Re: Case referral

1. If the publisher is selling to Amazon, I don't see the jurisdiction problem. If they're using an overseas Amazon sub as a cut-out, the stream of commerce is more like a dedicated pipeline.
2. Sue Amazon and let them sue the publisher.

John Noble

At 4:30 PM -0500 11/1/05, Dan Ballard wrote:
>Folks,
>
>A client's photograph was published without permission on the cover
>of a book. Bad guy book publisher asserts the photographer has no
>remedy in the US because the publisher does not sell the book in the
>U.S. (the US publishing rights are owned by another who sells in the
>US but does not use the client's photograph). Bad guy book
>publisher acknowledges it sells to third parties (Amazon) who do
>sell in the US but that these third party sales are insufficient to
>subject the publisher to suit in the US.
>
>The client is a critically acclaimed, full-time photographer. I
>like the idea of filing suit in the US and asserting jurisdiction
>under -- at least -- the stream of commerce theory (i.e., the
>infringer knew the infringing work would find its way into the
>foreign jurisdiction and, therefore, the infringer is subject to
>suit in that jurisdiction).
>
>Instead of fighting this jurisdictional battle in the US, however,
>for economic reasons we're exploring the idea of filing suit in
>Canada where jurisdiction is not contested. The defendants would be
>the Canadian and UK versions of Penguin Books.
>
>Two questions: does anyone have any insights on the personal
>jurisdiction stream of commerce theory in copyright cases and does
>anyone have a referral to a Canadian-licensed attorney who may be
>interested in discussing and/or taking over the case?
>
>Dan
>
>Daniel N. Ballard, Esq.
>McDonough, Holland & Allen PC
>555 Capitol Mall, 9th Floor
>Sacramento, CA 95814
>phone: 916-444-3900
>fax: 916-444-3249
><http://www.mhalaw.com>http://www.mhalaw.com
>
Received on Thu Nov 03 2005 - 03:10:45 GMT