You are on page 1of 177

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 1 of 177

DRK Photo v. McGraw-Hill Global Educational Holdings, LLC


and McGraw-Hill School Educational Holdings, LLC,
Case No. 3:12-CV-08093 (PGR)

INDEX OF EXHIBITS
to
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL BEYLKIN IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Ex.

Description

MB1

Excerpts of Deposition of Daniel Krasemann (June 7, 2012), taken in John


Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. DRK Photo (Wiley), No. 11 CIV. 5454 KPF (S.D.N.Y.)
(Doc. No. 54-3, filed May 23, 2013)

MB2

Excerpts of Deposition of Daniel Krasemann (Dec. 10, 2008), taken in Wood


v. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing, No. 07 CV 1516-DME-BNB (D.
Colo.)

MB3

Exemplars of Non-Exclusive Representation Agreements between DRK and


Photographers

MB4

Exemplars of Exclusive Representation Agreements between DRK and


Photographers

MB5

DRKs Response to MHEs First Set of Requests for Admission (Sept. 26,
2013)

MB6

Listing of Copyright Litigations Filed by Harmon & Seidman as of Jan. 21,


2014

MB7

Executed Copyright Assignment, Registration, and Accrued Causes of


Action Agreement Forms

MB8

Emails between DRK and Photographers (transmitting Executed Copyright


Assignment, Registration, and Accrued Causes of Action Agreement forms)

MB9

Copyright Assignment, Registration, and Accrued Causes of Action


Agreement Form (blank)

MB10

Emails from Dan Krasemann (DRK) to John Cancalosi (Nov. 18, 2008) &
from Dan Krasemann to David Northcott (Nov. 18, 2008)

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 2 of 177

Ex.

Description

MB11

Email from Dan Krasemann of DRK to Renee Bish on behalf of Pete Oxford
(June 30, 2008)

MB12

Email from Dan Krasemann of DRK to Thomas Dressler (July 9, 2008)

MB13

Email from Dan Krasemann of DRK to Jacqueline Gurr on behalf of Bob


Gurr (June 30, 2008)

MB14

Email from Dan Krasemann of DRK to Marc Epstein (Aug. 20, 2008)

MB15

Excerpts of Deposition of Julie Krasemann (June 13, 2013), taken in Wiley

MB16

Copyright Assignment, Accrued Causes of Action, and Litigation


Agreement signed by Barbara Gerlach (June 13, 2013)

MB17

Copyright Assignment, Accrued Causes of Action, and Litigation


Agreement signed by Michael Fogden (Feb. 24, 2010)

MB18

Copyright Assignment, Accrued Causes of Action, and Litigation


Agreement signed by John Eastcott and Yva Momatiuk (Feb. 8, 2010)

MB19

Copyright Assignment, Accrued Causes of Action, and Litigation


Agreement signed by Anup Shah (May 25, 2011)

MB20

Excerpts of Deposition of Dan Krasemann (Sept. 16, 2013)

MB21

Excerpts of Deposition of Michael Collier (Mar. 18, 2013), taken in Wiley

MB22

Email from Michael Collier to Maurice Harmon, Esq., filed in Wiley (Doc.
54-2)

MB23

U.S. Copyright Registration No. VAu 175-200

MB24

U.S. Copyright Registration No. VAu 516-002

MB25

U.S. Copyright Registration No. VAu 510-555 (first page)

MB26

U.S. Copyright Registration No. VAu 530-479 (first page)

MB27

U.S. Copyright Registration No. VAu 556-895 (first page)

MB28

Excerpts of Deposition of Dan Krasemann (Feb. 18, 2013), taken in Wiley

MB29

COPYRIGHT IMAGE NUMBERS BY DATE

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 3 of 177

Ex.

Description

MB30

DRK Handwritten Document Notated as Number Start

MB31

Excerpts from DRKs Supplemental Response to John Wiley & Sons, Inc.s
Requests for Admission, filed in Wiley (Doc. 54-3)

MB32

Abstract of Filenames of Digital Photos allegedly submitted with U.S.


Copyright Registration No. VAu 516-002

MB33

Deposit Copy of Photos allegedly submitted with U.S. Copyright


Registration No. VAu 175-200

MB34

Case Order No. 5, VUI v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., AAA Case No. 11 143 Y
00658 13 AAA (Aug. 14, 2013)

MB35

Premier Tracks, LLC v. Fox Broad. Co., No. 2:12-cv-01615 DMG (PJWx)
(C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2012) (slip op.)

MB36

Printout of Spreadsheet (filename DRK v. McGraw AZ Copyright


Registration Spreadsheet DRK v. McGraw 006395)

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 4 of 177

DRK Photo v. McGraw-Hill Global Educational Holdings, LLC


and McGraw-Hill School Educational Holdings, LLC,
Case No. 3:12-CV-08093 (PGR)

Exhibit MB1
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL BEYLKIN IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 5 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 51 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN

AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION

DRK PHOTO,
Claimant,
vs.
JOHN WILEY & SONS,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
) No. 76 14300193 11
)
)
)
)
)
)

DEPOSITION OF DANIEL KRASEMANN


Scottsdale, Arizona
June 7, 2012
9:26 a.m.

REPORTED BY:
YVONNE L. WHITEFIELD, CSR
(Copy)

Certificate No. 50611

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 6 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 52 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 13

09:36

something happened to me, I wanted them to rest assured

that Julie was also there looking over their photos,

another responsible party was there; they weren't just

releasing their images, which those are their little

babies and they were concerned with that.


There was another person there if anything

6
7

happened to me.
Q.

8
9

Was Mrs. Krasemann similarly introduced to

customers of DRK?
A.

09:36 10

The customers of DRK would know Julie because she

11

would be answering phones and taking photo requests.

And

12

I might ask her to call someone back and she might send an

13

e-mail clarifying a photo request or something.

14

Q.

Who is Troy Krasemann?

09:37 15

A.

Troy Krasemann is my son who we lost six years

16

ago last month in a motorcycle accident.

17

Q.

Very sorry.

18

A.

Thank you.

19

Q.

Who is Stephen Krasemann?

09:37 20

A.

Stephen Krasemann is my older brother.

21

Q.

Is Stephen Krasemann part of DRK Photo in any

A.

Stephen Krasemann is one of many photographers

22
23
24
09:38 25

way?

represented by DRK Photo.


Q.

Does Stephen Krasemann have an ownership interest

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 7 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 53 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 14

1
2
3

in DRK Photo?
A.

Stephen Krasemann has absolutely no ownership

interest in DRK Photo.

Q.

DRK Photo?

A.

DRK Photo.

Q.

Have you ever had your deposition taken before?

A.

I've been involved with one other deposition.

09:38 10

Q.

In what case were you involved with a deposition?

11

A.

It was a case involving a photographer.

09:38

12
13
14

Has Stephen Krasemann ever been an employee of

Stephen Krasemann has never been an employee of

believe his name was Ted Wood.


Q.

I didn't know him.

How did you get involved in the case involving

Ted Wood?

09:38 15

A.

It was through the Harmon Seidman law firm.

16

Q.

When were you involved in a case involving Ted

17

Wood?

18

A.

19

exact day.

09:39 20
21
22

Q.

The deposition was -- again, I don't remember the


A couple years ago.

Who was the other party to the case with Ted

Wood?
A.

The other party, I believe, was HMH, but I'm

23

quite honestly not sure.

24

Mifflin.

09:39 25

Q.

I think it was HMH, Houghton

Why was your deposition taken in a case between

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 8 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 54 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 15

1
2
3
09:40

Ted Wood and HMH or Houghton Mifflin?


A.

When I went to the deposition, we just discussed

licensing practices of DRK Photo.

Q.

Was DRK a party to that case?

A.

DRK wasn't a party to the case.

I was just asked

if I would mind giving a deposition, I believe.

Q.

Were you acting as an expert in that case?

A.

No, I was not acting as an expert.

Q.

What was the subject of the deposition?

09:40 10

A.

I don't remember.

11

Q.

Who took the deposition?

By that, I mean was it

12

a deposition that Ted Wood took of you, his side, or was

13

it a deposition that HMH took of you?

14
09:40 15
16
17

A.

It was the other side of the table.

I assume

that means the opposing attorney.


Q.

By other side of the table, you mean the

publisher, not the photographer?

18

A.

Yeah.

19

Q.

And the two attorneys --

09:41 20

A.

The two attorneys questioned me.

21

Q.

So it was not an attorney from Harmon & Seidman

22
23
24
09:41 25

The publisher had two attorneys there.

who questioned you?


A.

No, no.

It was the other two attorneys

questioned me about licenses.


Q.

What did they ask you about licenses?

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 9 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 55 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 16

1
2
3
09:41

A.

They asked me six or seven hours worth of

questions about licensing.


Q.

What was the general thrust of that?

I'm not

asking you to repeat your testimony, but I'm trying to get

a sense of what this deposition was about.

A.

They showed me all sorts of licenses that I had

issued in the past and were wondering how I priced photos

based on the rights packages and things like that.

9
09:42 10
11
12
13
14

Q.

Do you know how that related to that particular

case?
A.

No, I don't.

I don't know what that was about.

I just came there and answered their questions.


Q.

Other than in the case between Ted Wood and HMH

or Houghton Mifflin, have you ever given a deposition?

09:42 15

A.

Not that I recall, no.

16

Q.

Have you ever given testimony other than in a

17

deposition?

18

A.

19
09:42 20
21

I gave testimony -- yeah, I think I gave

testimony, if that's what you call it.

Like in a small

court outside of Cottonwood, Arizona.

I don't know what

kind of court it was.


So I guess, yes, I have given testimony.

22
23

Q.

24

testimony?

09:43 25

A.

What was the nature of the case in which you gave

The nature of the case was -- it was about an

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 10 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 56 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 17

09:43

older gentleman that had threatened our children over

riding some dirt bikes off in the countryside.

Q.

So it was not involving photography?

A.

Nothing to do with photography.

Q.

At the time the Harmon & Seidman firm asked if

you would give a deposition in the Ted Wood case, were you

then currently represented by Harmon & Seidman in any

matters?

9
09:43 10
11
12
13
14
09:44 15
16

A.

I don't recall if at the time I was represented

by them in any other matters because I don't remember the


exact time the deposition occurred.
Q.

When was the first time you retained Harmon &

Seidman?
A.

When was the first time?

first -- or occasion to need their services?


Q.

Let's start with an occasion to need their

17

services.

18

Seidman first represented you?

19
09:44 20
21
22
23
24
09:45 25

You mean a date that I

A.

What was the first instance in which Harmon &

Harmon & Seidman first and only represented us in

a case against Houghton Mifflin -- Houghton Mifflin, HMH.


Q.

Do you know when Harmon & Seidman represented you

in connection with a case against HMH?


A.

I don't know exactly.

If I had to make a guess

at it, I would say it was around 2009.


2010.

I'm not exactly sure.

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Between 2008,

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 11 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 57 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 42

those rights would have been $170 for up to a half page

photo for up to 40,000 copies and a print run; is that

correct?

4
10:37

A.

The base price here for an image used one time in

the book up to a half page in size would be $170, for

which they would -- we can offer up to one time North

American English language, one print version with a print

run not to exceed 40,000 copies, no other rights granted

or implied, no electronic publishing rights granted.

10:37 10

Q.

So if Wiley requested the rights that are listed

11

in this exhibit and said we're calling to print 40,000

12

copies, you would have charged them $170?

13
14
10:38 15

A.

I would have charged them -- if they were asking

for one-time English language North American only, print


rights only, no other rights, I should have charged

16

them -- we were offering $170 for pictures used up to a

17

half page in size.

18
19
10:38 20
21

Q.

By the way, for North American under these

prices, that also included up to 10 percent distributed


outside of North America?
A.

It says to include 10 percent or less

22

distribution abroad.

23

abroad.

24
10:38 25

Q.

So that would be up to 4,000 copies

If Wiley were to tell you that we need 40,000

copies of that, no more than 3500 will be distributed

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 12 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 58 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 43

outside the US, we will abide by the rights in No. 2, the

charge for that would have been $170 for up to a half

page?

4
10:39

A.

Providing that they were all English language

copies and that there was print copies only and it was

just that one version of the specific title they were

asking us to license.

8
9
10:39 10

Q.

And instead of 40,000 copies, they asked you for

20,000 copies, the price would have been the same?


A.

We probably would have billed the same amount

11

because it was covered -- it would have been -- this is a

12

base price for up to 40,000 copies.

13
14
10:39 15
16

Q.

So if they asked for 20,000 and it's all the same

rights and it's in English and it's in North America, that


would have been $170 for up to half a page?
A.

If I understood this question correctly, yes.

If

17

you're asking -- if you're saying they weren't asking for

18

more than North American, including 10 percent

19

distribution abroad, English language only, only one

10:40 20

edition to the book and they just requested 20, we would

21

have billed them this first bracket, this first increment.

22

We would have given up to 40,000.

23

requested up to 40.

24
10:40 25

They could have

If they requested 20, they would be charged the


same rate.

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 13 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 59 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 44

Q.

them more.

them an additional 10 percent; is that correct?


A.

4
10:40

And if they requested 60, you would have charged


And according to this, you would have charged

At the time -- this is 2000 to 2001 -- we would

have billed in addition, if the print run went over

40,000, at the time we were offering to bill them 10

percent additional per 40,000 copy increment.


Q.

8
9
10:41 10

Right.

So, again, instead of asking for 40, they

asked for 60, what you would have billed them for would
have been $170 plus a 10 percent increment, another $17?

11

A.

That would be correct.

12

Q.

And instead of 60, they asked for 80, that still

13

would be in the second 40,000 increment, so you would have

14

billed them $170 plus 10 percent, so another $17, so you

10:41 15

would have billed them $187; is that correct?


A.

16

Yes, back in 2001, we would have billed them --

17

if they asked for 60 or if they asked for 80, it would

18

have been a 10 percent increase over the 170, making it

19

187.

10:41 20

Q.

And within the 80, they used 72,000 in North

21

America and they distributed 8000 outside of North

22

America, that would have been permitted in this price

23

because it's 10 percent or less distribution abroad,

24

correct?

10:42 25

A.

I would say yes, if they printed 80,000, that

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 14 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 60 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 45

10:42

they should get 10 percent of that to distribute -- they

could distribute up to 10 percent of that total press run

abroad as long as they are English language copies and

print and still all the same other little parameters.

Q.

If Wiley asked for a print run of 20,000, but

made a print run of 40,000 so that they underestimated the

print run, you still would have gotten the same price if

they gave you the accurate print run; isn't that correct?

9
10:43 10

A.

If you're asking if they had came to us and asked

for 20,000 and then came to us and asked for 40,000, these

11

were the prices being offered for up to 40.

12

those would have received the same billing assuming they

13

were within the parameters of North American English

14

language only, one print only.

10:43 15

Q.

So both of

Wiley gained nothing in terms of a better price

16

by telling you 20,000 if they were going to really print

17

30,000 because either way, they would have gotten the same

18

price; isn't that correct?

19
10:43 20

A.

Wiley would have gotten the same price either way

between 20 or 30,000, but if they asked for 30 and printed

21

50, then --

22

Q.

That wasn't my question.

My question was, if

23

Wiley asked for 20 but wound up printing 30, they didn't

24

get a better price because it was still within the same

10:44 25

price; isn't that correct?

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 15 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 61 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 46

A.

10:44

They didn't get a better price per photo, but

they exceeded the license.

granted 20 and they printed 30, we got 10,000 copies that

aren't authorized, that would strike me as infringing

illegal copies.
Q.

If they requested 20 and we

Before you said the fraud that they were

committing was that they were giving you lower estimates

so that they can get a better price?


MS. BRUSS:

9
10:44 10

Objection; misstates his testimony.

BY MR. PENCHINA:
Q.

11

But Wiley wouldn't get a better price if it told

12

you 20 and instead it printed 30; the price was going to

13

be the same either way; isn't that correct?

14

A.

If they printed 20 instead of 30?

10:45 15

Q.

If they printed 30 instead of 20, the price would

16

have been the same if they had told you 30 as opposed to

17

20?

18
19
10:45 20
21
22
23
24
10:45 25

A.

If the licensing request came through with 30

versus 20 and they approached us prior to publication of


the book, et cetera, et cetera, like it should be, we
would bill them this 170 because they were under the 40.
Q.

And that's the same that you would have billed

them for the 20?


A.

20 or 30,000 copies would have been billed the

same fees during that 2001.

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 16 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 62 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 47

10:46

Q.

And so would 40,000 copies, correct?

A.

We would have allowed up to 40,000 copies.

Q.

So if they told you 20 but they actually printed

40, they wouldn't have paid anymore if they had told you

40 in the first place?

6
7
8
9
10:46 10
11
12
13
14
10:46 15
16

A.

They wouldn't have paid anymore for the licensing

Q.

And if instead of telling you 20 and printing 40,

fee.

they wound up printing 60, so they've exceeded the print


and they've now bounced into the next increment on the
price chart; is that correct?
A.

If they would approach us on a project with

60,000 copies, they would step into the next increment.


Q.

So they would have been billed an additional $17

for that photo; is that correct?


A.

If they came to us from the get-go prior to the

17

book requesting 60,000, they would have been billed the 10

18

percent additional for the extra 40,000 copy increment.

19

Q.

And that 10 percent is $17?

10:47 20

A.

10 percent of 170, if they used it as a half

21
22

page, would be $17.


Q.

So it's your theory that Wiley was giving you

23

these lower estimates to save $17 a photo; is that your

24

theory?

10:47 25

A.

Well, I don't know what they would be saving per

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 17 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 63 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 58

1
2
3
4
11:17

5
6
7
8
9

11:17 10
11

A.
heavily.
Q.

I don't believe DRK Photo was involved that


I don't believe there were thousands.
So is this reference in paragraph 17 to

photographers or stock photo agencies other than DRK?


A.

It seems to me it could be because we weren't

involved with thousands of licenses to John Wiley & Sons.


Q.

So if it's referring to DRK, it's an

exaggeration, correct?
A.

This would be an exaggeration as to how it

affected us.
Q.

And in terms of affecting others, are you

12

personally aware of others who might have licensed photos

13

to Wiley who believe that those photos have been

14

infringed?

11:17 15

A.

I'm only aware of one other name.

16

Q.

And who is that?

17

A.

Tom Bean.

18

Q.

Other than Tom Bean, are you aware of anyone who

19
11:18 20

believes that Wiley infringed their photos?


A.

There may be -- there's an agency, Visuals

21

Unlimited, I think it is.

22

certain what's going on with that one.

23

any others' actions involving John Wiley and anybody else.

24
11:18 25

Q.

Other than that -- I'm not


I don't know of

Have you discussed John Wiley with other stock

photo agencies or photographers?

