010613 VisionFilms Screenshot

Nothing smells like “copyright troll” to me more than a new local counsel filing multiple copyright lawsuits against hundreds of John Doe defendants ON THE SAME DAY.  Then, to avoid having all the cases be assigned to the same judge (so that the cases do not all fall on one bad ruling from a hostile judge), this new copyright troll cunningly manipulates the legal system by splitting the lawsuit into smaller “John Doe” lawsuits, each one having less than 100 defendants.  Each lawsuit is randomly assigned to a different judge in that district.

Vision Films, Inc. (link) appears to be not a production company, nor does it appear to be the copyright holder for the film(s) upon which it is suing.  Rather, it appears that this is a distribution company that acquires the rights to license titles to third parties on behalf of the production companies (the ones who have the copyrights).  Copyright trolling (e.g., suing hundreds of internet users for the downloading of their films) appears to be part of their business plan as well.

Welcome new copyright troll, “Vision Films, Inc.”  And a hearty welcome to Vision Films, Inc.’s new copyright troll attorneys, Matthew Lee Stone of Schneider & Stone (in the Northern District of Illinois), Joan M. Swartz of Law Office of Joan M. Swartz, L.L.C. (in the Missouri Eastern District), Stamatios Stamoulis & Richard C. Weinblatt of Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (in the Delaware District Court), and Van R Irion of Law Office of Van R. Irion, PLLC (in the Tennessee Eastern District Court).  It is clear that Vision Films, Inc. has chosen top notch attorneys from big and powerful law firms.  …For the solo practitioners they chose, I could have recommended better copyright trolls for them in seconds just by looking at the courts in which they filed.  

Anyway, here is the list of cases, separated out by jurisdiction:

Vision Films, Inc. v. John Does 1-70 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00064)
Vision Films, Inc. v. John Does 1-63 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00065)
Vision Films, Inc. v. John Does 1-70 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00066)
Vision Films, Inc. v. John Does 1-73 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00067)
Vision Films, Inc. v. John Does 1-67 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00068)
Vision Films, Inc. v. John Does 1-43 (Case No. 1:13-cv-00071)

Vision Films, Inc. v. Does 1-30 (Case No. 4:13-cv-00020)

Vision Films Inc. v. John Does 1-24 (Case No. 1:12-cv-01746)

Since these cases were just filed on Friday 1/4/2013, some of them are too new to be seen even on PACER/ECF.  However, from what I have been able to glean from the complaints that were online, each lawsuit appears to be for the same film, “Blood Money,” (the title is coincidental with the type of extortion they plan to foist on their defendants).

On a personal note, I really wish these attorneys would have done some research before accepting cases such as these.  Vision Films, Inc. may be suing for the downloading of their non-pornographic movies, but inevitably, they and their lawyers will become synonymous with the other cases.  Further, the bittorrent joinder swarm legal theory is a faulty theory full of holes which cannot survive on the merits.  I don’t know why any reputable law firm would assert this theory unless they are planning on using the federal courts and the legal system as a weapon to be one of the “me too” copyright troll settlement factories.  Anyone who has stepped foot in the Northern District of Illinois should know that the judges don’t play that game anymore.


  1. Color me confused, I thought RightHaven clearly helped spell out that the right to sue is not something you can transfer. Am I not getting this right?
    While they might have the right to license the content to 3rd parties for the actual rightsholders, shouldn’t the actual rightsholders be the ones filing?

    Ambrosia Pictures Pty Ltd. holds 2 copyrights, both related to Blood Money one is the movie the other is something confusing to me.
    So how does a 3rd party get to exercise the exclusive rights of Ambrosia Pictures Pty Ltd.?
    PAu003640917 / 2012-05-25

    Vision Films Inc has 15 entries and a few seem to be the same title showing up a few times.

    So far this looks like the now “standard” copyright trolling case – lie to everyone, get the money and run. Wouldn’t be the first trolls to sue when they don’t hold the copyright… be nice if a Judge did something about those little details.

    1. I am glad we are all on top of the immediate copyright issue (only holder of copyright or exclusive license can sue) before the case even gets started. They had better have their ducks in order (assignments in place) or else all of us will be all over this one. -Rob

      1. I read some more of the things held by Vision, and they were assignments. There is no filed assignment of Blood Money in the database yet. It would be sad if they were filing without those rights, or filing for a time before they held the rights… both of which we’ve seen done in these types of cases.

        I find it amazing that given the high profile (maybe not as high as they should be) failures of plaintiffs in these cases to actually make sure they aren’t lying in the filing that Judges haven;t demanded proof before rubber stamping it.

        Its like the YouTube problem… YouTube’s system is setup to favor corporations, because only they can hold copyrights. Anything a corporation claims is taken as gospel truth… even when its obvious they are lying.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s