Law Offices of
Marc J. Kopeikin
A Professional Corporation
9454 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 600
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Tel. 310-271-7675
Fax 310-271-7695
December 12, 2001
Robert Klein, President
AIPAD
1609 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, District of Columbia 20009
Re: Dispute between A. D. Coleman and Paul Kopeikin
Gallery
Dear Mr. Klein:
This office represents Paul Kopeikin and the Paul
Kopeikin Gallery (hereinafter collectively the "Gallery")
in regards to the dispute between Mr. A. D. Coleman
and the Gallery regarding the Gallery's webite [sic],
and with regards to the formal complaint filed by
Mr. Coleman with AIPAD. Please direct any future correspondence
or communication in this matter to my attention.
This letter is in response to AIPAD's letter to the
Gallery regarding the dispute.
AIPAD is correct in taking the position that it cannot
decide the legal issue as to whether or not the Gallery
violated copyright law or otherwise infringed on Mr.
Coleman's copyright rights. That issue will be adjudicated
in a court of law should Mr. Coleman decide to push
this matter further. In any event, without admitting
any wrongdoing, the Gallery immediately removed
off of its website all of the objectionable material
that Mr. Coleman had complained of. (Emphasis in the
original.)
I note from the letter that AIPAD has made no formal
finding that the Gallery breached AIPAD's Code of
Ethics and/or By-laws, but that the Board did determine
that the Gallery's communication with Mr. Coleman
was highly unprofessional.
Quite frankly, I am surprised that an administrative
body such as the AIPAD Board could make any determination
of this issue without hearing from both sides. If
Mr. Coleman made a formal complaint to AIPAD, then
the Gallery should have been provided with a copy
of the complaint and given an opportunity to respond.
The Board never gave the Gallery that opportunity,
but instead considered evidence or documentation presented
to the Board only by Mr. Coleman, without once considering
the Gallery's position or communications sent to the
Gallery by Mr. Coleman.
After reflecting on the communications between the
Gallery and Mr. Coleman, the Gallery sent Mr. Coleman
a formal apology. That formal apology should have
ended the matter. But it did not. Evidently the Gallery's
formal apology was not enough for Mr. Coleman, and
he seems intent on making a mountain out of a molehill.
So be it.
As far as the Gallery is concerned, this matter is
over. Paul Kopeikin and Mr. Coleman exchanged some
words over their differences of opinion as to the
website, and Mr. Kopeikin apologized.
In the future, should AIPAD decide that this matter
requires an administrative hearing, then it is expected
that such a hearing will be conducted according to
AIPAD's By-laws, with both sides represented and with
both sides having an opportunity to be heard in a
fair and impartial hearing.
Please be advised that the Gallery reserves all of
its rights and legal remedies should AIPAD take any
punitive action against the Gallery or Mr. Kopeikin
without such a hearing.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Marc J. Kopeikin, Esq.
Most usefully, Marc Kopeikin
once again provides admissible evidence that my copyrighted
material did indeed appear at the Kopeikin Gallery
website, with his acknowledgement that, "without
admitting any wrongdoing, the Gallery immediately
removed off of its website all of the objectionable
material that Mr. Coleman had complained of."
(See his letter to me at the link above for his earlier
admission.) According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the
very appearance of my material there without permission
constitutes a violation of my copyright; hence this
attorney's qualifying clause, "without admitting
any wrongdoing," is rendered null and void by
his stipulation to the act itself.
Marc Kopeikin's assertion that
the question of "whether or not the Gallery violated
copyright law or otherwise infringed on Mr. Coleman's
copyright" would need to be "adjudicated
in a court of law" is a misstatement of fact.
On June 25, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that
even the publisher of a printed version of a text
has no legal right to put it online without the copyright
holder's permission. (See the communication from the
National Writers Union, posted at the link below.)
Clearly, then, a merchant with no prior connection
to the material has no legal right to distribute bootleg
versions thereof via the internet.
That's the law of the land.
We can charitably assume that the expertise of the
Kopeikin Gallery's legal counsel does not lie in the
area of copyright law; presumably, if it did, when
said attorney was first consulted about this corporation's
plan to put all this pirated material up at the Kopeikin
Gallery website he'd have notified his client that
he would be breaking the law by doing so.
The
"apology" from Paul Kopeikin referred
to in this letter can be found at the link at the
beginning of this sentence, along with my analysis
and explanation of what makes it unacceptable.
As it happens, I do agree with
this attorney on something: The Paul Kopeikin Gallery
should certainly have received from the AIPAD Board
a copy of the casebook I put before them as supporting
evidence for my formal complaint, and should have
had a chance to respond thereto. The failure of AIPAD's
Board to follow such basic procedures remains unexplained
-- and, to my mind, inexplicable.
-- A. D. C.
February 14, 2003