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 18 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 64 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 68

Dangerous Earth.
Q.

11:38

So this is a different product and they are

coming back and asking for additional rights; is that

correct?
A.

They're coming to us for permission to use X

numbers of photos.

information supporting this request as far as -- maybe

those are the two photos, right behind it.


They're coming to us asking if they can license

9
11:39 10

Again, I don't have all the

these two photos for use in a product called Dangerous

11

Earth, 5,000 copies.

12

for.

13
14
11:39 15
16
17
18
19
11:40 20

Q.

That's what it appears to be asking

Before I direct your attention to another page,

DRK registered copyrights in photos at issue in this


arbitration; is that correct?
A.

Yes, DRK Photo has registered imagery and that's

what's involved, sure, in these claims.


Q.

Would you please turn to tab two?

Tab two of D1,

which is DRK's arbitration demand, contains a listing of


photos and identifies the photographs and among other

21

things, includes registration, certificate numbers and

22

dates of registration.
Do you see all that?

23
24
11:40 25

A.

I do have -- yes, many lines with a -- two

columns, registration number, photo number, photographer

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 19 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 65 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 69

1
2
3
11:41

and such.
Q.

The very first photo that's identified is a photo

identified by Stephen Krasemann.


I do have.

Do you see that?

A.

Yes.

Aerial Permafrost Polygons.

Q.

If you look all the way to the right on line one,

it identifies a certificate of registration number

VAU175-200.

A.

Yes.

Q.

And that was, according to this chart, registered

11:41 10

in 1990.

Do you see that?


I do see that.

Do you see that?

11

A.

I do see it's February 1st, 1990.

12

Q.

Was that registration done by DRK?

13

A.

I believe that registration was done by Stephen

14
11:41 15
16

J. Krasemann himself.
Q.
line 10.

And if you turn to page 2 of tab 2, D1, look at


Do you see that?

17

A.

Yes.

18

Q.

Looking to the right side, it identifies a

19

Photo No. 1S905268.

copyright registration VAU516-002.

Do you see that?

11:42 20

A.

Yes.

21

Q.

And that was, according to this chart, registered

22

I do see that.

on March 13, 2001.

Do you see that?

23

A.

I do see that.

24

Q.

That one was registered by Stephen Krasemann

11:42 25

himself, correct?

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 20 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 66 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 70

A.

Krasemann.

Q.

Are you the one who did the registrations for

A.

Yes.

4
11:43

5
6

I believe it probably was registered by Stephen

DRK?
We did all the DRK registrations of DRK

images, yes.

Q.

When did you do that?

A.

Over a long period.

9
11:43 10
11
12
13

Do you want to know when we

started all the way back to organizing the photos?


Q.

When did you file copyright registration

applications?
A.

I would assume between 2007 or '08 and '09 and

it's ongoing.

14

Q.

Right.

11:43 15

A.

There was a registration of one photo -- it's not

16
17
18
19

in this claim -- that might have occurred that far back.


Q.

A.

24
11:45 25

No, it was not.


(Deposition Exhibit Number D3 was marked for
identification.)

21
23

But it was not the ones filed by Mr. Krasemann,

by your brother?

12:36 20
22

So it wasn't in 2001?

BY MR. PENCHINA:
Q.

Would you please take a look at the exhibit

that's been marked as D3 and tell me if that is familiar


to you?

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 21 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 67 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 71

A.

This looks familiar to me.

Q.

What is D3?

A.

It appears to be a copyright registration form

Q.

Is that the registration VAU516-002?

A.

Yes, it appears to be.

Q.

And now that you're looking at the registration,

4
11:45

8
9
11:46 10
11
12
13
14

V8.

can you confirm whether that was done by your brother?


A.

I believe this was done by my brother.

Looks

like his signature.


Q.

But you can confirm that was not done by DRK; is

that correct?
A.

It was not done.

We didn't submit it to the

office.

11:46 15

Q.

Did you prepare it?

16

A.

It doesn't look like handwriting from us.

17
18
19
11:46 20
21

So I

would say no.


Q.

Doesn't look like you had anything to do with it,

did you?
A.

I didn't fill out this form.

DRK Photo did not

fill out this form.

22

(Deposition Exhibit Number D4 was marked for

23

identification.)

24
11:48 25

BY MR. PENCHINA:
Q.

Would you please take a look at the document

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 22 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 68 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 72

that's been marked as D4 and tell me whether D4 is

familiar to you?

3
11:48

A.

It appears to be copies of pages from the US

District Court case, DRK Photo versus Houghton Mifflin

Harcourt Publishing.

Q.

Have you seen this before?

A.

I would assume I did back in the day.

Q.

Would you turn to page 4 of Exhibit D4 and tell

me is that your signature?

11:48 10

A.

It appears to be my signature.

11

Q.

Did you submit a declaration in the case DRK

12

Photo against Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing?

13

A.

I would assume we did, yes.

14

Q.

Would you turn to page 2 of your declaration

11:49 15

that's Exhibit D4?

16

A.

Okay.

17

Q.

And paragraph eight says, "DRK Photo registered

18

the photographs with the United States copyright office,

19

see Exhibit 3 hereto as follows."


Do you see that?

11:49 20
21

A.

I do see that.

22

Q.

And do you see the last one that's listed is

23

registration VAU000-516-002, which is the same

24

registration we just testified DRK had nothing to do with?

11:50 25

A.

I do see that.

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 23 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 69 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 73

MS. BRUSS:

1
2
3
4
11:50

Objection; misstates the testimony.

BY MR. PENCHINA:
Q.

So your declaration contains a false statement;

isn't that correct?

A.

This declaration in a different event or case?

Q.

Yes.

This declaration that was submitted to the

court in a different case signed by you is an incorrect

statement?

A.

11:50 10

It may be more accurate to say that DRK holds

copyright registration of these photos.

11

Q.

That's not what it says, is it?

12

A.

No, it's not what it says.

13

Q.

So it's not accurate?

14

A.

I would say no because I don't believe we

11:50 15
16

registered those back in March of 2001.


Q.

As you sit here today, can you recall any other

17

statements you've given in court proceedings or in

18

depositions that were not exactly accurate?

19
11:51 20
21

A.

No.

I try to strive to give accurate statements

to the best of my recollection.


Q.

Are you aware of any other statements in

22

documents submitted on your behalf by your attorneys that

23

contain exaggerations, misstatements, false statements?

24
11:51 25

A.

I'm not aware of any, but I would like to clarify

that with the fact that lawyers seem to interpret words

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 24 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 70 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 74

differently than the layperson speaks them.


And there's been told that there's legal meanings

11:51

on certain words that I'm not aware of.

that, the way I read them as a layperson it makes sense,

but then there may be some legal definition of photographs

that I don't understand.

Q.

But you signed the document?

A.

Yeah.

9
11:52 10
11

This all appeared, when I looked at it, it

all appeared to be accurate.


Q.

Let's change gears, Mr. Krasemann, a little bit.

Let's talk just generally about what DRK does.


We know that DRK is a stock photo agency.

12
13

So when I read

Tell

me, first of all, how do photos get into DRK's collection?

14

A.

They're submitted to us by our photographers.

11:52 15

Q.

Can any photographer submit photos to you?

16

A.

For the most part, we quantify a photographer

17

when they approach us for representation.

18

photographers who we just kind of turn away or suggest

19

that maybe we're not the right match for them at this

11:53 20

time.
I thought you were speaking how photos get in.

21
22
23
24
11:53 25

So there are

thought you were talking about photographers that we sign.


Q.

At this point, just trying to get a better

understanding.
Does DRK specialize in any particular areas of

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 25 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 71 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 75

1
2

11:53

photography?
A.

We're very well known for our international

wildlife and natural history, but we have a broader

general collection.

5
6
7

Q.

Generally, what type of arrangement does DRK have

with its photographers who it represents?


A.

We are free to license their imagery and split it

50/50 with them is generally how it is.

permission to license their imagery at established rates

11:54 10
11

They've given us

and license as we see fit.


Q.

Generally, are your arrangements with your

12

photographers on an exclusive, nonexclusive or some other

13

basis?

14

A.

There's probably some variety in there.

11:54 15

Q.

Is there one type or the other that predominates?

16

A.

I would say the majority are on a nonexclusive

17

basis.

18

Q.

19
11:55 20

And I think we talked before that there really

have not been employees.

So there are no photographers

who are employed on staff of DRK; is that correct?

21

A.

We don't have any employed staff photographers.

22

Q.

So you don't have work-made-for-hire photos in

23
24
11:55 25

your collection, if you understand that term?


A.

We don't hire photographers.

We don't have

work-for-hire photographers that we employ or staff

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 26 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 72 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 76

1
2
3

photographers.
Q.

Correct.

Just another way of asking that same

question.
To be fair, so I'm not confusing you with legal

4
11:55

Is that what you mean?

terms --

A.

I appreciate that.

Q.

-- work-made-for-hire is a legal term.

your knowledge, you don't have work-made-for-hire

arrangements with your photographers?

11:56 10
11
12

A.

That would be correct.

So to

DRK photos isn't doing

work-for-hire.
Q.

With the photographers who are in the exclusive,

13

they are able to continue licensing their own photos even

14

though they're in DRK's collection; is that correct?

11:56 15

A.

Yeah.

The photographers that are nonexclusive

16

with us are free to license the photos that they have and

17

seek other representation to license the -- other

18

agencies, whatever.
They don't, obviously, have the photos that we

19
11:56 20

have because we physically have them, when in the days of

21

film, a piece of film -- so this person has or that person

22

has it.

23
24
11:57 25

Q.

Has the film been converted to digital or do you

still work with film?


A.

We have converted thousands of our film images to

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 27 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 73 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 78

1
2

11:59

their photos up for licensing?


A.

Not the photos that we have.

That's why they

have us.

be artistic.

want to deal with all the licensing and detail and

pricing.

Q.

They don't want to deal with that.


They want to be out shooting.

They want to
They don't

What is the process by which DRK sells photos?

And I recognize the process perhaps has changed over the

years, so why don't you tell me what the current practices

12:01 10

are for licensing photos, generally?

11

A.

Current practice for licensing photos?

12

Q.

Or for selling.

13

A.

Or for the process -- current process for

14
12:01 15
16

licensing photos is typically we receive a permissioning


request and we try to issue a license as best we can to
that request.
We may need to call up and clarify some issues

17
18

and nail down the license.

19

to them.

And then we issue the license

12:01 20

Q.

Who are DRK's customers generally?

21

A.

DRK's customers are international, domestic,

22

international, paper products, magazines, retail books,

23

text books, calendars, posters.

24

Q.

Quite a broad spectrum of media?

12:02 25

A.

Right.

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 28 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 74 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 95

look at what one of the things due to us is, what would

the new fee be.


We do have wording on the back of our terms and

3
12:31

conditions that we'll forgo our right to sue in return for

a ten-time fee.

is look at what we would have charged and apply -- it's

what we have to go with, the terms and conditions on the

back.

Those are the two initial things we do,

We would typically offer to deal with the issue

12:31 10

at ten-time reproduction if it can be dealt with quickly

11

and not involve lawyers, legal costs.


MR. PENCHINA:

12
13

break.
(Lunch recess taken from 12:31 p.m. until

14

1:52 p.m.)

01:52 15
16
17

It's probably a good time for our

BY MR. PENCHINA:
Q.

This morning before the lunch break, I believe at

18

one point we were talking about whether the photographers

19

sell the same photos that are part of your collection.

01:52 20

And I think you indicated that they don't because they

21

want to be creative and don't want to get involved in that

22

end or something to that effect.


Do I remember that correctly?

23
24
01:52 25

A.

I know that we were talking about film when I

said that.

They wouldn't be licensing the same image, the

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 29 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 75 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 96

same piece of film because they don't have it.

it.
Q.

3
01:53

We have

But then your testimony is not that they wouldn't

do it because it's just not something that they're

interested in doing?
A.

I said they weren't interested in.

I believe I

said they couldn't do it because they don't control the

film.

They don't have it to license.

Q.

If it's in digital, then they could?

01:53 10

A.

It's possible, plausible, yeah.

The digital

11

imaging could be -- the same identical image could be

12

distributed to multiple licensing entities.

13

(Deposition Exhibit Number D5 was marked for

14

identification.)

01:53 15

BY MR. PENCHINA:
Q.

16
17

Please take a look at the document that's been

marked as D5.

Tell me if Exhibit D5 is familiar to you.

18

A.

The image looks familiar, yes.

19

Q.

What is the image on D5?

01:53 20

A.

It's a spiky-headed katydid by Michael Fogden.

21

Q.

Michael Fogden is one of the photographers whose

22

photos are distributed by DRK?

23
24
01:54 25

A.

We license his work.

He's represented by us,

Q.

And Michael Fogden is one of the photographers

yes.

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 30 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 76 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 97

1
2
3
01:54

whose works are at issue in this case?


A.

I would have to look at all those individual

pictures to find out if his are in it.

Q.

Is this one of the pictures that's in your

collection?

A.

This picture or one very similar to it, we have.

I couldn't tell you if it's identical.

that thing was frozen in that position for quite some

time.

01:54 10

know.

11

Q.

I would assume

Could have took multiple frames of it.

I don't

Looking back at Exhibit 1, please, in Exhibit 1,

12

tab two where we have the listing of photos, please look

13

at line 19.
Is that this photo that is Exhibit 5?

14
01:55 15

A.

It's very similar photo.

16

Q.

Is it the same?

17

A.

I could not tell you if it's identical.

18

Q.

Does Michael Fogden pay you any royalties for his

19
01:55 20
21
22
23

selling of the photo on his own?


A.

No.

Fogden Wildlife Photographs is a separate

entity.
Q.

As far as you're concerned, they have the right

to offer this photo?

24

A.

01:56 25

photo.

Yes.

They would have the right to license this

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 31 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 77 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 98

(Deposition Exhibit Number D6 was marked for

identification.)

2
3
4
01:57

BY MR. PENCHINA:
Q.

Please take a look at the document that's been

marked as D6 and tell me whether this exhibit is something

that's familiar to you?

A.

It's a familiar-looking picture.

Q.

Is that a picture that's in your collection?

A.

I don't know if we have this exact picture in our

01:57 10
11

collection.
Q.

Assuming that you did have this picture in your

12

collection, does Larry Ulrich Stock Photography have the

13

right to distribute it?

14
01:57 15
16

A.

They have the right to license it, yeah.

He has

some of his own efforts.


Q.

Would Mr. Ulrich or Larry Ulrich, Stock

17

Photography, pay any royalties or other fees to DRK if

18

they license this photo, assuming it's in your collection?

19
01:58 20
21

A.

No.

We would receive nothing from their

licensing fees of the photo.


Q.

Looking at the information below the petrified

22

log photo in the center of Exhibit D6, it carries a

23

copyright in Larry Ulrich's name.

Do you see that?

24

A.

I see copyright symbol, Larry Ulrich.

01:59 25

Q.

Is it your understanding that Larry Ulrich owns

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 32 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 78 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 99

the copyright in this photo?


A.

2
3

or rights to us.
Q.

4
01:59

They assigned copyright registration privileges

And the ultimate copyright, where does that

reside?
A.

If we registered this image, it would lie with

Q.

So is his copyright notice on this photo

inaccurate?

6
7

01:59 10
11
12

us.

A.

I don't know because I don't know if we have this

exact image, whether or not we register it.


Q.

Assuming that you do have this exact image and

13

assuming you did register it, is the copyright notice on

14

Larry Ulrich's Stock Photography's page inappropriate?

01:59 15

A.

Might be out of date, assuming that we have that

16

exact image and registered it through our copyright

17

assignment agreement with Larry.

18

Q.

What might be out of date?

19

A.

The little copyright notice in front of his name

02:00 20
21
22
23
24
02:00 25

on his website.
Q.

If that notice residing on his website now so

that it's current -A.

Larry's website, once -- I saw Larry's website

once several years ago.


Q.

No.

My question is, assuming that this is on it

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 33 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 79 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 100

right this minute, even as we speak, would it be an

inappropriate copyright notice now?

3
02:00

A.

I don't know all the intricacies of all the

copyright laws, legal little intricacies.

more accurate to go Larry Ulrich/DRK Photo -- I don't

really know what technically it should read.

sure -- I don't know why I'm concerned with what he's

doing on his website.

11

Q.

Well, has his name, his ownership of the

copyright being represented to the public --

12

A.

So has he made an error?

13

Q.

No.

14

A.

Is he correct?

02:01 15

I'm not

I don't understand.

9
02:01 10

But might be

I'm asking is he correct?


On our website, it reads just

copyright Larry Ulrich/DRK Photo.

I don't know if the

16

omission of the DRK Photo makes that incorrect.

17

know all the intricacies.

I don't

18

MR. PENCHINA:

19

(Deposition Exhibit Number D7 was marked for


identification.)

02:02 20
21
22

Please mark the next one.

BY MR. PENCHINA:
Q.

Would you please take a look at the document

23

that's been marked Exhibit D7 and tell me whether this is

24

familiar to you?

02:02 25

A.

This particular one, they've shot a lot of

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 34 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 80 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 101

02:02

pictures up in that area.

sticks in my mind.

images.

have them all memorized.


Q.

represents?

A.

9
02:03 10

We have hundreds and thousands of

There's some favorites that I have, but I don't

I can't say this particular one

Are Tom and Pat Leeson photographers that DRK

Yes.

We do represent the work of Tom and Pat

Leeson.
Q.

Are Tom and Pat Leeson photographers that DRK

represents?

11

A.

Yes, they are.

We do represent them.

12

Q.

Would you please take a look at Exhibit D1, tab

13

two, line 54 and tell me whether that's the same image

14

that's shown in D7?

02:04 15

A.

You know, without something to look at it closer,

16

I don't know if there's less foreground in one than the

17

other.

18

corner or more sky in one or the other.

19

it was windy, if branches are blowing in one of them and

02:04 20

I don't know if there's less sky in the upper left

not the other, if they're blurred in one and sharp in the

21

other.

22

was the same time of day.

02:04 25

I don't know if the lighting was the same, if it

Honestly with what I have here, it's not enough.

23
24

I don't know if

I would have to look more closely.


Q.

So as you sit here today, you cannot testify

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 35 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 81 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 102

1
2
3
4
02:04

5
6
7
8
9

02:05 10

definitively that this is not the same picture?


A.

I can't testify definitively that it's the same

picture, whether or not it's the same image.


Q.

You can't testify that it's not the same; you

can't testify that it is the same?


A.

I can't see in enough detail of both pictures

with clarity to know if they're identical pictures or not.


Q.

Assuming that they are identical, do Tom and Pat

Leeson have the right to offer it on their own website?


A.

