identity could be considered their personal “mark”, the misappropriation of which is sufficient to constitute infringement. In addition, both trademark and publicity rights appear to be designed somewhat to combat infringement for the sake of consumers, granting a cause of action for false descriptions, false representations, and false endorsement claims. Just as there is a cause of action for implying a certain brand sponsors a product when it really does not, there is a cause an action if a celebrity’s identity is used to imply endorsement for a product they are not, in actuality, affiliated with.

It's akin to me taking a picture of Say, one of the admins here then using it for commercial purpose, I may well own the physical print but what I don't own is that persons likeness for purposes of commercial gain or promotion.

It is however something that is decided by a court as the statutes do vary state by state.

cheers

IF that person is a PUBLIC FIGURE a phrase or photo or something like that can be "trademarked" PEOPLE can not be trademarked . Their names can be .

A trademark is any word, name, symbol, or design, or any combination thereof, used in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from those of another and to indicate the source of the goods. See 15 U.S.C. § 1127.
Trademarks are generally words, phrases, logos and symbols used by producers to identify their goods. However, shapes, sounds, fragrances and colors may also be registered as trademarks. See Qualitex v. Jacobsen Products Co., Inc., 514 U.S. 159 (1995). In recent years, trademark law has expanded to include trade dress and antidilution protection. Almost any word, name, symbol, or device capable of distinguishing the source of goods may be used as a trademark subject to few limitations. However, a mark's eligibility for trademark protection may be limited by application of the functionality doctrine, and a mark may be denied registration if it falls within any of the categories listed under 15 U.S.C. § 1052.

Use in Commerce and Distinctiveness

Two basic requirements must be met for a mark to be eligible for trademark protection: it must be in use in commerce and it must be distinctive.

[Beetsie]

Peter , seriously . He is using YOUR IMAGE to sell movies ? Good GOD man GET OVER YOURSELF . LOL . Where the hell is your image in the movie . Not only that you appear on no promotional or marketing material . Lets see what he has used ? Post a still of your image he used .

[PeterPisani]

Peter , seriously . He is using YOUR IMAGE to sell movies ? Good GOD man GET OVER YOURSELF . LOL . Where the hell is your image in the movie . Not only that you appear on no promotional or marketing material . Lets see what he has used ? Post a still of your image he used .

Uhm, that was shown to you as well. Katco's crporate image is on a web page, selling a MOVIE. (I also posted that, but you like talking to yourself. Also, offering a lawsuit to the general public to use against me is actionable. Dont worry. My lawyer knows more than your and Ryans lawyer. (thats cuz his lawyer is HIMSELF) I even posted HOW I was filing. Lemmy show you again



My favorite part is when he states an image OF ME, THAT HE HAS BEEN TOLD TO TAKE DOWN, is copywrighted. By him. Thats MY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY and IMAGE beibg used with out consent. So that means it doesnt MATTER who used the image, ITS MINE and I never consented for it to be used FOR HIS SALES. ACTIONABLE. (Especially since you were trying to teach OTHERS copy right law.

[Beetsie]

Peter , seriously . He is using YOUR IMAGE to sell movies ? Good GOD man GET OVER YOURSELF . LOL . Where the hell is your image in the movie . Not only that you appear on no promotional or marketing material . Lets see what he has used ? Post a still of your image he used .

Uhm, that was shown to you as well. Katco's crporate image is on a web page, selling a MOVIE. (I also posted that, but you like talking to yourself. Also, offering a lawsuit to the general public to use against me is actionable. Dont worry. My lawyer knows more than your and Ryans lawyer. (thats cuz his lawyer is HIMSELF) I even posted HOW I was filing. Lemmy show you again



My favorite part is when he states an image OF ME, THAT HE HAS BEEN TOLD TO TAKE DOWN, is copywrighted. By him. Thats MY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY and IMAGE beibg used with out consent. So that means it doesnt MATTER who used the image, ITS MINE and I never consented for it to be used FOR HIS SALES. ACTIONABLE. (Especially since you were trying to teach OTHERS copy right law.

You have shown me nothing . Please post it here . Something is yours when it is in your possession . If your mother has photographs and you happen to be in them and she allows it to be used in a copyrighted production there is nothing you can do . They are not copyrighted nor trademarked any one can use them at any time , you are not a public figure .. you are just a regular person . . It is done all the time . Just pick a random meme off the internet .

