We all know that Raanan Katz filed a lawsuit alleging copyright violation of his "unflattering face", but not many people know what is behind Raanan Katz copyright game.
Raanan Katz purportedly stated that he obtained the ownership rights to his "unflattering face" from person "A".
Raanan Katz purportedly signed an agreement of "ownership transfer-assignment" and supposedly made some payment "consideration" to the person "A".
...But, look what Raanan Katz states during his deposition. RAANAN KATZ DID NOT MAKE ANY PAYMENT for obtaining alleged "copyright work".
Obviously, Raanan Katz printed his "unflattering face" from online (as he does not have the original image per his own testimony) and simply claimed the ownership on it. Then, Mr.Katz filed lawsuit alleging damages and COPYrights.
When Court ordered Raanan Katz to produce "damages" Raanan Katz testified that he had non.
No surprise, Raanan Katz was sentenced to jail for perjury in MA (yes, according to Mr.Katz it was long... long...long time ago) .
Here is extract from Raanan Katz deposition related to assignment CONSIDERATION .
"Attorney: You know, this only document or this only document was done -- was done by, there is no any other documents. It was prepared by your attorneys.
Raanan Katz: Yes.
Attorney: Okay. And did you review the document prior to assigning it?
Raanan Katz: If I review that, yes.
Attorney: Yeah. And you were comfortable with the language of the assignment?
Raanan Katz: Yes.
Attorney: Did you understand the language of the assignments?
Raanan Katz: Yes. Anything -- anything said that that will make you -- send me back no, assigned is to me, I'll be satisfied.
Attorney: Okay. So, what was the consideration that you gave to Mr. Magriso? It says that you gave him consideration.
Raanan Katz: I did that. Originally, I offered him $500 but again, but -- but he refused to take it, so he never got any money from me.
Attorney: I understand he refused. Did -- did you offer him the money prior to signing the agreement?
Raanan Katz: I told if you know anything, 1 will do it for him, but even if he say no, he say no at that time, even before it was signed with him. And nevertheless, my attorney put on may be that we -- we can give some consideration but he never -- he never took it because as you know he apologized for his mistake.
Attorney: But did you give him any consideration?
Raanan Katz: No.
MR. KLUGER (Raanan Katz attorney): Objection. Already asked and answered.
Raanan Katz: No, na.
MR. KLUGER (Raanan Katz attorney): Excuse me, when I speak -
Raanan Katz: Okay.
MR. KLUGER: You stop or I can leave. I mean, if you don't really don't care what I do, I'll just leave. I can get a tape. You've asked him the question, I imagine and he's told you no consideration, he told you that. If you ask it again I'm going to have to instruct him not to answer yau got one more -- you can ask him again.
Attorney: Okay.
Raanan Katz: Shut it off.
Attorney: So when this says that -- that that you've acknowledged that it was received that's an
incorrect statement in this document, is that correct?
Raanan Katz: Say it again.
Attorney: In the document it says, "The receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged" -
Raanan Katz: Nm-hmrn.
Attorney: But that's not correct, true?
Raanan Katz: I don't say that's his -- I don't remember. I just sent it to him the way he -- the way I received it and I cannot answer that. So, you just ask my attorney about it.
Attorney: No, but you're -- you've explained that you did not give him any consideration -
Raanan Katz: Yes.
Attorney: That's fair that's an the record.
Raanan Katz: Yes.
Attorney: But the -- the next part which we haven't gotten to, which we're getting to right now,
"The receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged."
MR. KLUGER: Okay. What's your question?
Attorney: How are you acknowledging something that didn't happen?
MR. KLUGER (Raanan Katz attorney): Okay. This calls for a legal conclusion as you well know but he wouldn't know and under the eight corners consideration asking somebody to do something and as he described to you they may have wanted to help him is sufficient as a matter of law.
So, the witness has already told you that no money transferred hands and now you're just harassing the witness, so."
Raanan Katz purportedly stated that he obtained the ownership rights to his "unflattering face" from person "A".
Raanan Katz purportedly signed an agreement of "ownership transfer-assignment" and supposedly made some payment "consideration" to the person "A".
...But, look what Raanan Katz states during his deposition. RAANAN KATZ DID NOT MAKE ANY PAYMENT for obtaining alleged "copyright work".
Obviously, Raanan Katz printed his "unflattering face" from online (as he does not have the original image per his own testimony) and simply claimed the ownership on it. Then, Mr.Katz filed lawsuit alleging damages and COPYrights.
When Court ordered Raanan Katz to produce "damages" Raanan Katz testified that he had non.
No surprise, Raanan Katz was sentenced to jail for perjury in MA (yes, according to Mr.Katz it was long... long...long time ago) .
Here is extract from Raanan Katz deposition related to assignment CONSIDERATION .
"Attorney: You know, this only document or this only document was done -- was done by, there is no any other documents. It was prepared by your attorneys.
Raanan Katz: Yes.
Attorney: Okay. And did you review the document prior to assigning it?
Raanan Katz: If I review that, yes.
Attorney: Yeah. And you were comfortable with the language of the assignment?
Raanan Katz: Yes.
Attorney: Did you understand the language of the assignments?
Raanan Katz: Yes. Anything -- anything said that that will make you -- send me back no, assigned is to me, I'll be satisfied.
Attorney: Okay. So, what was the consideration that you gave to Mr. Magriso? It says that you gave him consideration.
Raanan Katz: I did that. Originally, I offered him $500 but again, but -- but he refused to take it, so he never got any money from me.
Attorney: I understand he refused. Did -- did you offer him the money prior to signing the agreement?
Raanan Katz: I told if you know anything, 1 will do it for him, but even if he say no, he say no at that time, even before it was signed with him. And nevertheless, my attorney put on may be that we -- we can give some consideration but he never -- he never took it because as you know he apologized for his mistake.
Attorney: But did you give him any consideration?
Raanan Katz: No.
MR. KLUGER (Raanan Katz attorney): Objection. Already asked and answered.
Raanan Katz: No, na.
MR. KLUGER (Raanan Katz attorney): Excuse me, when I speak -
Raanan Katz: Okay.
MR. KLUGER: You stop or I can leave. I mean, if you don't really don't care what I do, I'll just leave. I can get a tape. You've asked him the question, I imagine and he's told you no consideration, he told you that. If you ask it again I'm going to have to instruct him not to answer yau got one more -- you can ask him again.
Attorney: Okay.
Raanan Katz: Shut it off.
Attorney: So when this says that -- that that you've acknowledged that it was received that's an
incorrect statement in this document, is that correct?
Raanan Katz: Say it again.
Attorney: In the document it says, "The receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged" -
Raanan Katz: Nm-hmrn.
Attorney: But that's not correct, true?
Raanan Katz: I don't say that's his -- I don't remember. I just sent it to him the way he -- the way I received it and I cannot answer that. So, you just ask my attorney about it.
Attorney: No, but you're -- you've explained that you did not give him any consideration -
Raanan Katz: Yes.
Attorney: That's fair that's an the record.
Raanan Katz: Yes.
Attorney: But the -- the next part which we haven't gotten to, which we're getting to right now,
"The receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged."
MR. KLUGER: Okay. What's your question?
Attorney: How are you acknowledging something that didn't happen?
MR. KLUGER (Raanan Katz attorney): Okay. This calls for a legal conclusion as you well know but he wouldn't know and under the eight corners consideration asking somebody to do something and as he described to you they may have wanted to help him is sufficient as a matter of law.
So, the witness has already told you that no money transferred hands and now you're just harassing the witness, so."