They would have the right to offer this picture

11

on their own website because I believe only one of the

12

photographers signed on it exclusively with us -- not --

13

they're one of the photographers that are signed

14

nonexclusively with us as I believe Michael Fogden and

02:05 15
16

Larry Ulrich.
Q.

Just to clarify the record, because I'm not sure

17

that I heard the answer consistently -- so I'm going to

18

ask you the same question.


Assuming that this is a photograph that is in

19
02:05 20
21
22

your collection, do Tom and Pat Leeson have the right to


sell it on their own website?
A.

If it's exactly the same picture, they would

23

either have to supply a duplicate or digital scan to us.

24

They have no restrictions on what they can do through

02:06 25

their marketing efforts.

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 36 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 82 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 103

Q.

1
2

pay anything to DRK?


A.

3
4
02:06

If they do sell it, they have no obligation to

No.

We're not involved at all with their

business.
Q.

Just for clarity, because the court reporter is

taking down everything we're both saying, I know I've been

guilty of talking while you were talking and confusing

her.

And at times you're answering before I'm finishing.


I just request that you wait until I finish

9
02:06 10
11

asking the question so the court reporter can accurately


take what we both say.

12

A.

Okay.

13

Q.

Thanks.

14
02:06 15

And I will endeavor to do the same.

I said, I know I've been guilty of precisely the same


thing.

I apologize to the court reporter.


Just one more thing on D7:

16

This one also

17

contains a copyright notice in the name of Tom and Pat

18

Leeson; is that correct?

19
02:07 20

A.

That's a notice they chose to put on there.

not my website.

absolutely correct or they should have -- I don't know

22

when they put this up.

I don't know how old this was.

I assume at the time they posted this up there it

23
02:07 25

It's

It perhaps -- I don't know if it's

21

24

As

was correct.
Q.

Are both Tom and Pat Leeson photographers?

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 37 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 83 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 104

1
2
3
4
02:08

5
6
7

A.

Yes, as far as I understand it.

and wife team.


Q.

It's a husband

They both take pictures.

Do you know when works come into DRK's

collection, whether it's Tom's work or Pat's work?


A.

No.

Typically in their case they put Tom and Pat

Leeson on the photo mounts.


Q.

I may have asked you this earlier perhaps with

respect to a particular photo.

Did DRK register copyright for all the photos that are

02:09 10
11

I'm broadening it out:

involved in this particular arbitration case?


A.

Well, like we saw before, Stephen had submitted

12

the registration, my brother, on at least two pictures

13

that you pointed out with the registration, with the

14

certificate being returned to our address.

02:09 15

Q.

Aside from the ones that were registered by

16

Stephen, DRK undertook to fill out the applications, file

17

the applications on its own and receive the registrations;

18

is that correct?

19
02:10 20

A.

We filed hundreds of copyright applications using

that Ekol online filing system.

21

Q.

Why did you decide to get registrations?

22

A.

We have been urging photographers for years and

23

years, including my brother, to copyright their work so

24

they have some legal standing or some strength behind

02:10 25

their ownership, and it just wasn't happening and wasn't

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 38 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 84 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 108

1
2
3
02:16

application?
A.

Are you asking do I know if we included the same

photo on more than one application?

Q.

Yes.

A.

Not to my knowledge, we didn't.

Q.

When you undertook the registration process, were

there particular claims you had in mind that you wanted to

pursue?

9
02:17 10

A.
reason.

No.

We undertook it -- it was a two-prong

One is we've been wanting to do it for years.

11

And secondly, with everything going digital and online,

12

there seemed more exposure to abuse, people downloading

13

images and such.

14

protection by actually registering.


So we didn't do it for any specific purpose.

02:17 15
16
17
18

So we felt they should have a stronger

We

did it for those two reasons.


Q.

I think you said the forms also assigned claims;

is that correct?

19

A.

I don't understand the forms also --

02:17 20

Q.

The agreements that you had with your

21

photographers assigned claims to you; is that something

22

you understand?

23

A.

I would have to look at the agreement.

24

Q.

Without looking at the agreement, do you have any

02:18 25

understanding of whether DRK acquired claims from

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 39 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 85 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 109

1
2

02:18

photographers?
A.

I'm not sure what you mean by acquired claims.

We registered their images and obtained copyrights to

those images.
What is "acquired claims"?

5
6

Q.

Beyond registering their images, is it your

understanding -- we'll look at the documents later, but I

want to get what your understanding is of what rights or

other things DRK received from the photographers with

02:18 10
11

these assignments.
A.

My understanding, without seeing the form, was

12

that they've authorized us to register these images in our

13

name with the US copyright, become the copyright holder.

14

And the whole gist of it was to -- if we take any actions

02:19 15

against people -- I think it went on to explain that any

16

proceeds after deduction on this would be shared 50

17

percent between each of us.


So that was the gist of the form to me, is that

18
19
02:19 20
21

they authorize us to do the registrations and pursuing


issues that we might -- those registered images that we
licensed and we split the proceeds with them.
There's more on there as far as reassignment and

22
23
24
02:19 25

things like that.


Q.

Is it your understanding as we sit here that

without looking at the document, that DRK acquired

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 40 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 86 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 110

02:20

anything beyond what you just described?

A.

Such as?

Q.

Such as anything.

Do you have a recollection or

an understanding of what you obtained from the

photographers, if anything, beyond what you already

described?

A.

I believe we obtained copyright assignment which

allowed us to register the imagery in our name as the

copyright holder, which then we're the copyright holder to

02:20 10
11

enforce those copyrights.


Q.

Do the rights that were transferred to you revert

12

back or get reassigned back to the photographers at any

13

point?

14

A.

I believe they will eventually.

02:20 15

Q.

When do you believe they will?

16

A.

Well, it was upon completion of anything we've

17

got going on, enforcing the copyrights, and even at that

18

point, I assume there's a lot of photographers who won't

19

ever want them back because they have no -- I'm not sure

02:21 20

what their use for them would be, if an infringement can

21

only occur by the violation of the license and they're not

22

licensing those images.

23
24
02:21 25

Maybe they'll want them back eventually, but for


the most part, I think they'll just leave them in our camp
for as long as needed for us to pursue would-be

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 41 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 87 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 112

(Deposition Exhibit Number D8 was marked for

identification.)

3
4
02:23

BY MR. PENCHINA:
Q.

Would you please take a look at the document that

has been marked as Exhibit D8 and tell me whether D8 is

familiar to you?

A.

This appears to be the Copyright Assignment,

Registration Accrued Causes of Action Agreement we

attached to e-mails to our photographers requesting their

02:24 10

cooperation with this.

I don't know how you word it.

I think this is what was attached to our shotgun

11
12

e-mailing to our photographers when we were approaching

13

them regarding this matter.

14
02:24 15

Q.

Do you notice the handwriting across the top of

Exhibit D8?

16

A.

I do.

17

Q.

Do you recognize that handwriting?

18

A.

It looks like my handwriting.

19

Looks like a note

I made.

02:25 20

Q.

Could you please read the note?

21

A.

Says "Copyright assignment final 06-2l-2008, doc,

22

attachment to e-mails."

23

Q.

What does that notation mean?

24

A.

This must have been a copy I printed out.

02:25 25

So I

would have it there in case photographers called me with

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 42 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 88 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 113

02:25

questions.

I probably had it on my desk and I wrote that

note on just so I know that this is what they got, so if

they called up with questions, I could reference it.

Q.

Did you draft the document that is Exhibit D8?

A.

No, I did not draft this document.

Q.

Who drafted the document that is Exhibit D8?

A.

I asked Chris to come up with something because I

wouldn't know how to draft it.

advice.

So I had to seek legal

02:26 10

Q.

By Chris, do you mean --

11

A.

Chris Seidman.

12

Q.

The notation "final" on Exhibit D8, does that

13

indicate or mean that there were other versions that were

14

not final?

02:26 15

A.

I don't recall if there were any drafts.

I don't

16

recall if Chris and I went back and had a question or

17

wanting to know if it was worded right and he sent another

18

one through.
I don't recall.

19
02:26 20
21
22

Q.

Is Exhibit D8 the form that was signed by all of

the photographers who ultimately signed a form?


A.

With the exception of one:

This is the form that

23

all photographers -- I should say all photographers signed

24

this form with the exception of one who signed a different

02:27 25

form because he wanted to limit the photos that he

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 43 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 89 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 114

02:27

assigned to us to certain photos only.

Q.

Who was that photographer?

A.

That photographer's name is Doug Perrine.

believe, did some of his own -- some of his own

registrations and he was more protective of his

registrations.

Q.

He, I

Just to be clear, other than Doug Perrine,

there's no post-final document that other photographers

might have signed in lieu of the one marked final?

02:28 10

A.

There shouldn't be because this date 6-21-08

11

sounds about right for when that e-mail went out.

12

feel comfortable saying this is the one that went out to

13

99 of 100 photographers or whatever.

14
02:28 15
16
17

Q.

I would

Which images does this agreement refer to in

connection with any particular photographer?


A.

It pertains to images selected by DRK and

included in DRK's collection.

18

Q.

By what process does DRK select photos?

19

A.

The photographers in the days of film, they would

02:28 20

send in 200 pictures to us.

From that, we would edit it

21

and keep one or keep 200, return the rest.

22

we chose are our selects and they got processed into the

23

system.

24
02:29 25

And the ones

It's similar in the digital age where they'll


send us a disk with a folder containing 300 pictures and

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 44 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 90 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 115

we will edit through and select the ones that we feel fit

our client's needs and holes in our collection and up to

our standards.
And we reject the balance.

4
02:29

5
6
7
8
9

02:30 10
11

Q.

listing images that were included in this agreement?


A.

14
02:30 15

We did not attach itemized pictures, no.

This

was for images included in our collection.


Q.

In looking at the last line of the first

paragraph of Exhibit D8, it refers to resolution of


infringement claims brought by DRK relating to the images.
What infringement claims is that referring to?

12
13

When photographers signed this form, was there

A.

Any infringement claims we may bring against

publishers for infringing our copyrights.


Q.

I guess I don't see the word "any" in here.

16

is it that you understand that to mean any claims you

17

might bring?

18
19
02:31 20
21
22
23
24
02:31 25

A.

How

Well, if there's an infringement claim that we're

pursuing, this does not -- we won't be reassigning the


copyrights to them until we settle the infringement,
resolution of infringement claims.
Q.

Then if you settle the infringement claims, the

copyright goes back to the photographer?


A.

I would assume at that time we'll -- whenever

that happens, we'll ask the photographers if they would

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 45 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 91 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 116

02:32

like them reassigned at this point.

know as far as we know they're settled, although it's an

ongoing process and I suspect they're going to say why

don't you hang on to that in case more come along.

5
6

Q.

We probably let them

Have you had such a conversation with any

photographer?

A.

Conversation about what?

Q.

About whether you should hang on to the

copyright?

02:32 10
11
12
13
14
02:32 15
16
17
18
19
02:33 20
21
22

A.

No, because we've got infringement -- active

infringement claims so it's not an issue at this point.


Q.

But you've resolved infringements claims as well,

haven't you?
A.

I have resolved a case with HMH, one of many that

are ongoing.
Q.

Were there any others ongoing at the time the HMH

case started?
A.

I don't know the dates, but I don't even know

that the HMH case had begun when they signed these.
Q.

Were there any other ongoing cases at the time

the HMH case started?


A.

At the time the HMH case started?

No, because

23

HMH is the first time in my life we had to take legal

24

action against a publisher.

02:33 25

Q.

Were there any cases in mind when you sent this

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 46 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 92 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 117

02:34

form out to the photographers?

A.

There were no specific cases in mind.

Q.

Were there any claims in mind, short of

litigation?

A.

I don't believe there were.

I don't know.

don't recall if we had any suspicions at that point.

don't believe there were.

was long overdo that we protect our images.

11

I believe we just thought it

easy to steal things -- we felt they should be better


protected.

12

(Deposition Exhibit Number D9 was marked for

13

identification.)

14
02:35 15
16

And with the web and things going digital -- it's

9
02:34 10

BY MR. PENCHINA:
Q.

Would you please take a look at a document marked

Exhibit D9 and tell me whether D9 is familiar to you?

17

A.

Yes.

18

Q.

What is Exhibit D9?

19

A.

It appears to be the, more or less, form e-mail

02:35 20

It looks familiar.

we sent to everyone at the time with this Copyright

21

Assignment, Registration and Accrued Causes of Action

22

Agreement attached to it explaining what we were doing;

23

what we were wanting to do.

24
02:36 25

Q.

When you say more or less form, were there other

e-mails that went to other photographers?

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 47 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 93 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 118

A.

02:36

No.

I mean this one says dear Annie, the one

that went to Larry said dear Larry, the one that went to

John said dear John.

particular I have to be, but I can't say this is the

identical form that went to everybody because the name

changed at the top.


Q.

7
8

The text in the center is more or less

standardized?
A.

9
02:36 10

Again, I don't know how fussy and

That's what I meant.

I call it boilerplate.

We

took our time to make sure it sounded right and to try to

11

explain any questions they might have had ahead of time in

12

it.

13

photographers.

14
02:37 15

This is what went out to a bunch of our

Q.

Towards the top of Exhibit D9, it says

attachments and it lists copyright assignment final

16

6-21-2008.

17

as D8?

18

A.

Yes.

19

Q.

This particular one, D9, went to Annie Griffith

02:37 20

Would that be what we were looking at before

That would be D8.

Belt; is that correct?

21

A.

That's correct.

22

Q.

Who is Annie Griffith Belt?

23

A.

She's one of our photographers.

24

Q.

This Exhibit D9, indicates in the from line that

02:37 25

it's from DRK Photo and it has your name; is that correct?

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 48 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 94 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 119

A.

That's correct.

Q.

Is info@drkphoto.com your personal e-mail address

3
02:38

Info@drkphoto.com.

or is that a generic DRK address?

A.

everything.

don't use it.

e-mails on it in the last five years, I would be

surprised.

Q.

02:38 10
11

It's a generic address, but I use it for most


I believe I do have a personal one, but I
I don't really give it -- if I've gotten 30

I typically use info@drkphoto.com.

The one you're referring to, other than

info@drkphoto.com, would be a different provider so it


would not be at DRK?

12

A.

No.

13

Q.

And at the very top of Exhibit D9, it says Julie.

14

I believe it's like Dan.k@drkphoto.com.

Is that Mrs. Krasemann?

02:38 15

A.

That's my wife, yes.

16

Q.

Do you know why this document says Julie on the

A.

I do.

17
18
19
02:39 20

top?
We wanted to get them all from -- we were

having difficulties with e-mails.

I use Outlook Express.

She was using Outlook's full-blown program.

She had all

21

sorts of contacts set up and things so you just click on

22

their name and send it including all the photographers'

23

information and I didn't have it.

24
02:39 25

I went over to her work station that Outlook has


multiple identities, and one of the identities is

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 49 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 95 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 120

02:39

info@drkphoto.com so we could have the ease of having

everybody's e-mails already in the contact list.

looked like it was coming from me at info so they didn't

wonder the source.

Q.

Yet it

So just to be clear, it says Julie because she

was somehow involved in the process of when these e-mails

went out as opposed to that being a product of gathering

the documents for this litigation?

9
02:40 10
11

A.

This says Julie on it, I believe, because we used

her work station to send the e-mails.

I went over to her

area and sat down at that computer.

12

I don't know why that's on there.

13

explanation I could think of is because somehow the

14

computers -- e-mail programs spit out the machine.

02:40 15
16

Its only

don't know.
Q.

In the text of Exhibit D9, you explain to the

17

photographers the reason why you want them to sign this

18

copyright assignment form; is that correct?

19
02:40 20
21

A.

I try to explain what was going on and why they

were receiving this request.


Q.

Other than what it says in this e-mail, which is

22

Exhibit D9, were there any reasons why you wanted the

23

photographers to sign the agreement?

24
02:41 25

A.

I don't believe so.

no other reasons.

I would say no, there were

Like I said before, we had gone on too

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 50 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 96 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 121

02:41

long without any protection, official copyright

registration, and we were worried with the websites and

tens of thousands of images being up there for easy

picking and we wanted some protection on everything.

Q.

So there are no reasons beyond what's stated in

Exhibit D9 for why you wanted photographers to sign these

copyright assignments?

8
9
02:41 10

A.

I don't believe there were any other reasons

other than what's said on here.


Q.

Did any of the photographers to whom you sent

11

this e-mail want to discuss the issue after they received

12

the e-mail?

13

A.

14

I believe we had a few that may have wanted to

clarify things or, like I said, a photographer like Doug

02:42 15

Perrine who has registered his own work who wanted to save

16

that to us, Norbert Woo who got back and said I don't want

17

to sign this.

18

a few photographers about it.

19

Yes, there were minimal correspondence with

Here is where -- I recalled a while ago about --

02:42 20

you asked me if pictures have been registered in the past.

21

This must be maybe where I saw it down towards the bottom.

22

It says, "Further we would like to hear from you if you

23

have registered in the past images with the U.S. Copyright

24

Office" because we were trying to avoid any double

02:42 25

registration or anything like that.

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 51 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 97 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 123

(Deposition Exhibit Number D10 was marked for

identification.)

3
4
02:45

BY MR. PENCHINA:
Q.

Would you please take a look at the agreement or

the document that is marked as Exhibit D10 and tell me

whether this document is familiar to you?

7
8
9
02:45 10

A.

This document appears to be assignment on

agreement we received back from Annie Griffiths Belt.


Q.

Is that your signature on the right side towards

the bottom on Exhibit D10?

11

A.

Yes.

12

Q.

That Ms. Griffiths Belt's signature on the left

13
14

side?
A.

19
02:46 20

It appears to be Annie's signature.

identification.)

16
18

Yes.

(Deposition Exhibit Number D11 was marked for

02:46 15
17

That appears to be my signature.

BY MR. PENCHINA:
Q.

Would you please take a look at the document

that's been marked as Exhibit D11 and tell me whether


Exhibit D11 is familiar to you?

21

A.

Yes, it is familiar to me.

22

Q.

What is Exhibit D11?

23

A.

It's the certificate of registration we received

24
02:46 25

back from the US copyright office.


Q.

What photos does this cover?

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 52 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 98 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 124

A.

It covers 1992 published images.

Q.

How do you know the photos relating to this

3
4
02:47

registration were published in 1992?


A.

That's when we received them from Annie, when

they were first offered to the public.

Q.

And what form did you offer them to the public?

A.

Well, first of all, she offered them to us at

that point.

public.

02:47 10

Then they go -- we could be considered the

Then they go into the collection and get

distributed out to customers.

11

Q.

And what form were they first published?

12

A.

In 1992, I'm going to say these were film images.

13

Q.

How were they published?

14

A.