[PeterPisani]

Like I told you dipshit, Posted a link. Like I did to pacer. Here...again. My image. Heres the law. Quit being a MORON.

http://www.amityvillefilm.com/FamilyTies.html
You can stop a website's use of your image for three reasons: invasion of privacy, violation of right of publicity, or defamation.
Invasion of privacy can occur if you are portrayed falsely and in a highly offensive manner. For example, your photo was posted at America's Most Wanted's website, and you are not wanted -- by the law. Your privacy may also be invaded if the photo was taken by someone who intruded on you in a situation in which you had a reasonable expectation of privacy -- for example, in your own home. It is not an invasion of privacy to photograph someone in a public place or at any event where the public is invited.
Another reason to stop the use is known as the right of publicity. This occurs if your image is used for commercial purposes such as to sell products or to imply that you endorse a product. If the photo is used in a commercial website -- that is, one sponsored by a business or that sells products or services -- the unauthorized use of your image would probably violate your right of publicity. The public must be able to identify you in the photograph.
You can also stop the website use if the photo defames you -- that is, it creates a false impression and injures your reputation. For example, it would be defamatory to doctor a photo to make it seem as if you were shoplifting. The fact that an unmodified photo is unflattering is not enough to claim defamation. The photo must falsely portray you and must cause people in the community to think less of you.

[Beetsie]

That was your mothers picture . This is on his webpage with her permission . . Yea so ? It was a story about your mother it is a sides story , ancillary . It had nothing to do with you and How may I ask was this used to sell movies ? The story attached with the photo was about your mother , a bit of a life story . Some backround on the woman who married Ronnie Defeo . It is about HER and HIM NOT YOU !!! You are not named , therefore you can not be defamed .No one even knew it was you . See the law only applies when it is actually broken . You have not received ANY publicity except that of your own creating by coming here and making a scene being that no one at all knew who you were . Peter you pride yourself way too much . Really get over yourself .

[Exsecratio]

The Lanham Act governs federal protection of personality rights, and the doctrine has much in common with the laws defining federal protection of trademarks.

Much in common with Beets :0) not the same as

You can stop a website's use of your image for three reasons: invasion of privacy, violation of right of publicity, or defamation.
Invasion of privacy can occur if you are portrayed falsely and in a highly offensive manner. For example, your photo was posted at America's Most Wanted's website, and you are not wanted -- by the law. Your privacy may also be invaded if the photo was taken by someone who intruded on you in a situation in which you had a reasonable expectation of privacy -- for example, in your own home. It is not an invasion of privacy to photograph someone in a public place or at any event where the public is invited.
Another reason to stop the use is known as the right of publicity. This occurs if your image is used for commercial purposes such as to sell products or to imply that you endorse a product. If the photo is used in a commercial website -- that is, one sponsored by a business or that sells products or services -- the unauthorized use of your image would probably violate your right of publicity. The public must be able to identify you in the photograph.
You can also stop the website use if the photo defames you -- that is, it creates a false impression and injures your reputation. For example, it would be defamatory to doctor a photo to make it seem as if you were shoplifting. The fact that an unmodified photo is unflattering is not enough to claim defamation. The photo must falsely portray you and must cause people in the community to think less of you.

I have to be honest Pete, I don't think your picture as a minor given out by your late Mom would fit into these categories. The many many pictures that exist of Ronald DeFeo for example are used without his permission for the purpose of commentary or description. If the information is accurate that the picture is being used to demonstrate then fair use would normally apply.

A while ago a well known suit went before the US courts when the well know conspiracy theorist Bill Kaysing was called a "Kook" by none other than James Lovell (yep, THAT Lovell), Kaysing sued and LOST even though the term "kook" was shown to represent mental illness. The court found it to be "protected speech" (opinion) so even when something is used or said without permission it's not always a sure fire win.