They were -- published first date of publication,

02:48 15

my understanding was one of the definitions of first date

16

of publication is when they're offered to the public for

17

sale or license, they were exposed.

18

Q.

How were they exposed to the public?

19

A.

They were exposed to us, first of all, DRK Photo.

02:48 20
21
22
23
24
02:48 25

Then DRK Photo offered them to his clients.


Q.

In what way did DRK Photo offer Annie Griffiths

Belt's photos to the public in 1992?


A.

They were sent out as film submissions to photo

requests, as we discussed earlier.


Q.

Each of these photos were sent out to film

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 53 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 99 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 133

03:08

reporter has marked as Exhibit D13 and tell me whether

this document is familiar to you?

A.

It does look familiar.

Q.

Is D13 the same form letter e-mail except this

5
6
7

one went to John Cancalosi?


A.

The first glance, it looks like it's the same

boilerplate e-mail.

Q.

Who is Mr. Cancalosi?

A.

It's a photographer represented by DRK Photo.


(Deposition Exhibit Number D14 was marked for

12:36 10

identification.)

11
12
13
14
03:10 15
16

BY MR. PENCHINA:
Q.

Would you please look at the document that's been

marked as Exhibit D14 and tell me what it is?


A.

I would say it was a followup e-mail to John

because we didn't have his signed form back yet.

17

Q.

18

Cancalosi?

19

A.

03:10 20
21
22

Is Exhibit D14 an e-mail that you sent to John

It looks like it is.

It was sent November 18,

because I'm asking him in here -- I guess we're just


wondering why we don't have his form back yet.
Q.

And in the second paragraph of the text of the

23

e-mail that is D14, you state, "Our only purpose in asking

24

you to sign the assignment is for us to be able to

03:11 25

register the works for the purpose of pursuing would be

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 54 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 100 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 134

infringers."
Is that a true statement?

03:11

A.

That's how the sentence reads, yes.

Q.

And is it a true sentence?

A.

The way I intended it, it is true, yes.

We were

registering these so we had some status as a registered

copyright holder.

(Deposition Exhibit Number D15 was marked for

identification.)

03:12 10

BY MR. PENCHINA:
Q.

11

D15, would you kindly take a look at the document

12

that's been marked D15 and tell me if D15 is familiar to

13

you?

14

A.

It does look familiar.

03:12 15

Q.

What is Exhibit D15?

16

A.

It appears to be our agreement with John

17

Cancalosi, representation agreement dated November 28,

18

1989.

19
03:12 20

Q.

And if you turn to the second page of Exhibit

D15, the top paragraph is sort of marked out with a

21

squiggled line.

22

Mr. Cancalosi scratched out that paragraph?

23
24
03:12 25

A.

Is it your understanding that

It is my understanding because he initialed it,

that he didn't want to be responsible for model releases


because that's what the paragraph pertains to.

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 55 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 101 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 135

Q.

1
2

03:13

Your agreement with Mr. Cancalosi that is Exhibit

D15 is a nonexclusive agency agreement; is that correct?

A.

Yes.

It is a nonexclusive arrangement.

Q.

And this arrangement is also a 50/50 payment

split between DRK and Mr. Cancalosi for the sales made by

DRK; is that correct?


A.

7
8

50/50 split regarding all sales made and

received.
(Deposition Exhibit Number D16 was marked for

identification.)

03:14 10
11

Yeah.

BY MR. PENCHINA:
Q.

12

Would you please take a look at the document

13

marked as Exhibit D16 and tell me if that is familiar to

14

you?

03:14 15

A.

Yes.

16

Q.

Is D16 the copyright assignment document that

17
18
19
03:14 20

This document looks familiar to me.

ultimately was signed by Mr. Cancalosi?


A.

Yes.

This is the signed executed agreement we

received back from John Cancalosi.


Q.

And this is in the same form as the other

21

assignment agreements we've seen or I should say copyright

22

assignment registration agreement?

23

A.

I believe it is, yes.

24

(Deposition Exhibit Number D17 was marked for

25

identification.)

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 56 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 102 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 136

1
2

03:15

BY MR. PENCHINA:
Q.

Would you please take a look at the document that

is marked as Exhibit D17 and tell me whether D17 is

familiar to you?

A.

This does look familiar to me, yes.

Q.

What is Exhibit D17?

A.

It is the copyright certificate of registration

we received back from the US copyright office,

VA1-669-065.

03:16 10
11
12
13

Q.

Which photos are covered by the registration

that's Exhibit D17?


A.

It's a group registration of John Cancalosi's

1990 published photographs.

14

Q.

What photographs are those?

03:16 15

A.

I don't know the specific photographs without

16

having more supportive documentation behind this

17

application.

18
19
03:16 20
21

Q.

When were the photos that are covered by

registration VA1-669-065 published?


A.

They were published in 1990 between March 15 and

December 15.

22

Q.

How were they published?

23

A.

They were submitted to us.

24

the public.

03:17 25

They were offered to

As I recall, the copyright office wanted us

to refer to the earliest date of first publication on the

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 57 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 103 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 137

application.

complete range of publication date is March 15 to December

15.
And I believe I queried them and they said up

4
03:17

That's why they noted on the bottom that the

here, you should use the earliest date if there's a range

of dates.

7
8
9
03:17 10

Q.

So I'm not sure I understood your answer.

How

exactly were these photos published?


A.

Just as the last registration work, they were

submitted to the public, to DRK Photo, offered for sale or

11

licensing, which we used as the day of first publication.

12

And then subsequently, they went into our system and were

13

offered to our clients.

14
03:18 15
16

Q.

So which photos were offered to customers in

March 1990?
A.

Again, I can tell you which photos are behind

17

these, but we don't have records dating back to 1990 of

18

all our submissions to the various publishers.

19
03:18 20

Q.

You don't know which photos were offered to which

DRK customer on any given date?

21

A.

We no longer have records from 1990.

22

Q.

So you no longer know which photos were offered

23
24
03:19 25

to which customers in March of 1990?


A.

If you look at it that way, I can't prove which

photos were offered to which customers.

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 58 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 104 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 138

1
2

03:19

Q.

You can't prove that the photos even were, in

fact, offered to customers --

A.

I know they were offered to us, to public, DRK

Photo.

hands and out there.

They were offered up to the public out of John's

Q.

So they were offered to DRK; is that correct?

A.

That, I know.

Q.

When were they offered to DRK?

A.

In 1990, between the dates of March 15 and

03:19 10
11

December 15, 1990.


Q.

Whether they just sat in DRK's files unviewed by

12

anyone or whether they were distributed to everybody in

13

the world, we have no way of knowing at this point; is

14

that correct?

03:20 15

A.

I can't prove that any longer today.

16

Q.

Would you please take a look at an exhibit we

17

previously marked as D11?

You will recall that D11 is the

18

copyright registration you obtained with respect to Annie

19

Griffiths Belt's photos; is that correct?

03:20 20

A.

That's correct.

21

Q.

I believe previously when you were testifying

22

about Exhibit D11, you mentioned there might be a second

23

page; is that correct?

24
03:21 25

A.

Well, I thought there was something more to these

registrations that might have had a seal or a stamp or

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 59 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 105 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 147

03:37

litigation?

A.

If it was asked for, I would have produced it.

Q.

By the way, with respect to Mr. Eastcott and

Ms. Momatiuk, was their representation agreement

nonexclusive and a 50/50 split like the other

photographers we've looked at so far?

A.

split.

Q.

03:37 10

Yes.

Both agreements were nonexclusive 50/50

Have any of the photographers who we have

discussed so far in connection with looking at the

11

assignment of copyright, have any of these photographers

12

paid any royalties or fees of any kind to DRK since they

13

signed those agreements?

14

A.

(Deposition Exhibit Number D23 was marked for

03:38 15

identification.)

16
17
18
19
03:38 20

No.

BY MR. PENCHINA:
Q.

Would you please take a look at the document

that's been marked as Exhibit D23 and tell me if this


exhibit is familiar to you?

21

A.

This does look familiar to me.

22

Q.

What is D23?

23

A.

It's DRK photographer agreement dated February

24

11, 1983.

03:38 25

Q.

And that's with a photographer named Johnny

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 60 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 106 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 148

1
2

A.

That is correct.

Q.

And this is also a nonexclusive 50/50 split; is

4
03:39

Johnson?

5
6

that correct?
A.

I didn't enforce any exclusivity.

So we were on

a nonexclusive basis with this photographer.

Q.

You said we were on a nonexclusive basis?

A.

This is a nonexclusive agreement.

Q.

To your knowledge, Mr. Johnson signed the

03:39 10
11
12

Copyright Assignment, registration and Accrued Causes of


Action Agreement?
A.

Yes, he did to my knowledge.

13

(Deposition Exhibit Number D24 was marked for

14

identification.)

03:40 15
16

BY MR. PENCHINA:
Q.

Would you please take a look at the document the

17

reporter has marked as Exhibit 24 and tell me if this is

18

familiar to you?

19

A.

This does look familiar.

03:40 20

Q.

What is Exhibit D24?

21

A.

A copyright registration certificate.

22
23
24
03:40 25

Do I need

to read off the numbers again?


Q.

Is Exhibit D24 the registration that DRK obtained

for a group of photos by Johnny Johnson which was issued


registration VA1-672-228?

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 61 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 107 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 160

1
2

04:13

BY MR. PENCHINA:
Q.

Would you please take a look at the document that

has been marked as Exhibit D32, and as you do that, I just

want to make you aware that D32 is a two-page exhibit that

combines two copyright registration forms.


Is Exhibit D32 familiar to you?

6
7

A.

Yes, it is familiar to me.

Q.

Exhibit D32 is two registrations that DRK

9
04:14 10

obtained for Michael Fogden photographs?


A.

They do appear to be two of the copyright

11

certificates we obtained registering groups of Michael

12

Fogden's photographs.

13
14

Q.

Did you obtain more than two registrations for

Michael Fogden photographs?

04:14 15

A.

I would assume we did.

16

Q.

I assume that with respect to the two

17

registrations that are Exhibit D32, that just as what we

18

looked at before, by looking at this exhibit, you cannot

19

tell me which particular photographs are covered by this,

04:14 20

whether those photographs were first published by DRK, and

21

whether the photographs were, in fact, distributed to DRK

22

customers on the dates indicated on Exhibit D32; is that

23

correct?

24
04:15 25

A.

Well, again, just the date of publication was

when they were released to us, and I no longer have

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 62 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 108 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 161

records of distribution records going back to 1989 or

1994, the dates on these two certificates.


Q.

3
04:15

So to be clear, you're saying that you're using

the date that the photos were first given to you as the

date of first publication, as opposed to testifying that

as a matter of law, that's when they were first published?


A.

For date of first publication, we use the date in

which the photos were given to us by the photographers.

That was the most reliable records or way we had of doing

04:16 10

it.

11

(Deposition Exhibit Number D33 was marked for

12

identification.)

13
14
04:16 15
16

BY MR. PENCHINA:
Q.

Would you please look at the document that has

been marked as Exhibit D33 and tell me if D33 is familiar


to you?

17

A.

It does look familiar.

18

Q.

Would you please turn to the second page of D33

19
04:16 20

and tell me whose signature that is?


A.

I remember this one when it came across and I'm

21

surprised I didn't make a note on that.

22

Peter French.

23
24
04:17 25

Q.

I believe this is

And what leads you to believe that is Peter

French?
A.

Because I looked at that and I thought my God,

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 63 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 109 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 166

04:25

D37 were, in fact, distributed to DRK customers in 1996;

is that correct?

A.

We would no longer have those records.

Q.

And looking at D37, you can't testify to which

5
6

photos are covered by this registration; is that correct?


A.

With just this copy in front of me, one-sided

copy, I can't tell you which photos.

because it's stipulated on the front of the form.


Again, I would have renditions of those attached

9
04:25 10

There's 31 of them

to the original where I have records available.

11

(Deposition Exhibit Number D38 was marked for

12

identification.)

13
14
04:26 15
16

BY MR. PENCHINA:
Q.

Would you please take a look at the document that

has been marked as D38 and tell me whether D38 is familiar


to you?

17

A.

It does look familiar to me, yes.

18

Q.

What is D38?

19

A.

Looks like the DRK Photo representation agreement

04:27 20
21
22

dated March 27, 1987 with Stephen J. Krasemann.


Q.

Stephen Krasemann is your older brother; is that

correct?

23

A.

Yes, he is.

24

Q.

Your agreement with your brother, Stephen J.

04:27 25

Krasemann, was a nonexclusive basis; is that correct?

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 64 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 110 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 167

04:27

A.

That is correct.

Q.

Your agreement with your brother Stephen J.

Krasemann was also on a 50/50 split like the other

photographers; is that correct?


A.

Yes.

Our agreement is a 50/50 split.

(Deposition Exhibit Number D39 was marked for

identification.)

BY MR. PENCHINA:
Q.

9
04:29 10
11

has been marked as Exhibit 39 and tell me what Exhibit 39


is?
A.

12
13

Could you please take a look at the document that

It appears to be a certificate of copyright

registration form VAU 175-200.

14

Q.

Whose photos are covered by that registration?

04:30 15

A.

They are for photos by Stephen J. Krasemann.

16

Q.

And Mr. Krasemann did that registration on his

A.

It appears -- it looks like his handwriting and

17
18
19
04:30 20
21
22
23
24
04:30 25

own?

he had the certificate returned to our then address in


Sedona, Arizona.
Q.

Did you have anything to do with obtaining that

registration that is Exhibit D39?


A.

I didn't fill out any forms.

I didn't fill out

any of this for him.


Q.

And it's not in the name of DRK Photo; is that

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 65 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 111 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 168

1
2
3
4
04:31

5
6
7
8
9

correct?
A.

On here, it lists the copyright claimants as

Stephen J. Krasemann.
Q.

Looking at Exhibit 39, can you tell me what

photos are covered by this registration?


A.

These two sheets of paper I have in my hand, I

cannot tell you which photos they were.


Q.

Earlier today, we looked at another registration

done by your brother, Mr. Krasemann; is that correct?

04:31 10

A.

Yes.

I remember looking at another one.

11

Q.

Are the photos that are covered by the second

12

registration -- by second, I mean the one later in date

13

which would be the one we looked at earlier today -- are

14

any of the photos in that registration also included in

04:32 15
16
17
18
19
04:32 20
21

the registration that is Exhibit 39?


A.

I didn't make these applications, so I couldn't

tell you that.


Q.

I can't answer that.

Would it be appropriate in your view for photos

to be registered on multiple applications?


A.

I don't believe you're supposed to register them

on multiple applications.

22

(Deposition Exhibit Number D40 was marked for

23

identification.)

24
04:33 25

BY MR. PENCHINA:
Q.

Would you please take a look at the document that

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 66 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 112 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 169

04:34

has been marked as Exhibit D40 and tell me if that

document is familiar to you?

A.

It does look familiar.

Q.

Is D40 the copyright assignment signed by your

5
6

brother Stephen Krasemann?


A.

It is a Copyright Assignment and Accrued Causes

of Action Agreement signed by my brother Stephen

Krasemann.

Q.

04:34 10

Is this the same form that the other

photographers also executed?

11

A.

I would assume it is.

12

Q.

The agreement that is Exhibit D40 is signed on

13

April 14, 2009; is that correct?

14

A.

That's the date on this form.

04:34 15

Q.

Do you have any reason to believe it was a

16

different date?

17

A.

He put the date on there.

18

Q.

So --

19

A.

I'm assuming that's a correct date.

04:35 20

Q.

Do you have any reason to believe it's not the

21

correct date?

22

A.

No, I wouldn't.

23

Q.

Looking at Exhibit D39, which is the copyright

24
04:35 25

registration for Stephen Krasemann's collection of


photographs, that was issued in 1990; is that correct?

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 67 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 113 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 170

A.

The application was received February 1st, 1990.

Q.

And the Copyright Assignment and Accrued Causes

3
04:35

of Action Agreement was signed in 2009; is that correct?

A.

Yes.

agreement.

Q.

April 14, 2009 is the date on this

So the copyrights that your brother agreed to

assign to you for the purposes of registration already had

been registered; is that correct?

9
04:36 10

A.

I would have -- I don't know which photographs

these are.

I don't know if they're the same photographs

11

as we registered of his.

12

the same image or that they are the same image.


I don't think I can answer that question the way

13
14
04:36 15

So I can't say that they're not

I understand it.
Q.

So in addition to the two registrations that

16

Mr. Krasemann, your brother, did on his own, DRK also did

17

registrations for collections of photographs by Stephen

18

Krasemann; correct?

19

A.

Yes, we did.

04:37 20

Q.

So those photographs covered by the registrations

21

that DRK did, you were able to do pursuant to the

22

agreement that is D40; is that correct?

23
24
04:37 25

A.

Stephen, I believe, actually signed two different

Copyright Assignment and Accrued Causes of Action


Agreements, one of them covering the ones that authorized

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 68 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 114 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 171

04:37

us to register, one of them transferring any and all

copyrights from anything he previously registered to DRK

Photo.

Q.

And you remember seeing that agreement?

A.

I remember having to have it re-worked by a legal

person because I had a question on how that would happen,

how do we do the ones because he's done some already

himself.
There's a re-worked form that dealt with his

9
04:38 10
11

previous registrations.
Q.

It's legal.

If you look at the top two lines of Exhibit D40,

12

it says that, "The undersigned photographer, the sole

13

owner of the copyrights and the undersigned's images

14

selected by DRK and included in DRK's collection," which

04:38 15

photos does that sentence refer to?

16

A.

All photos that are in the DRK Photo collection.

17

Q.

So --

18

A.

All photos of his.

19

Q.

All photos of Stephen Krasemann?

04:39 20

A.

Right.

21

Q.

So does it refer to the photos that are in DRK's

Obviously, it doesn't refer to Mr. Smith.

22

collection that were selected by DRK and which were

23

previously registered by Stephen Krasemann for

24

registration 175-200?

04:39 25

A.

I don't know that this form does, but I know one

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 69 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 115 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 172

of the two that he signed does.

those, the one he previously registered.

3
04:39

Q.

The other one covers

I'm trying to understand the reference to images.

This says "All of the images" -- or this says the images

selected by DRK Photo and included in DRK's collection.


Were the photos that are covered by 175-200

6
7
8
9
04:40 10
11
12

selected by DRK and included in DRK's collection?


A.

They would be in our collection.

Stephen,

because of the unique situation, he's got the best of his


collection with us.

So we have whatever he's previously

registered in our collection.


Q.

In looking at D40, D40 refers to all of his

13

photographs on the face of D40, including the ones covered

14

by his prior registrations; isn't that correct?

04:40 15
16
17
18
19
04:40 20

A.

D40 refers to images selected by DRK Photo and

included in DRK's photos' collection.


Q.

Well, the photos that were registered on 175-200

are included in DRK's collection; isn't that correct?


A.

Yes.

These photos that he previously registered

are in our collection.

21

(Deposition Exhibit Number D41 was marked for

22

identification.)

23
24
04:42 25

BY MR. PENCHINA:
Q.

Would you please take a look at the document that

has been marked as Exhibit D41?

As I call that document

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 70 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 116 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 197

lists the slide numbers and the descriptions and page size

and photographers and the amounts and it's totaled.


So this is very typical.

3
05:35

Things change as to who

it's going to, the kind of photos and book name and

copyright, copies, distribution and all that stuff.

yes, I would say this is not an unusual license.

Q.

But,

Looking towards the center of Exhibit D51 down

the left-hand side, there's the column for image and below

that are image numbers.


And the image numbers typically appear on

05:35 10
11

invoices, correct?

12

A.

They do typically appear on invoices.

13

Q.

And those are the same image numbers that would

14

appear on your website currently if accessing a particular

05:35 15

photo?

16

A.

Not necessarily, no.

17

Q.

What is the significance, if any, of the

18

numbering system that you use for the photos?

19

series of numbers mean anything?

05:35 20

A.

Yes.

Do these

We have a master file of our collection.

21

So when someone references -- for example, the second

22

picture down is 207011.

23

apparently to us, listed it as acid drainage, quarter page

24

by John Cancalosi.

05:36 25

They provided this on a request

I can pull up the black and white copies, look up

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 71 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 117 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 198

05:36

207011 in the right folder on the right page.

the best of black and white copies, but we shine a light

through it so -- we shoot them a sheet at a time and it

lights up the film area.

picture, that it is acid drainage.

Q.

So if I understand your testimony, each image has

a unique image number in your system; is that correct?


A.

9
05:37 10

I can just make sure it's John's

We try to catch errors that they might make.

6
8

They're not

Each image has a unique image number with the

exception of -- I don't know if this would qualify:

Say,

11

the very first picture is 848870.

12

picture that's been duped.

13

corresponding number 50,000 increments above that.

14

dupes would be 898870 not 848870, but typically I will

05:37 15

That indicates it's a

So the dupes would have a


The

license using the original number.


Q.

16

You're getting sort of to where I was going.

And

17

that is, is there some code beyond the fact that these are

18

in numerical order, this is image 001, the next one is

19

002?

05:37 20
21
22
23
24
05:38 25

Is there meaning to these digits to you in your

system?
A.

It does help us locate the images, see what

they're a picture of and who took it.


Q.

So does anything, looking at the first one,

848870, does anything in that number, just in the number


without looking at the description, tell you anything

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 72 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 118 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 199

1
2
3
4
05:38

about who the photographer was?


A.

No.

Not without going to the 800 binders and

looking those up in sequential numerical order.


Q.

So it's not like, for example -- I'm just making

this up -- that eight refers to nature and zero refers to

something else and then this number gives you some

indication?

A.

9
05:38 10

No, nothing like that.

I know some photographers

who have used codes and number of letters and numbers that
indicate maybe the national park.

They can tell by

11

looking at a number, at least, maybe where they took it or

12

when they took it or subject matter.


Ours are purely -- might have started at 100001

13
14
05:38 15
16

one and went up from there.


Q.

You indicated you can tell it was a dupe.

Explain that to me again.

17

A.

18

duplicated.

19

we're particularly partial to would go immediately to be

05:39 20

duplicated just as a hot picture, something very unique.

21

This indicates that it's a picture that we have


What happens, some picture that comes in that

Other pictures that started out as a regular

22

picture like the next one, 207011, we would -- after it

23

published -- I think it was three times -- we would

24

automatically dupe it.

05:39 25

So this 800 number may have started out as a

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 73 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 119 of 149

DRK PHOTO v. WILEY & SONS

DANIEL KRASEMANN
Page 200

05:39

non-800 series, but we published it enough times that we

thought we better dupe it now or it may have come in duped

right away.

Q.

Are all of the 800 series duplicate?

A.

The 800's should be duplicates.

Q.

Looking --

A.

Not duplicates.

The 800 originals have at some

pointed been duplicated, whether it was from the day into

the collection or years later.

05:40 10

Q.

To make the record clear and see if I understand

11

it, if a photo in your collection bears the image number

12

that begins with the 800's, that is an image for which a

13

dupe has been made whether or not any given copying is the

14

dupe, but a dupe has been made?

05:40 15
16
17

A.

Yes.

Those that are 800's, DRK had duplicates

made of.
Q.

When a dupe is made, is a preexisting image

18

number that had been assigned to that photo when it was

19

not duped now replaced with an 800 series number?

05:41 20

A.

Yes, it is.

We have a convert database that's

21

fairly accurate where I try to enter the old number and

22

the new number.

23

I did that.

24
05:41 25

I don't know why and -- I don't know why

We needed to know -- I guess I do know that


because we needed to know the old number so I could go

BARTELT and KENYON


(602) 254-4111

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 74 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 120 of 149

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 75 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 121 of 149

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 76 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 122 of 149

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 77 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 123 of 149

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 78 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 124 of 149

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 79 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-3

Filed 05/23/13 Page 125 of 149

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 80 of 177

DRK Photo v. McGraw-Hill Global Educational Holdings, LLC


and McGraw-Hill School Educational Holdings, LLC,
Case No. 3:12-CV-08093 (PGR)

Exhibit MB2
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL BEYLKIN IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 81 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-1

Filed 05/23/13 Page 29 of 58



#(."/(#.-..-#-.,#.)/,.
 ),."#-.,#.) )&),)


.1))

*A6>CI>;;

KH >K>A8I>DC(D
 
0

'
(
")/!".)('# &#(",)/,.
*/&#-"#(!)'*(3 6C9, ,
)((&&3-)(-)'*(3

:;:C96CIH
 



*)-#.#)()
(%,-'(

:8:B7:G  
 E B

 
 6HI6B:A768@,D69

-8DIIH96A: G>ODC6

'5.Y:LOH\$$$

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 82 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-1

Filed 05/23/13 Page 30 of 58

'N7GDI=:GL6H6EGD;:HH>DC6AE=DID<G6E=:G6I
 I=6IED>CI EG>DGID HD#L6H6L6G:D;=>H9D>C<
7JH>C:HHL>I=K6G>DJHEJ7A>H=:GH
+1=6IHNDJG7GDI=:GHC6B:
-I:E=:C$ %G6H:B6C
+:H>9:H9>H8JHH>DCHL>I=NDJG7GDI=:G 9>9NDJ
=6K:6CNDI=:G8DCC:8I>DCIDI=:>C9JHIGN
(DIG:6AAN CD
+*G>DGID;DJC9>C<,% =69NDJ:K:GLDG@:9>C
EJ7A>H=>C<
(D
 +"69NDJ:K:GLDG@:9>C6CN>C9JHIGNL=:G:NDJ
9:6AIL>I=6CNHDGID;A>8:CH>C<
(D
+-D=DL9>9NDJ8DB:67DJI

=DL9>9NDJ9:8>9:
ID;DJC9,%*=DID
#L6HA6>9D;;;GDB6?D7 'N7GDI=:G -I:E=:C



L6H7:8DB>C<K:GN7JHNL>I=6HH><CB:CIH;DGK6G>DJH
EJ7A>H=:GH6C98DJA9CDI=6C9A:I=:HID8@E=DIDG:FJ:HIH

'5.Y:LOH\$$$

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 83 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-1

Filed 05/23/13 Page 31 of 58

-D6AAD;=>HEG:K>DJHLDG@L6HCDI<D>C<6CNL=:G:7:86JH:
L=:CEJ7A>H=:GHC::9:9>B6<:HD; H6N 6BDDH: I=:N
8DJA9CIG:68==>B7:86JH:=:L6HD;;>CI=:G8I>8;DG
6HH><CB:CI;DGHDB:DC::AH: -D=:L6CI:9HDB:DC:I=6I
8DJA9;>:A9I=DH:E=DC:86AAH <:II=:E>8IJG:HDJI I=:
HID8@E>8IJG:H=:=698DAA:8I:9;GDBEG:K>DJH6HH><CB:CIH
DJIIDEJ7A>H=:GH 6C99:6AL>I=<G6CI>C<A>8:CH:H6C9
 >CKD>8>C<6C9I=>C<H=:8DJA9CI9D7:86JH:=:L6HDCI=:
GD69
+1=:CNDJ;DJC9:9,%*=DID 9>9NDJ;DGB>I6H6
8:GI6>CINE:D;7JH>C:HH:CI>IN
(D #IH6HDA:EGDEG>:IDGH=>E
+)@6N C9>IHHI>AA6HDA:EGDEG>:IDGH=>E
ID96N
3:H
+)@6N #I=>C@NDJHI6GI:9DCI=>H6A>IIA:7>I
7JI8DJA9NDJ<>K:B:?JHI67G>:;HNCDEH>HD;L=6II=:
 7JH>C:HHD;,%*=DID>H
1:B6G@:IDI=:GE=DID<G6E=:GHH>B6<:HID
EJ7A>H=:GH>CC::9D;>B6<:H
+)@6N C9I=:H:DI=:GE=DID<G6E=:GH L=D6G:
I=:N
1:=6K:

L:AA L:=6K:6=JC9G:9 #86CI

'5.Y:LOH\$$$

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 84 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-1

Filed 05/23/13 Page 32 of 58



G:86AA6AAI=:>GC6B:H
+"DL9D:H6E=DID<G6E=:G8DB:ID7:6HHD8>6I:9
L>I=NDJ
.=:N6EEGD68=JH

INE>86AAN I=:N6EEGD68=:9JH
ID6H@>;L:LDJA9

NDJ@CDL I=:N6EEGD68=JH 6H@>C<


>;L:G:>CI:G:HI:9>CB6G@:I>C<I=:>GLDG@ G:EG:H:CI>C<
I=:>GLDG@
+DNDJ=6K:68:GI6>CHE:8>6AINC9L=:C#H6N
NDJ #BG:;:GG>C<ID,%*=DID
 #;#=69IDH6NL:=696HE:8>6AIN >I7:<6C DJG
;DGI: L6HL>A9A>;:6C9C6IJG6A=>HIDGN #IH7GD69:C:9
8DCH>9:G67AN;GDBI=::6GAN96NH
+1=:CNDJH6NI=6II=:E=DID<G6E=:GH6EEGD68=NDJ
9DNDJB6@:6CN:;;DGIIDHDA>8>IE=DID<G6E=:GH
#CI=:7:<>CC>C< L:9>9CDI>8:E6GI>8JA6GAN
I6A:CI:9LDG@>CB6<6O>C:H6C9IGNIDIG68@9DLCI=DH:
E=DID<G6E=:GH6C96H@I=:B>;I=:N=69>CI:G:HI>C
699>I>DC6AG:EG:H:CI6I>DC DG DNDJ=6K:
G:EG:H:CI6I>DC1DJA9NDJ7:>CI:G:HI:9>C,%*=DID

'5.Y:LOH\$$$

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 85 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-1

Filed 05/23/13 Page 33 of 58

 G:EG:H:CI>C<NDJGLDG@
)I=:GE=DID<G6E=:GHH6LJHI=GDJ<=E=DID
8G:9>IH L=>8=6G:INE>86AAN>CB6<6O>C:H6C97DD@H 6C9
8DCI68I:9JH 1:9>9CI@CDLL=DI=:NL:G: .=:N86B:
DJID;I=:7AJ:IDJH C9L:LDJA98DCH>9:GI=:>GLDG@
C9>;>IB:H=:9L:AAL>I=DJG8DAA:8I>DC6C9L6H<DD9



:CDJ<=FJ6A>IN L:LDJA9688:EII=:>GLDG@
+#I=>C@#JC9:GHI6C9 -DNDJG:H6N>C<I=6I>;
HDB:DC:L6HG:69>C<6B6<6O>C:I=6II=:NA>@:96C9I=:N
H6L6E=DIDI=6II=:NA>@:96C9I=:NH6L !:: ,%*=DID
<DII=>HE=DID<G6E=:GHLDG@>C=:G: '6N7:#L6CIID
LDG@L>I=,%*=DID #HI=6IHDGID;L=6INDJG:

C9NDJAA=:6GI=:8DBB:CI

I=:NAA7:ADD@>C<
I=GDJ<=6B6<6O>C:6C9H::6E>8IJG:D;67:6JI>;JA
L6I:G;6AA 6C9I=:NAAH6N !:: #K:<DI?JHI6H<DD9D;
 E>8IJG:H -DB6N7:#8DJA9B6@:HDB:BDC:NL>I=B>C:
-::>;I=:NG:>CI:G:HI:9>C699>C<B>C:IDI=:>G
8DAA:8I>DC 
+)@6N 1=6I9DNDJ86AAI=6I

?JHIHD#B

'5.Y:LOH\$$$

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 86 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-1

Filed 05/23/13 Page 34 of 58

<:II>C<I=:I:GB>CDAD<NG><=I>CI=:H:FJ:HI>DCH L=6I9D
NDJ86AA,%H8DAA:8I>DCD;E=DID<G6E=H
8DAA:8I>DC
+3DJ86AA>I68DAA:8I>DC
-JG:
+.=:E=DID<G6E=HI=6I6G:>C,%HE=DID
 8DAA:8I>DC 9DNDJ=DA98DENG><=IHDC6CND;I=DH:LDG@H
DL:=DA98DENG><=IHDC6CND;I=:B
+,><=I
D:HI=6IB:6C =6K:L:G:<>HI:G:96CND;I=:B
+(D #B:6C L=DDLCHI=:8DENG><=IHIDI=:
E=DIDH>CNDJG8DAA:8I>DC



.NE>86AAN I=:E=DID<G6E=:GHG:I6>CHI=:
8DENG><=I 1:G:B6G@:I>C<=>H8DENG><=I:9LDG@;DG=>B
DG=:G
+H=>H6<:CI
3:H 6H6HID8@E=DID6<:CIG:EG:H:CI6I>K:
+-D,%*=DID9D:HCI=DA96CN8DENG><=IH>HI=6I
G><=I

'5.Y:LOH\$$$

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 87 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-1

Filed 05/23/13 Page 35 of 58

1:9D
+1=6I8DENG><=IH9DNDJ=DA9
 1:=6K: >CI=:E6HI E=DID<G6E=:GH

I=:G:H
E=DID<G6E=:GH DC:L=D=6HHDA9JH>CI:G:HI>C=:G
>B6<:H

=:G>B6<:H L=>8==6H7::CG:<>HI:G:9 #<J:HH


I=6IB><=I7:>I
+)@6N
', -#'(G:NDJ>C8AJ9>C<6HH><CB:CIH
', ,-1&&#BG:;:GG>C<ID?JHIDLC:GH=>ED;
8DENG><=IHG><=ICDL
', -#'()LC:GH=>E7N6HH><CB:CI#?JHI
L6CIIDB6@:HJG:=:<>K:HNDJ6C688JG6I: 8DBEG:=:CH>K:
 6CHL:G
3', ,-1&&
+-JG: &:IB:6H@I=6IFJ:HI>DCC:MI &:IB:
;DAADLJE
1=DH:>B6<:L6HI=6II=6INDJH6>9I=6I
NDJ



":GC6B:>H:A>C961G><=I

'5.Y:LOH\$$$

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 88 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-1

Filed 05/23/13 Page 36 of 58

D;I=>C<HLDJA97:EG>CI:9
)@6N #7:A>:K:>IHIGJ8@B:6H6
G:A6I>K:ANADLCJB7:G 8DCH>9:G>C<I=:NL:G:EJ7A>H=>C<
7DI=C<A>H=6C9-E6C>H=A6C<J6<:8DE>:H #I>C8AJ9:9
7DI=I=:EJE>A:9>I>DC6C9I=:I:68=:G:9>I>DC 6C9B>CDG
G:K>H>DCH9:;>C:96H E:G8:CIDGA:HH8=6C<:D;8DCI:CI
;DG;>K:N:6GH>CIDI=:;JIJG: #IH::B:9A>@:6C
67CDGB6AADLCJB7:GL=:C#L6HI=>C@>C<67DJI6AAI=DH:
 9>;;:G:CIK6G>6I>DCH6C9G:K>H:9:9>I>DCH>C8AJ9:9 #;
>IH<D>C<ID6A>;DGC>6 I=:C>ILDJA9DCAN7:
+"DLB6CNHIJ9:CIH9DNDJI=>C@I=:G:6G:>C
6A>;DGC>6
#=6K:CD>9:6 #?JHI@CDL>IH6K:GNA6G<:
HI6I: #9DCIG:H:6G8=HIJ9:CIEDEJA6I>DCH>C9>;;:G:CI
HI6I:H
+1=6IFJ6A>;>:H6H6C6L;JAADI
1:AA I=:G:HB>AA>DCHD;E:DEA:>C6A>;DGC>6
+#B?JHI8JG>DJH6HIDI=:76H>HDCL=>8=I=:
   8DE>:HE:6@:9NDJG>CI:G:HI
#I=>C@>IL6H7:86JH:>IL6H6A>;DGC>6
6A>;DGC>66C9 ADG>96 6H#JC9:GHI6C9 6G:K:GNA6G<:
B6G@:IH;DGI:MI7DD@H C96A>;DGC>6>HA6G<: 6C9I=>H
>H6C6<<G:<6I:CJB7:GD;8DE>:H -DI=>H>C8AJ9:H6AA

'5.Y:LOH\$$$

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 89 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-1

Filed 05/23/13 Page 37 of 58

C<A>H=A6C<J6<:8DE>:HEG>CI:9 6AA-E6C>H=A6C<J6<:

 

8DE>:HEG>CI:9D;I=:<G69:DC:>C  EAJH:9>I>DC>C
L=6I:K:GN:6G EAJH:9>I>DC 7:86JH:#BI=GDL>C<>C
B>CDGG:K>H>DCH;DG;>K:N:6GH .=:G:LDJA97:6IA:6HI
DC:B>CDGG:K>H>DC;DG6;>K:
N:6GE:G>D9 -D8JII=6I
;><JG:>C=6A;I=:C ;><JG>C<DC:IL:CIN
;>K:;DG:9>I>DC
6C9 ;DG:9>I>DC  8DE>:H?JHIH::BH
K:GNADL8DCH>9:G>C<I=:NG:EG>CI>C<7DI=C<A>H=
A6C<J6<:8DE>:HIDH6I>H;N6A>;DGC>6
+)@6N AAG><=I 1:G:9DC:L>I=I=6I9D8JB:CI
 1=6I9>9NDJ9DIDEG:E6G:;DGI=>H
9:EDH>I>DC
#FJ>8@ANG:K>:L:9I=:9D8JB:CIHI=6INDJ