(edited after finding out it was Jim Lovell not Buzz Aldrin)

[PeterPisani]

(it doesnt matter who owns the pic)



CIVIL RIGHTS LAW
ARTICLE 5. RIGHT OF PRIVACY

NY CLS Civ R § 50 (2000)

§ 50. Right of privacy

A person, firm or corporation that uses for advertising purposes, or for the purposes of trade, the name, portrait or picture of any living person without having first obtained the written consent of such person, or if a minor of his or her parent or guardian, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

NY CLS Civ R § 51

- See more at: http://rightofpublicity.com/statutes/ne ... 81fse.dpuf

CIVIL RIGHTS LAW
ARTICLE 5. RIGHT OF PRIVACY

NY CLS Civ R § 51 (2000)

§ 51. Action for injunction and for damages

Any person whose name, portrait [fig 1] , picture or voice is used within this state for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade without the written consent first obtained as above provided may maintain an equitable action in the supreme court of this state against the person, firm or corporation so using his name, portrait [fig 2] , picture or voice, to prevent and restrain the use thereof; and may also sue and recover damages for any injuries sustained by reason of such use and if the defendant shall have knowingly used such person’s name, portrait [fig 3] , picture or voice in such manner as is forbidden or declared to be unlawful by section fifty of this article, the jury, in its discretion, may award exemplary damages. But nothing contained in this article shall be so construed as to prevent any person, firm or corporation from selling or otherwise transferring any material containing such name, portrait [fig 4] , picture or voice in whatever medium to any user of such name, portrait [fig 5] , picture or voice, or to any third party for sale or transfer directly or indirectly to such a user, for use in a manner lawful under this article; nothing contained in this article shall be so construed as to prevent any person, firm or corporation, practicing the profession of photography, from exhibiting in or about his or its establishment specimens of the work of such establishment, unless the same is continued by such person, firm or corporation after written notice objecting thereto has been given by the person portrayed; and nothing contained in this article shall be so construed as to prevent any person, firm or corporation from using the name, portrait [fig 6] , picture or voice of any manufacturer or dealer in connection with the goods, wares and merchandise manufactured, produced or dealt in by him which he has sold or disposed of with such name, portrait [fig 7] , picture or voice used in connection therewith; or from using the name, portrait [fig 8] , picture or voice of any author, composer or artist in connection with his literary, musical or artistic productions which he has sold or disposed of with such name, portrait [fig 9] , picture or voice used in connection therewith. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to prohibit the copyright owner of a sound recording from disposing of, dealing in, licensing or selling that sound recording to any party, if the right to dispose of, deal in, license or sell such sound recording has been conferred by contract or other written document by such living person or the holder of such right. Nothing contained in the foregoing sentence shall be deemed to abrogate or otherwise limit any rights or remedies otherwise conferred by federal law or state law. - See more at: http://rightofpublicity.com/statutes/ne ... 81fse.dpuf

- See more at: http://rightofpublicity.com/statutes/ne ... 81fse.dpuf

[PeterPisani]

I refused permission, asked that it be taken down. Lets see who is going to win this one.

[Beetsie]

You are not understanding , you were not used to promote , sell or advertise ANYTHING . It was used in a personal side story about your mother . Separate from the movie . That was a story about your mom . NOT the movie . Get over yourself .

[Exsecratio]

You are not understanding , you were not used to promote , sell or advertise ANYTHING . It was used in a personal side story about your mother . Separate from the movie . That was a story about your mom ..

I'm not a lawyer Pete and our laws over here are different in many cases but I do have to admit Beetsie sounds right on this score.

Commentary and Commercial gain are two different things

[msmart112]

75A4053....The 2-disc DVD set goes on sale Friday, November 13th.

It's been two weeks since it went on sale...but I've been really busy with work...so I haven't had a chance to order it.

So...has anyone seen it?

With the Shattered Hopes Facebook page having well over 10,000 likes...surely there are dozens (if not hundreds) of members here who have ordered it and watched it.

Any reviews?

Is it worth purchasing?

[sherbetbizarre]

Hate to break it to you Mr Smart, but "on sale" means "pre-order" in the Katco world...

[msmart112]

Hate to break it to you Mr Smart, but "on sale" means "pre-order" in the Katco world...

It's been three weeks since the initial "pre-order"...so...has anyone seen it?

Again...with the Shattered Hopes Facebook page having well over 10,000 likes...surely there are dozens (if not hundreds) of members here who have ordered it and watched it.

Any reviews?

Is it worth purchasing?