6AA

EAJHI=6INDJ=69H:CIID8DJCH:A
+>9NDJADD@6I6CNDI=:G9D8JB:CIHIDEG:E6G:
;DGI=:9:EDH>I>DC
(D #=69IGDJ7A:ADD@>C<6I

I=:I>B:
8DCHIG6>CIH

ADD@>C<6II=:H:
+>9NDJ9D6CNI=>C<:AH:IDEG:E6G:;DGNDJG

'5.Y:LOH\$$$

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 90 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-1

Filed 05/23/13 Page 38 of 58

9:EDH>I>DC
 -J8=6H
', -#'(3DJG:CDI6AADL:9ID6H@
FJ:HI>DCH -D#D7?:8IIDBN8A>:CI6H@>C<FJ:HI>DCH
."1#.(--(D (D
3', ,-1&&
+#BCDIJC9:GD6I= #86CII:AANDJ6CNI=>C<

 

(D I=:G:L6HCDI=>C<:AH: #9DCI=6K::MIG6


I>B:ID9DI=>C<H HD#?JHIADD@:96IL=6INDJH:CI
+DNDJ@CDL.:91DD9
(D #9DCI
+DNDJ@CDL6CNDC:6AHDL=D=6H8A6>BHE:C9>C<
6<6>CHI"DJ<=IDC'>;;A>C
#7:A>:K:DC:D;DJGE=DID<G6E=:GHB6N .DB
::C: #@CDL=:H<DIHDB:I=>C<<D>C<L>I=6EJ7A>H=:G
#9DCI@CDLL=D>I>H
 +"DL9DNDJ@CDL.DB::C:
":H7::CL>I=JH;DGB6CN B6CNN:6GH 1:
G:EG:H:CI6EDGI>DCD;=>H8DAA:8I>DC

'5.Y:LOH\$$$

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 91 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-1

Filed 05/23/13 Page 39 of 58

+#H=:6E:GHDC6A;G>:C9D;NDJGH
#8DCH>9:G=>B6;G>:C9 #=6K:CI

#=6K:CI
H::C=>B>C;>K:N:6GH #8DCH>9:G6AADJGE=DID<G6E=:GH
;G>:C9H
+"6K:NDJ8DCI:BEA6I:98A6>BH6<6>CHI"DJ<=IDC
#K:H>BEANL6CI:9ID<:IHDB:EG>CIGJC;><JG:H
;GDB"DJ<=IDC
 +"6K:NDJ8DCI:BEA6I:98A6>BH
#K:8DCI:BEA6I:98A6>BH H=DJA9#CDI7:
EGDK>9:9L>I=>C;DGB6I>DC#B6H@>C<;DG >;I=6IHL=6I
>IG:FJ>G:HIDD7I6>CI=6I>C;DGB6I>DC
+"6K:NDJG:I6>C:98DJCH:A
#=6K:8DJCH:A

 

+)@6N
3:H
+"DL9>9NDJ8DB:ID7:6L>IC:HH>C'G 1DD9H
86H:
#7:A>:K:8DJCH:AB:CI>DC:9I=:86H:6C96H@:9>;
#LDJA9>CEJIBN@CDLA:9<:D;I=:A>8:CH>C<>C9JHIGN

'5.Y:LOH\$$$

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 92 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-1

Filed 05/23/13 Page 40 of 58

', -#'(#B<D>C<IDD7?:8IID6CN;JGI=:G
>CFJ>G>:H7:NDC9I=:6CHL:GI=6IH?JHI7::C<>K:C6H
EG>K>A:<:9
 ', ,-1&&&:IB:6H@I=:FJ:HI>DC #I=>C@
#86C6H@6CDCEG>K>A:<:9FJ:HI>DC=:G:
.=:>CFJ>GNI=6INDJ?JHI9:H8G>7:967DJI
L=:I=:GNDJLDJA97:6L>IC:HH L6HI=6IEG>DGIDNDJ
=6K>C<IDG:I6>C8DJCH:A
."1#.(--16H>IEG>DGIDBNG:I6>C>C<D;
8DJCH:A
3', ,-1&&
+DGG:8I
.=:8DCK:GH6I>DCG:<6G9>C<.:91DD9L6H

 +DGG:8I


ADC<6;I:G #G:86AA>I7:>C<ADC<6;I:G#
G:I6>C:98DJCH:A
+)@6N DNDJ=6K:6<:C:G6AJC9:GHI6C9>C<D;I=:
8A6>BHI=6I6G:6I>HHJ:>C'G 1DD9H86H:
#=6K:6<:C:G6AJC9:GHI6C9>C< #I=DJ<=I#9>9

 

'5.Y:LOH\$$$

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 93 of 177

Case 1:11-cv-05454-GBD-KNF Document 54-1

Filed 05/23/13 Page 41 of 58

I=6II=:G:L6HHDB:DK:GGJC<D>C<DC6C9'G 1DD9D7?:8IH
ID>I
+DNDJ=6K:6CJC9:GHI6C9>C<D;=DLI=:;68IH
JC9:GAN>C<'G 1DD9H8A6>BHB><=I8DBE6G:ID;68IH>C
NDJGDLCA>8:CH>C<EG68I>8:H
#@CDLC:MIIDCDI=>C<D;'G 1DD9H86H:
+"6K:NDJH::CI=:A>8:CH:HI=6I'G 1DD9>HHJ:9
(D
+DNDJ=6K:6CNJC9:GHI6C9>C<D;L=6II=:I:GBH
 D;I=DH:A>8:CH:H6G:
(D CDI=>H
+DNDJI=>C@I=6II=>C<HI=6I=6EE:C:9>C
'G 1DD9H86H:B><=I6;;:8IEDI:CI>6A8A6>BHNDJ=6K:
6<6>CHI"DJ<=IDC
#HJHE:8II=:NB><=I #9DCI@CDL #BCDI6
A:<6AE:GHDC #LDJA9I=>C@'G 1DD9H8A6>BH6G:
JC>FJ:AN

B>C:6G:JC>FJ:IDB: JC>FJ:ID7DI=
', ,-1&&AAG><=I .=6IH6AA#=6K:
', -#'(#=6K:68DJEA:FJ:HI>DCH
 
2'#(.#)(
3', -#'(
+#;L:8DJA9 ADD@6IM=>7>I 'G %G6H:B6C >;

'5.Y:LOH\$$$

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 94 of 177

DRK Photo v. McGraw-Hill Global Educational Holdings, LLC


and McGraw-Hill School Educational Holdings, LLC,
Case No. 3:12-CV-08093 (PGR)

Exhibit MB3
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL BEYLKIN IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 95 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 96 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 97 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002243

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 98 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002244

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 99 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002252

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 100 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002253

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 101 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002254

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 102 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002271

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 103 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002272

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 104 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002280

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 105 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002281

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 106 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002282

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 107 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002283

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 108 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002328

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 109 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002329

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 110 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002330

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 111 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002331

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 112 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002332

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 113 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002337

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 114 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002338

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 115 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002339

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 116 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002340

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 117 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002360

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 118 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002361

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 119 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002383

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 120 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002384

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 121 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002385

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 122 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002386

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 123 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002387

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 124 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002388

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 125 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002392

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 126 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002393

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 127 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002394

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 128 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002395

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 129 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002411

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 130 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002412

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 131 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002413

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 132 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002418

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 133 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002419

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 134 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002424

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 135 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002425

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 136 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002426

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 137 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002427

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 138 of 177

DRK Photo v. McGraw-Hill Global Educational Holdings, LLC


and McGraw-Hill School Educational Holdings, LLC,
Case No. 3:12-CV-08093 (PGR)

Exhibit MB4
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL BEYLKIN IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 139 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002357

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 140 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002358

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 141 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002359

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 142 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002372

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 143 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002373

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 144 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002374

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 145 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002381

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 146 of 177

CONFIDENTIAL

DRK v. McGraw 002382

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 147 of 177

DRK Photo v. McGraw-Hill Global Educational Holdings, LLC


and McGraw-Hill School Educational Holdings, LLC,
Case No. 3:12-CV-08093 (PGR)

Exhibit MB5
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL BEYLKIN IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 148 of 177

1
2
3
4
5
6

Christopher Seidman (CO-7816)


Harmon & Seidman LLC
101 S. Third Street, Suite 265
Grand Junction, CO 81501
Tel: 970.245.9075
Fax: 970.245.8086
chris@harmonseidman.com

10

Amanda Bruss (CA-246249)


Harmon & Seidman LLC
12354 East Bates Circle
Aurora CO 80014
Telephone: 415.271.5754
Fax: 970.245.8086
amanda@harmonseidman.com

11

Attorneys for Plaintiff DRK Photo

7
8
9

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

14
15

DRK Photo, a sole proprietorship,

16
17

Plaintiff,
v.

18

The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.


19 and John Doe Printers 1-10,
20

No. 3:12-cv-08093-PGR
PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANT THE MCGRAW-HILL
COMPANIES, INC.S FIRST
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS

Defendants.

21
22

Pursuant to Rules 26 and 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

23

Plaintiff DRK Photo (DRK), hereby provides its Objections and Responses to the

24

First Requests for Admissions (Requests) propounded by Defendant The McGraw-

25

Hill Companies, Inc. (McGraw).

26

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 149 of 177

1
2

insufficient to enable Plaintiff to admit or deny this request.


8.

Admit that subsequent to the execution of the Agency Agreement between

DRK and Johnny Johnson, attached hereto as Exhibit H, Johnny Johnson caused to be

licensed one or more photographs subject to such agreement to one or more third-parties,

and did not account to DRK with respect to the proceeds of such licensing.

RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving the General Objections above, this request

is admitted.

8
9

9.

Admit that at a time subsequent to the execution of Exhibit H, you have

deemed your Agency Agreement with Mr. Johnson to be a non-exclusive agency or

10

license.

11

RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request as calling for a legal conclusion, not an

12

admission of fact. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific

13

objections, while DRK has at all times considered itself the exclusive licensor of all of

14

the images Mr. Johnson submitted to DRK, DRK admits that it did not enforce the

15

exclusivity provision in the agreement between the parties. Mr. Johnson occasionally

16

submitted duplicate slides to DRK. Where Mr. Johnson submitted duplicates instead of

17

original slides to DRK Photo, Mr. Johnson may have offered those same duplicates for

18

licensing to third parties.

19

10.

Admit that subsequent to the execution of the Agency Agreement between

20

DRK and John Gerlach, attached hereto as Exhibit I, John Gerlach caused to be licensed

21

one or more photographs subject to such agreement to one or more third-parties, and did

22

not account to DRK with respect to the proceeds of such licensing.

23

RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving the General Objections above, this request

24

is denied.

25

11.

26

Admit that at a time subsequent to the execution of Exhibit I, you have

deemed your Agency Agreement with Mr. Gerlach to be a non-exclusive agency or

-6-

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 150 of 177

is denied.

25.

Admit that at a time subsequent to the execution of Exhibit P, you have

deemed your Agency Agreement with Mr. Lankinen to be a non-exclusive agency or

license.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this request as calling for a legal conclusion, not an

admission of fact. Subject to and without waiving the General Objections and specific

objections above, DRK denies this Request.

26.

Admit that DRK image no. 1S165068, a photograph by Doug Perrine,

registered pursuant to Certificate No. VAu530-479, was accepted into DRKs collection

10

and made available for licensing at a time during the period from August 1, 1992 through

11

September 30, 1992.

12

RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving the General Objections above, DRK

13

admits that Doug Perrine created image no. 1S165068, registered pursuant to Certificate

14

No. VAu530-479, and that DRK offered image no. 1S165068 for licensing between

15

August 1, 1992 and September 30, 1992. DRK denies the remainder of the request.

16

27.

Admit that said image no. 1S165068 was published at a time during the

17

period from March 1, 1994 through April 30, 1994.

18

RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving the General Objections above, this request

19

is admitted. Between March 1, 1994 and April 30, 1994, image no. 1S165068 was part

20

of DRKs collection and available for licensing to DRKs customers and potential

21

customers.

22

28.

Admit that DRK image no. 1S213821, a photograph by Doug Perrine,

23

registered pursuant to Certificate No. VAu556-895, was accepted into DRKs collection

24

and made available for licensing at a time during the period from March 1, 1994 through

25

April 30, 1994.

26

RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving the General Objections above, this request

- 10 -

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 151 of 177

1
2

is admitted.
29.

Admit that said image no. 1S213821 was published at a time during the

period from March 1, 1994 through April 30, 1994.

RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving the General Objections above, this request

is admitted.

30.

Admit that DRK image no. 1S219701, a photograph by Doug Perrine,

registered pursuant to Certificate No. VAu510-555, was accepted into DRKs collection

and made available for licensing at a time during the period from September 1, 1994

through October 31, 1994.

10

RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving the General Objections above, this request

11

is admitted.

12

31.

Admit that said image no. 1S219701 was published at a time during the

13

period from March 1, 1994 through April 30, 1994.

14

RESPONSE: Subject to and without waiving the General Objections above, this request

15

is admitted.

16

Dated: September 26, 2013

17

Plaintiff, DRK Photo,


by its attorneys,

18
19

/s Amanda L. Bruss
Amanda L. Bruss
Harmon & Seidman LLC
12354 East Bates Circle
Aurora, CO 80014
amanda@harmonseidman.com

20
21
22
23

Christopher Seidman
Harmon & Seidman LLC
101 South Third Street, Suite 265
Grand Junction, CO 81501
chris@harmonseidman.com

24
25
26

- 11 -

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 152 of 177

DRK Photo v. McGraw-Hill Global Educational Holdings, LLC


and McGraw-Hill School Educational Holdings, LLC,
Case No. 3:12-CV-08093 (PGR)

Exhibit MB6
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL BEYLKIN IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 153 of 177


PhotoCopyrightLitigation
by
HarmonSeidman
(asofJan.21,2014)

Attorney

Court

DatedFiled

DateClosed

CaseNo

Harmon,MauriceJ.
Harmon,MauriceJ.
Harmon,MauriceJames
Harmon,MauriceJames
Harmon,MauriceJames
Harmon,MauriceJames
Seidman,Christopher
Harmon,MauriceJ.
Harmon,MauriceJames
Seidman,Christopher
Harmon,MauriceJ.
Seidman,Christopher
Seidman,Christopher
Seidman,Christopher

akdce
akdce
azdce
azdce
azdce
azdce
azdce
ilndce
codce
ilndce
ilndce
candce
candce
candce

3/26/2009
8/12/2011
2/25/2011
2/22/2010
7/26/2007
2/23/2011
1/4/2012
10/31/2012
6/11/2007
3/28/2006
8/28/2006
6/25/2013
5/20/2013
7/25/2011

9/22/2010 3:2009cv00061
3:2011cv00162
9/24/2013 3:2011cv08030
8/10/2010 3:2010cv08034
1/20/2010 3:2007cv08063
5/30/2012 3:2011cv08028
5/30/2012 3:2012cv08001
1:2012cv08715
11/23/2009 1:2007cv01220
3/10/2008 1:2006cv01701
12/22/2009 1:2006cv04645
3:2013cv02923
3:2013cv02291
3/21/2013 5:2011cv03640

HARMON,MAURICE
HARMON,MAURICE
HARMON,MAURICE
Harmon,MauriceJ.
Harmon,MauriceJames
Seidman,Christopher
Seidman,Christopher
Harmon,MauriceJames
Seidman,Christopher
Harmon,MauriceJames

paedce
paedce
paedce
ilndce
azdce
nysdce
azdce
azdce
azdce
azdce

6/24/2010
10/21/2011
2/24/2011
6/27/2006
12/14/2009
6/11/2012
8/25/2011
4/15/2011
5/15/2012
6/27/2011

10/25/2010 2:2010cv03069
2:2011cv06600
4/17/2013 2:2011cv01302
5/5/2008 1:2006cv03484
1/7/2011 3:2009cv08225
1:2012cv04538
6/8/2012 3:2011cv08133
7/12/2011 3:2011cv08059
3:2012cv08093
3:2011cv08097

HARMON,MAURICE
Harmon,MauriceJ.
Harmon,MauriceJ.
Harmon,MauriceJ.
Harmon,MauriceJ.

paedce
ilndce
ilndce
ilndce
ilndce

7/20/2010
10/22/2010
4/25/2011
9/19/2012
8/5/2011

9/22/2010 2:2010cv03555
4/14/2011 1:2010cv06807
1:2011cv02727
1:2012cv07516
1:2011cv05319

HARMON,MAURICE

paedce

4/18/2012

5:2012cv02061

HARMON,MAURICE

paedce

2/9/2010

11/29/2010 5:2010cv00584

HARMON,MAURICE

paedce

3/8/2011

12/5/2013 5:2011cv01665

HARMON,MAURICE

paedce

11/10/2009

6/8/2010 5:2009cv05269

HARMON,MAURICE
Harmon,MauriceJames
Harmon,MauriceJames
Harmon,MauriceJames
Harmon,MauriceJames

paedce
codce
nysdce
nysdce
nysdce

7/22/2011
4/16/2008
5/4/2009
8/5/2011
8/5/2011

5/15/2013 5:2011cv04649
4/6/2010 1:2008cv00775
8/30/2010 1:2009cv04307
1:2011cv05454
11/3/2011 1:2011cv05453

HARMON,MAURICE

paedce

5/1/2013

2:2013cv02378

Harmon,MauriceJames

nysdce

3/13/2013

4/10/2013 1:2013cv01696

HARMON,MAURICE

paedce

1/7/2013

2:2013cv00078

JONFEINGERSHPHOTOGRAPHY,INC.v.PEARSONEDUCATION,INC.etal

HARMON,MAURICE
Harmon,MauriceJames
Harmon,Maurice
Harmon,Maurice
HARMON,MAURICE
Harmon,MauriceJames
HARMON,MAURICE
HARMON,MAURICE
Seidman,Christopher
Harmon,MauriceJames
Harmon,Maurice
Harmon,MauriceJames
Harmon,MauriceJames
Seidman,Christopher

paedce
codce
madce
madce
paedce
nysdce
nysdce
paedce
candce
codce
madce
codce
nysdce
nysdce

8/10/2011
10/1/2007
4/15/2008
4/5/2012
4/1/2013
9/12/2013
7/19/2013
4/1/2013
2/2/2012
1/25/2006
6/14/2006
1/12/2006
2/1/2006
6/21/2013

4/26/2012 2:2011cv05122
5/30/2008 1:2007cv02055
4/21/2009 1:2008cv10645
1:2012cv10614
8/13/2013 2:2013cv01662
1:2013cv06414
1:2013cv05023
6/19/2013 2:2013cv01661
12/18/2012 3:2012cv00535
6/23/2006 1:2006cv00132
8/10/2006 1:2006cv11047
3/7/2007 1:2006cv00056
5/22/2006 1:2006cv00765
1:2013cv04338

JONFEINGERSHPHOTOGRAPHY,INC.v.PEARSONEDUCATION,INC.etal
Krakauerv.HoughtonMifflinCompanyetal
Larrazv.HoughtonMifflinHarcourtPublishingCompanyetal
Lefkowitzv.HoughtonMifflinHarcourt
LEFKOWITZv.JOHNWILEY&SONS,INC.
Lefkowitzv.JohnWiley&Sons,Inc.
LEFKOWITZv.THEMCGRAWHILLCOMPANIES,INC.
LEFKOWITZv.THEMCGRAWHILLCOMPANIES,INC.
Lewinev.HoughtonMifflinHarcourtPublishingCompanyetal
Maiselv.ArchCoalInc.
Maiselv.DaCapoPress,LLC
Maiselv.McDougalLittell
Maiselv.McDougalLittell
McGrawHillSchoolEducationHoldings,LLCetalv.Lewine

Seidman,Christopher
Seidman,Christopher
Seidman,Christopher
Seidman,Christopher
Seidman,Christopher
Seidman,Christopher

candce
candce
candce
candce
candce
cacdce

7/22/2010
11/7/2011
9/4/2012
7/12/2013
7/11/2012
8/2/2012

1/21/2011 3:2010cv03212
3/5/2013 3:2011cv05385
3:2012cv04601
3:2013cv03246
7/31/2012 4:2012cv03631
8/14/2012 2:2012cv06672

Harmon,MauriceJames
Harmon,MauriceJames

nysdce
nysdce

3/23/2009
10/5/2012

1:2009cv02669
1:2012cv07502

Page1of2

CaseTitle
AlaskaStock,LLCv.HoughtonMifflinHarcourtPublishingCompanyetal
AlaskaStock,LLCv.PearsonEducation,Inc
Beanetalv.PearsonEducationIncorporated
BeanvHoughtonMifflinHarcourtPublishingCompany
Beanv.HoughtonMifflinHarcourtPublishingCompanyetal
Beanv.JohnWiley&SonsIncorporated
Beanv.JohnWiley&SonsIncorporated
Beasleyv.JohnWiley&Sons,Inc.
Beidlemanv.HoughtonMifflinHarcourtPublishingCompany,etal
Beidlemanv.McDougalLittellInc
Bergtv.McDougalLittelletal
Cliftonv.JohnWiley&Sons,Inc.
Cliftonv.MacmillianPublishersLtd.
Cliftonv.PearsonEducation,Incetal
DEGGINGERetalv.HOUGHTONMIFFLINHARCOURTPUBLISHING
COMPANYetal
DEGGINGERetalv.JOHNWILEY&SONS,INC.etal
DEGGINGERetalv.PEARSONEDUCATION,INC.etal
DeVoreFamilyPartnershipLLPv.McDougalLittelletal
DRKPhotov.HoughtonMifflinHarcourtPublishingCompany,etal
DRKPhotov.JohnWiley&SonsIncorporatedetal
DRKPhotov.JohnWiley&SonsIncorporatedetal
DRKPhotov.McGrawHillCompaniesIncorporated
DRKPhotov.McGrawHillGlobalEducationHoldingsLLCetal
DRKPhotov.PearsonEducationIncorporatedetal
FRERCKv.HOUGHTONMIFFLINHARCOURTPUBLISHINGCOMPANYetal
Frerckv.HoughtonMifflinHarcourtPublishingCompanyetal
Frerckv.JohnWiley&Sons,Inc.
Frerckv.McGrawHillCompanies,Inc.,The
Frerckv.PearsonEducation,Inc.
GRANTHEILMANPHOTOGRAPHY,INC.v.THEMCGRAWHILLCOMPANIES,
INC.etal
GRANTHEILMANPHOTOGRAPHY,INC.,etalv.HOUGHTONMIFFLIN
HARCOURTPUBLISHINGCOMPANYetal
GRANTHEILMANPHOTOGRAPHY,INC.,etalv.JOHNWILEY&SONS,INC.et
al
GRANTHEILMANPHOTOGRAPHY,INC.,v.AMERICA'SGARDENING
RESOURCE,INC.,
GRANTHEILMANPHOTOGRAPHY,INC.,v.PEARSONEDUCATION,INC.etal
Heilmanetalv.HoughtonMifflinHarcourtPublishingCompany
JohnWiley&Sons,Inc.v.Hiser
JohnWiley&Sons,Inc.,v.DRKPhoto
JohnWiley&Sons,Inc.,v.VisualsUnlimited,Inc.
JONFEINGERSHPHOTOGRAPHY,INC.v.HOUGHTONMIFFLINHARCOURT
PUBLISHINGCO.
JonFeingershPhotography,Inc.v.HoughtonMifflinHarcourtPublishing
Companyetal

MindenPictures,Incv.HoughtonMifflinHarcourtPublishingCompanyetal
MindenPictures,Incv.PearsonEducation,Inc.
MindenPictures,Inc.v.JohnWiley&Sons,Inc.
MindenPictures,Inc.v.JohnWiley&Sons,Inc.
MuenchPhotography,Inc.etalv.Barbey
MuenchPhotography,Inc.etalv.ThomasBarbey
MuenchPhotography,Inc.v.HoughtonMifflinHarcourtPublishingCompany
etal
MuenchPhotography,Inc.v.JohnWiley&Sons,Inc.

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 154 of 177


PhotoCopyrightLitigation
by
HarmonSeidman
(asofJan.21,2014)

Attorney
Seidman,Christopher
Seidman,Christopher
Harmon,MauriceJames
Seidman,Christopher
HARMON,MAURICE
Harmon,MauriceJ.
Harmon,MauriceJ.
Harmon,MauriceJ.
Harmon,MauriceJames
Harmon,MauriceJ.
Harmon,MauriceJames
Seidman,Christopher

Court
candce
candce
nysdce
candce
paedce
ilndce
ilndce
ilndce
nysdce
ilndce
codce
cacdce

DatedFiled
DateClosed
CaseNo
4/18/2012
12/2/2013 3:2012cv01927
8/23/2013
3:2013cv03937
8/29/2012
1:2012cv06595
5/15/2012
7/16/2012 3:2012cv02473
5/30/2008
12/11/2008 2:2008cv02540
12/17/2012
1:2012cv10003
12/11/2012
1:2012cv09881
12/12/2012
1:2012cv09918
6/8/2009
3/4/2010 1:2009cv05307
5/11/2006
8/11/2006 1:2006cv02638
6/27/2007
4/22/2010 1:2007cv01347
1/26/2009
9/28/2009 2:2009cv00595

Seidman,Christopher
Harmon,Maurice
Harmon,MauriceJ.
Harmon,MauriceJames
Harmon,MauriceJames
Harmon,Maurice
HARMON,MAURICE
HARMON,MAURICE

codce
madce
ilndce
nysdce
codce
tnedce
paedce
medce

11/29/2010
3/28/2008
1/10/2007
8/24/2007
11/18/2011
7/26/2007
11/11/2013
4/13/2012

5/13/2011 1:2010cv02902
3/17/2009 1:2008cv10526
6/6/2008 1:2007cv00194
10/21/2009 1:2007cv07496
5/29/2012 1:2011cv03012
6/12/2008 1:2007cv00181
2:2013cv06537
1/21/2013 2:2012cv00124

Harmon,MauriceJames

codce

5/11/2009

12/22/2009 1:2009cv01093

RefrigerationHardwareSupplyCorporationv.M&GGroupEnterprises,Inc.
RobertVavravHoughtonMifflinHarcourtetal
Sachav.McDougalLittelletal
Semerdjianv.McDougalLittelletal
Shullv.HoughtonMifflinHarcourtPublishingCompany
Shuptrinev.McDougalLittelletal
STEINMETZv.PEARSONEDUCATION,INC.
STOCKFOODAMERICAINCv.PEARSONEDUCATIONINCetal
ViestiAssociates,Inc.etalv.HoughtonMifflinHarcourtPublishingCompany
etal

Harmon,MauriceJames

codce

4/2/2009

12/22/2009 1:2009cv00743

ViestiAssociates,Inc.v.HoughtonMifflinHarcourtPublishingCompanyetal

Harmon,MauriceJames

codce

12/15/2009

10/27/2010 1:2009cv02933

ViestiAssociates,Inc.v.HoughtonMifflinHarcourtPublishingCompanyetal

Harmon,MauriceJames
Seidman,Christopher
Seidman,Christopher
Seidman,Christopher
Seidman,Christopher
Seidman,Christopher
Seidman,Christopher
Harmon,Maurice
HARMON,MAURICE
Harmon,MauriceJames
Harmon,MauriceJames

codce
codce
codce
codce
codce
codce
codce
nhdce
paedce
codce
azdce

7/29/2010
5/9/2011
3/16/2012
3/12/2009
6/28/2011
6/1/2012
8/23/2012
8/26/2011
9/28/2013
7/18/2007
4/4/2008

10/27/2010 1:2010cv01802
8/24/2012 1:2011cv01237
1:2012cv00668
7/24/2009 1:2009cv00534
1:2011cv01687
1:2012cv01431
1:2012cv02240
8/2/2012 1:2011cv00415
2:2013cv05681
2/6/2009 1:2007cv01516
12/4/2008 2:2008cv00658

ViestiAssociates,Inc.v.HoughtonMifflinHarcourtPublishingCompanyetal
ViestiAssociates,Inc.v.McGrawHillCompanies,Inc.,The
ViestiAssociates,Inc.v.McGrawHillGlobalEducationHoldings,LLC
ViestiAssociates,Inc.v.MorrisCommunicationsCompany,LLC
ViestiAssociates,Inc.v.PearsonEducation,Inc.
ViestiAssociates,Inc.v.PearsonEducation,Inc.
ViestiAssociates,Inc.v.PearsonEducation,Inc.
VisualsUnlimited,Inc.v.JohnWiley&Sons,Inc.etal
VISUALSUNLIMITED,INC.v.PEARSONEDUCATION,INC.
Woodv.R.R.Donnelley&SonsCompanyetal
Zhav.MBLofAmerica,Inc.etal

Page2of2

CaseTitle
MuenchPhotography,Inc.v.PearsonEducation,Inc.
MuenchPhotography,Inc.v.PearsonEducation,Inc.
MuenchPhotography,Inc.v.TheMcGrawHillCompanies,Inc.
MuenchPhotography,Inc.v.TheMcGrawHillCompanies,Inc.
MURPHYv.MATCOR,INC.
PanoramicStockImages,Ltd.v.JohnWiley&Sons,Inc.
PanoramicStockImages,Ltd.v.MHGEH,etal
PanoramicStockImages,Ltd.v.PearsonEducation,Inc.
Photoworkshop.com,Inc.etalv.Maisel
Poguev.McDougalLittelletal
Pricev.RandomHouse,Inc.
ProTourMemorabilia,LLCv.JulesAlexanderetal

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 155 of 177

DRK Photo v. McGraw-Hill Global Educational Holdings, LLC


and McGraw-Hill School Educational Holdings, LLC,
Case No. 3:12-CV-08093 (PGR)

Exhibit MB7
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL BEYLKIN IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 156 of 177

DRK v. McGraw 002066

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 157 of 177

DRK v. McGraw 002076

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 158 of 177

Copyright Assignment, Registl1ltion, and Accrued Causes of Action Agreement


The undersigned photographer, the sole owner of the copyrights in the undersigned's
images ("the Images") selected by DRK PHOTO ("DRK") and included in DRK's
collection, hereby grants to DRK an copyrights and complete legal title in the Images.
DRK agrees to reassign all copyrights and complete legal title back to the undersigned
immediately upon completion of the registration of the Images, as evidenced by DRK's
receipt of a Certificate of Registration from the United States Copyright Office for such
Images, and resolution of infringement claims brought by DRK relating to the Images.
The undersigned agrees and fully transfers all right, title and interest in any accrued or
later accrued claims, causes of action, choses in action--which is the personal right to
bring a ease-or lawsuits, brought to enforce copyrights in the Images, appointing and
permitting DRK to prosecute said accrued or later accrued claims, causes of action,
choses in action or lawsuits, as if it were the undersigned.
Any proceeds obtained by settlement or judgment for said claims shall, after deducting all
costs, expenses and attorney's fees, be divided and paid 50% for the undersigned and
50%forDRK.

The Undersigned:

)
)
)

DRKPHOTO:

bY:~Y~

Dan Krasemann, Owner


100 Starlight Way
Sedona, AZ 86351

Print Name

5. 7ft 5'1

Address: ('tiff

,..,-

.L. tV()

)
)
)
)
)
)

e jJ:>cN' {) 6'V

ce:(;

)
)

Phone:

},

,.

Email: ccr21lt(lJ.1

Date:

9er/X

~~.r63r.6'".,,
M

<1 " e $

7 /;'~/c;g

TI

'd)

p' 4~&&.0 /~

r=

)
)

DRK v. McGraw 002081

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 159 of 177

DRK v. McGraw 002092

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 160 of 177

Copyright Assignment. Registration. and Accrued Causes of Action Agreement


The undersigned photographer, the: sole owner of the copyrights in the undersigned's
images ("the Images") selected by DRK PHOTO ("DRK") and included in DRK's
collection, hereby grants to DRK all copyrights and complete legal title in the Images.
DRK agrees to reassign all copyrights and complete legal title back to the undersigned
immediately upon completion of the registration of the Images, as evidenced by DRK's
receipt of a Certificate of Registration from the United States Copyright Office for such
Images, and resolution of infringement claims brought by DRK relating to the Images.
The undersigned agrees and fully transfers all right, title and interest in any accrued or
later accrued claims, causes of action, choses in action-which is the personal right to
bring a case=or lawsuits, brought to enforce copyrights in the Images, appointing and
permitting DRK to prosecute said accrued or later accrued claims, causes of action,
choses in action or lawsuits, as if it were the undersigned.
Any proceeds obtained by settlement or judgment for said claims shall, after deducting all
costs, expenses and attorney's fees. be divided and paid 50% for the undersigned and
50%forDRK.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

The Undersigned:

~l
./~v/~
Signature

Print Name

DRKPHOTO:

bYO:Z-~
Dan Krasemann, Owner
100 Starlight Way
Sedona, AZ 86351

)
)
Phone:
Email:

715~6S:J-3/0(L
/n fa

<:! W/'/c/.'{,Ii!fIlryfiIIffJ, Q;..z


v

)
Date:

DRK v. McGraw 002097

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 161 of 177

Copyright Assignment, Registrati()fl, and Accrued Causes of Action Agreement


The undersigned photographer, tl~ sole owner of the copyrights in the undersigned's
images ("the Images") selected by DRK PHOTO ("DRK") and included in DRK's
collection, hereby grants to DRK all copyrighrs and complete legal title in the Images.
DRK agrees to reassign all copyrights and complete legal title back to the undersigned
immediately upon completion of the registration of the Images, as evidenced by DRK's
receipt of a Certificate of Registration from the United States Copyright Office for such
Images, and resolution of infringement claims brought by DRK relating to the Images.
The undersigned agrees and fully transfers all right, title and interest in any accrued or
later accrued claims, causes of action, choses in action--which is the personal right to
bring a case--or lawsuits, brought to enforce copyrights in the Images, appointing and
permitting DRK to prosecute said accrued or later accrued claims, causes of action,
choses in action or lawsuits, as if it were the undersigned.
Any proceeds obtained by settlement or judgment for said claims shall, after deducting all
costs, expenses and attorney's fees, be divided and paid 50% for the undersigned and
50% forDRK.

The Undersigned:

)
)

DRKPHOTO:

Si~~~:}~~

bY:~.:7~

I~JC1: J kC.)

t.- t 0 ~'AR..; }...if. ~

\A

]lIT _

Print Name

)
)

Dan Krasemann, Owner


100 Starlight Way
Sedona, AZ 86351

)
)
)

Address:

\}

f ~ '-~J h. It

P, l-t , P4T\ W}{


Phone:
Email:

j ,g"

N~

i~~J

)
)

0'71~~

~'L ,'II'c.....~

Yl\J..t. ClB 1L~f,

)
)
)

Date:

DRK v. McGraw 002145

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 162 of 177

Copyright Assignment, Registratiun, and Accrued Causes of Action Agreement


The undersigned photographer, the sole owner of the copyrights in the undersigned's
images ("the Images") selected by DRK PHOTO ("DRK") and included in DRK's
collection, hereby grants to DRK all copyrights and complete legal title in the Images.
DRK agrees to reassign all copyrights and complete legal title back to the undersigned
immediately upon completion of the registration of the Images, as evidenced by DRK's
receipt of a Certificate of Registration from the United States Copyright Office for such
Images, and resolution of infringement claims brought by DRK relating to the Images.
The undersigned agrees and fully transfers all right, title and interest in any accrued or
later accrued claims, causes of action. choses in action-which is the personal right to
bring a case+or lawsuits, brought to enforce copyrights in the Images, appointing and
permitting DRKto prosecute said accrued or later accrued claims, causes of action,
choses in action or lawsuits, as if it were the undersigned.
Any proceeds obtained by settlement or judgment for said claims shall, after deducting all
costs, expenses and attorney's fees, be divided and paid 50% for the undersigned and
50%forDRK.

;{2

rgned

___

--"----1..-_-\-'---.;:-

p.'".

Signature

I~k-T.

'''4
)

DRKPHOTO:

A2--~

by:_~
/__ L/
Dan Krasemann, Owner
100 Starlight Way
Sedona, AZ 86351

Print Name

Address:

1.3

r ~ I..L. Gn.b.tU~
I

~~I~T'WK/N~.

3' "I'

Phone: ~ 0 (
L
Email: &\A...o.&\AIE.C.CI

07(z...{

)
)

)
)
)

.~

)
)

Date:

DRK v. McGraw 002146

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 163 of 177

DRK002147
001503
DRK v. McGraw

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 164 of 177

Copyright Assignment, Registration,

and Accrued Causes of Action Agre:ement

The undersigned photographer, the sole owner of the copyrights in the undersigned's
images ("the Images") selected by DRK PHOTO ("DRK") and included in DRK's
collection, hereby grants to DRK all copyrights and complete legal title in the Images.
DRK agrees to reassign all copyrights and complete legal title back to the undersigned
immediately upon completion of the registration of the Images, as evidenced by DRK's
receipt of a Certificate of Registration from the United States Copyright Office for such
Images, and resolution of infringement claims brought by DRK relating to the Images.
The undersigned agrees and fully transfers all right, title and interest in any accrued or
later accrued claims, causes of action, choses in action-which is the personal right to
bring a case-or lawsuits, brought to enforce copyrights in the Images, appointing and
permitting DRK to prosecute said accrued or later accrued claims, causes of action,
choses in action or lawsuits, as if it were the undersigned.
Any proceeds obtained by settlement or judgment for said claims shall, after deducting all
costs, expenses and attorney' s fees, be divided and paid 50% for the undersigned and
50%forDRK.

ThQ~~
Signature

Print Name

Address:

L/t2h/ iJ G 7

&,.017~

Email:

DRKPHOTO:

bY:~Y~-'"
Dan Krasemann, Owner
100 Starlight Way
Sedona, AZ 86351

MI-~rIn )

S+: Lh~i- /~.sPhone:

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

~ /tJ - </(j. 2~J>C7

)
)
)

LI'VfSi;nerl j, P~5j:;z!ok 'l n~-r)

Date:

7-

I~-

cc?

DRK v. McGraw 002149

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 165 of 177

DRK v. McGraw 002159

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 166 of 177

Copyright Assignment, Registration, and Accrued Causes of Action Agreement


The undersigned photographer, the sole owner of the copyrights in the undersigned's
images ("the Images") selected by DRK PHOTO ("DRK") and included in DRK's
collection, hereby grants to DRK all copyrights and complete legal title in the Images.
DRK agrees to reassign all copyrights and complete legal title back to the undersigned
immediately upon completion of the registration of the Images, as evidenced by DRK's
receipt of a Certificate of Registration from the United States Copyright Office for such
Images, and resolution of infringement claims brought by DRK relating to the Images.
The undersigned agrees and fully transfers all right, title and interest in any accrued or
later accrued claims, causes of action, choses in action--which is the personal right to
bring a case--or lawsuits, brought to enforce copyrights in the Images, appointing and
permitting DRK to prosecute said accrued or later accrued claims, causes of action,
choses in action or lawsuits, as if it were the undersi gned.
Any proceeds obtained by settlement or judgment for said claims shall, after deducting all
costs, expenses and attorney's fees, be divided and paid 50% for the undersigned and
50% forDRK.

DRKPHOTO:

)
)
)
)

bY:~Y~

,1/1

/v C
j (

\0..

hue ( dJi.J r H..({Ar---

Print Name

Address:

I Sj r sC0tfJf1/1{2

et

Dan Krasemann, Owner


100 Starlight Way
Sedona, AZ 86351

)
)
)
)
)
"\
/

Date:

).

(6: f ocr

Date of Birth:
Citizenship:

It ( l f 1'1 6~
U -5

Domicile:
DRK v. McGraw 002160

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 167 of 177

Copyright Assignment,

Registration,

and Accrued Causes of Action Agreement

The undersigned photographer, the sole owner of the copyrights in the undersigned's
images ("the Images") selected by DRK PHOTO ("DRK") and included in DRK's
collection, hereby grants to DRK all copyrights and complete legal title in the Images.
DRK agrees to reassign all copyrights and complete legal title back to the undersigned
immediately upon completion of the registration of the Images, as evidenced by DRK's
receipt of a Certificate of Registration from the United States Copyright Office for such
Images, and resolution of infringement claims brought by DRK relating to the Images.
The undersigned agrees and fully transfers all right, title and interest in any accrued or
later accrued claims, causes of action, choses in action--which is the personal right to
bring a case--or lawsuits, brought to enforce copyrights in the Images, appointing and
permitting DRK to prosecute said accrued or later accrued claims, causes of action,
choses in action or lawsuits, as if it were the undersigned.
Any proceeds obtained by settlement or judgment for said claims shall, after deducting all
costs, expenses and attorney's fees, be divided and paid 50% for the undersigned and
50%forDRK.

The Undersigned:

DRKPHOTO:

)
)
)
)
)

~<~fUL'
SIgnature

/1/ cJtA t:ZL

)
)
)
)

EO e<. ,;:;& G--ER

Print Name

by: ~~
Dan Krasemann, Owner
100 Starlight Way
Sedona, AZ 86351

Address:

)
)

VVALe-~

Phone:

1.-.11 S~o"-'5{,J

53/ ~

c;}b a - 3 <:[ .2. ;},31 B

Email: INFoeI.1C~Ar()Rrc:Pflo7.OICoI1 )
)

Date:

'-30-08

DRK v. McGraw 002161

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 168 of 177

Copyright Assignment, Registration, and Accrued Causes of Action Agreemen!


The undersigned photographer, the sole owner of the copyrights in the undersigned's
images ("the Images") selected by DRK PHOTO ("DRK") and included in DRK's
collection, hereby grants to DRK all copyrights and complete legal title in the Images.
DRK agrees to reassign all copyrights and complete legal title back to the undersigned
immediately upon completion of the registration of the Images, as evidenced by DRK's
receipt of a Certificate of Registration from the United States Copyright Office for such
Images, and resolution of infringement claims brought by DRK relating to the Images.
The undersigned agrees and fully transfers all right, title and interest in any accrued or
later accrued claims, causes of action, chases in action--which is the personal right to
bring a case--or lawsuits, brought to enforce copyrights in the Images, appointing and
permitting DRK to prosecute said accrued or later accrued claims, causes of action,
choses in action or lawsuits, as if it were the undersigned.
Any proceeds obtained by settlement or judgment for said claims shall, after deducting all
costs, expenses and attorney's fees, be divided and paid 50% for the undersigned and
50% forDRK.

The Undersigned:

)
)

~~--

Signature

)
)
)
)
)

Print Name

DRKPHOTO:
by:

fl--~

Dan Krasemann, Owner


100 Starlight Way
Sedona, AZ 86351

Address:

:?'i'''~!?1JI.lIlA/12

W.l~

A~'9-tt:/ )

M"L5"~ t::LLie.

q,*qL
Phone:
qU
Email:

.b&l

._-

~t> - flJ.!I/

~ '~,,~

)
/:"',;:f}

"

'f'!

c: 'j

"';."y

CUW-rHAM-A\A'~S8c.:'''"''S*,.N~'7
Date:

8 ()C1"o6

.___

DRK v. McGraw 002166

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 169 of 177

DRK v. McGraw 002169

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 170 of 177

Copyrigbt

Assignment.

The undersigned

Registnltioll, and Accrued Causes of Action Agreement

photographer,

the sole owner of thecopyrights

in the undersigned's

images ("the Images") selected by DRK PHOTO ("DRK") and included in DRK's
collection, hereby grants to DRK all copyrights and complete legal title in the Images.
[)RK agrees to reassign all copyrights and complete legal title back to the undersigned
immediately upon completion of the registration of the Images, as evidenced by DRK's
receipt of a Certificate of Registration from the United States Copyright Office for such
Images, and resolution of infringement claims brought byD!~K relating to the Images.
v.

'-."

.'

'.

The undersigned Hgn:~CS and fully transfers all right, title and interest in any accrued or
later accrued claims, causes
action, choses in action=which is the personal right to
bring a case-sur lawsuits, brought to enforce copyrights in the Images, appointing and
. permitting DRK to prosecute said accrued or later accrued claims, causes of action,
choses in action or lawsuits, as if it were the undersigned.

or

Any proceeds obtained by settlement OJ' judgment for said claims shall, after deducting all
costs, expenses and attorney's fees, be divided and paid 50% for the undersigned and
50% for DRK,

..

The Undersigned:

)
)

DRKPHOTO:

/2-/?/~/.~~
bv:~'./
~
.. -.-~--~---~.-- ----.-.-.---~

)
)
)
)

...

Dan Krasemann, Owner

100 Starlight Way


Sedona, /\l 86351

)
)
)
)
Address;
)
.~:.1"" ."

~~~-"!

Phone: ;J\1j;'!

_ l\

Email: l~:i82_~<.L'-\
Sr

,:S 'ri,

'<,R, .

~l'rL;::n . c '\

j __

)
)
)

DRK v. McGraw 002174

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 171 of 177

Copyright Assignment, RegistJration, and Accrued Causes of Action Agreement


The undersigned photographer, the sole owner of the copyrights in the undersigned's
images ("the Images") selected by DRK PHOTO ("DRK") and included in DRK's
collection, hereby grants to DRK all copyrights and complete legal title in the Images.
DRK agrees to reassign all copyrights and complete legal title back to the undersigned
immediately upon completion of the registration of the Images, as evidenced by DRK's
receipt of a Certificate of Registration from the United States Copyright Office for such
Images, and resolution of infringement claims brought by DRK relating to the Images.
The undersigned agrees and fully transfers all right, title and interest in any accrued or
later accrued claims, causes of action, choses in action--which is the personal right to
bring a case--or lawsuits, brought to enforce copyrights in the Images, appointing and
permitting DRK to prosecute said accrued or later accrued claims, causes of action,
choses in action or lawsuits, as if it were the undersigned.
Any proceeds obtained by settlement or judgment for said claims shall, after deducting all
costs, expenses and attorney's fees, be divided and paid 50% for the undersigned and
50%forDRK.

The Undersigned:

Address:

y 917 .l- \20 :>26-: vJ

)
)

DRKPHOTO:

)
)
)

by:P~7~

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Dan Krasemann, Owner


100 Starlight Way
Sedona, AZ 86351

9L.ib"06-)
Phone:
Email:

go

I-

If 77 -?(K2...- I

tli)'nG~

)
)

Date:

I (.,..
, ..2 oc:J ?

DRK v. McGraw 002181

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 172 of 177

Copyright Assignment, Regisltratio11, and Accrued Causes of Action Agreement


The undersigned photographer, the sole owner of the copyrights in the undersigned's
images ("the Images") selected by DRK PHOTO ("DRK") and included in DRK's
collection, hereby grants to DRK all copyrights and complete legal title in the Images.
DRK agrees to reassign all copyrights and complete legal title back to the undersigned
immediately upon completion of the registration of the Images, as evidenced by DRK's
receipt of a Certificate of Registration from the United States Copyright Office for such
Images, and resolution of infringement claims brought by DRK relating to the Images.
The undersigned agrees and fully transfers all right, title and interest in any accrued or
later accrued claims, causes of action, choses in action--which is the personal right to
bring a case--or lawsuits, brought to enforce copyrights in the Images, appointing and
permitting DRK to prosecute said accrued or later accrued claims, causes of action,
choses in action or lawsuits, as if illwere the undersigned.
Any proceeds obtained by settlement or judgment for said claims shall, after deducting all
costs, expenses and attorney's fees, be divided and paid 50% for the undersigned and
50%forDRK.

The Undersigned:

)
)
)
)

)
)
)

DRKPHOTO:
by:

fl'~:.%~

Dan Krasemann, Owner


100 Starlight Way
Sedona, AZ 86351

)
)
)

)
)
)
)

ss 8'

'1;)S 3, l:, /
Phone: --~~~~~~~------Email: ~ ~ c.\

\Jd

;z. ; ft\,," e.-r--/'A~ @..

)
)

COMc-~t.r.e-'t )
Date:

7Jri()g:

DRK v. McGraw 002183

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 173 of 177

Copyri2ht Assi2nment, Re2istration, and Accrued Causes of Action


A2reement

The undersigned photographer, the sole owner of the copyrights in the


undersigned's images ("the Images") selected by DRK PHOTO ("DRK")
and included in DRK's collection, hereby grants to DRK all copyrights and
complete legal title in the Images. DRK agrees to reassign all copyrights and
complete legal title back to the undersigned immediately upon completion of
the registration of the Images, as evidenced by DRK's receipt of a Certificate
of Registration from the United States Copyright Office for such Images, and
resolution of infringement claims brought by DRK relating to the Images.
The undersigned agrees and fully transfers all right, title and interest in any
accrued or later accrued claims, causes of action, choses in action--which is
the personal right to bring a case--or lawsuits, brought to enforce copyrights
in the Images, appointing and permitting DRK to prosecute said accrued or
later accrued claims, causes of action, choses in action or lawsuits, as if it
were the undersigned.
Any proceeds obtained by settlement or judgment for said claims shall, after
deducting all costs, expenses and attorney's fees, be divided and paid 50%
for the undersigned and 50% for DRK.
The Undersigned:

) DRK PHOTO:

) a ~
)__ ~__ ~_~

-'

) by:_

DRK v. McGraw 002184

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 174 of 177

Copyright Assignment. Registraltion. and Accrued Causes of Action Agreement


The undersigned photographer, the sole owner of the copyrights in the undersigned's
linages ("the Images") selected by DRK PHOTO ("DRK") and included in DRK's
collection, hereby grants to DRK all copyrights and complete legal title in the Images.
DRK agrees to reassign all copyrights and complete legal title back to the undersigned
immediately upon completion of the registration of the Images, as evidenced by DRK's
receipt of a Certificate of Registration from the United States Copyright Office for such
Images, and resolution of infringement claims brought by DRK relating to the Images.
The undersigned agrees and fully transfers all right, title and interest in any accrued or
later accrued claims, causes of action, choses in action--which is the personal right to
bring a case--or lawsuits, brought to enforce copyrights in the Images, appointing and
permitting DRK to prosecute said accrued or later accrued claims, causes of action,
choses in action or lawsuits, as if it were the undersigned.
Any proceeds obtained by settlement or judgment for said claims shall, after deducting all
costs, expenses and attorney's fees, be divided and paid 50% for the undersigned and
50%forDRK.

Print Name

~JF

i+?;r:ftirl
("9(;00

Mflt2

Phone: .f

DRKPHOTO:

)
)

bY..::9-~

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Signature

Address:

f,,~;?7'=-LL;:::}

2000

BqJ~c) /vIR2'Jrrt-1o
~

?~Lt./-::)

74- /9{2 &0


r7

---r--

Dan Krasemann, Owner


100 Starlight Way
Sedona, AZ 86351

JP.4i 1-._,

ZbO

Email: l/\..l(06?INol.1/?J pi2bfJLC;t. 1'-1,;:/- )


)

Date:

DRK v. McGraw 002204

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 175 of 177

Copyright Assignment, Registration, and Accrued Causes of Action Agreement


The undersigned photographer, the sole owner of the copyrights in the undersigned's
images ("the Images") selected by DRK PHOTO ("DRK") and included in DRK's
collection, hereby grants to DRK all copyrights and complete legal title in the Images.
DRK agrees to reassign all copyrights and complete legal title back to the undersigned
immediately upon completion of the registration of the Images, as evidenced by DRK's
receipt of a Certificate of Registration from the United States Copyright Office for such

Images, and resolution of infringement claims brought by DRK relating to the Images.
The undersigned agrees and fully transfers all right, title and interest in any accrued or
later accrued claims, causes of action, choses in action--which is the personal right to
bring a case--or lawsuits, brought to enforce copyrights in the Images, appointing and
permitting DRK to prosecute said accrued or later accrued claims, causes of action,
choses in action or lawsuits, as if it were the undersigned.
Any proceeds obtained by settlement or judgment for said claims shall, after deducting all
costs, expenses and attorney's fees, be divided and paid 50% for the undersigned and
50% forDRK.

The Undersigned:

DRKPHOTO:

)
)
)
)

)
)
)
)
)
)

R(l~nil 0 ~'"\cl~) .
Print Name

bY:~""~

Dan Krasemann, Owner


100 Starlight Way
Sedona, AZ 86351

\
)

)
)

Phone: LOCc-.
Email:

ph\~II
\

:3 2<2 1-\ 7
f

r-~@.qcJ'1Ot

)
.

Cx.i"'1 )

)
Date:

18'JL~Ot

)
\

DRK v. McGraw 002218

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 176 of 177

Copyright Assignment, Regisltratio11, and Accrued Causes of Action Agreement


The undersigned photographer, the sole owner of the copyrights in the undersigned's
images ("the Images") selected by DRK PHOTO ("DRK") and included in DRK's
collection, hereby grants to DRK all copyrights and complete legal title in the Images.
DRK agrees to reassign all copyrights and complete legal title back to the undersigned
immediately upon completion of the registration of the Images, as evidenced by DRK's
receipt of a Certificate of Registration from the United States Copyright Office for such
Images, and resolution of infringement claims brought by DRK relating to the Images.
The undersigned agrees and fully transfers all right, title and interest in any accrued or
later accrued claims, causes of action, choses in action--which is the personal right to
bring a case--or lawsuits, brought to enforce copyrights in the Images, appointing and
permitting DRK to prosecute said accrued or later accrued claims, causes of action,
choses in action or lawsuits, as if illwere the undersigned.
Any proceeds obtained by settlement or judgment for said claims shall, after deducting all
costs, expenses and attorney's fees, be divided and paid 50% for the undersigned and
50%forDRK.

The Undersigned:

)
)
)
)

)
)
)

DRKPHOTO:
by:

fl'~:.%~

Dan Krasemann, Owner


100 Starlight Way
Sedona, AZ 86351

)
)
)

)
)
)
)

ss 8'

'1;)S 3, l:, /
Phone: --~~~~~~~------Email: ~ ~ c.\

\Jd

;z. ; ft\,," e.-r--/'A~ @..

)
)

COMc-~t.r.e-'t )
Date:

7Jri()g:

DRK v. McGraw 002220

Case 3:12-cv-08093-PGR Document 99-1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 177 of 177

Copyright Assignment. Registration. and Ac~rued Causes of Action Agreement


The undersigned photographer, the sole owner of the copyrights in the undersigned's
images ("the Images") selected by DRK PHOTO ("DRK") and included in DRK's
collection, hereby grants to DRK aJI copyrights and complete legal title in the Images.
DRK agrees to reassign all copyrights and complete legal title back to the undersigned
immediately upon completion of the registration of the Images, as evidenced by DRK's
receipt of a Certificate of Registration from the United States Copyright Office for such
Images, and resolution of infringement claims brought by DRK relating to the Images.
The undersigned agrees and fully transfers all right, title and interest in any accrued or
later accrued claims, causes of action, choses in action-which is the personal right to
bring a case--or lawsuits, brought to enforce copyrights in the Images, appointing and
permitting DRK to prosecute said accrued or later accrued claims, causes of action,
choses in action or lawsuits, as if it were the undersigned.
Any proceeds obtained by settlement or judgment for said claims shall, after deducting all
costs, expenses and attorney's fees, be divided and paid 50% for the undersigned and
50%forDRK.

The Undersigned:

tJ, ~'.

)
)

-S-ign~a-~-~::---

)
)
)
)
)
)

Print Name

Address:

Q? 60~

DRKPHOTO:

'3{$og

by:~9~
Dan Krasemann, Owner
100 Starlight Way
Sedona, AZ 86351

_Tu~saf-Jl Ad-- 85'1) ,

)
Phone: ------------------Email: test@.wea..h~~f..(..
COW\

Date:

~--,-11-,--\~O_9,,---

)
)

Date of Birth: ~
Citizenship:

Domicile:

USA

Tv~5 or \ P(t
DRK v. McGraw 002224