joshtimonen talks

[Thinking Aloud]

I'd love to get my hands on his resume.

He's made quite a name for himself... http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2808370/

Up 88% in popularity this week.

[Bella Fortuna]

Which only means Anthroban and I looked at that page.

[maiforpeace]

Oh please. Spare me the expert opinions here will you you two? Running an online store is something a mildly retarded middle-schooler can do. Also, as I already said Josh Timonen is not a software engineer! At best, he's a web designer. (I doubt he has more than a "study-at-home" degree in that)

I don't think anyone is claiming, any more than you are, to be an expert on anything.

So, what do you think is going to happen? What is your assessment of the legal document that RD filed? I have heard all kinds of diverse opinions from people, and some say they know what will happen:

My work experience in the industry tells me exactly what will happen, <snip>

...which I think was that Josh would get off scot free, though please correct me if I'm wrong Meeky.

My opinion is that they will end up settling the case. I think a few others share that opinion too.

Maybe I should start a poll and we can all bet on what we think will happen.

[Svartalf]

I'd love to get my hands on his resume.

He's made quite a name for himself... http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2808370/

did those disscussions with RD really require much directing, producing, editing skills, or use advanced filmography?
I thought that was a simple interviewed filmed with a handcam like anybody with a couple grands to splurge could have.

[Blondie]

So, what do you think is going to happen? What is your assessment of the legal document that RD filed? I have heard all kinds of diverse opinions from people, and some say they know what will happen:

You mean what do I think the verdict will be? It's a little early to start prognosticating, especially in the absence of a statement from Timonen's lawyers, however, at this point I feel the case is quite straightforward: Josh's little company was contracted by a little charity to create and manage a product by, what is by our only account (presumably true) an oral contract. I don't need to go into thousands of words to say that copyright law and IP rights are quite standardised across the board, with some small variations here and there, and it is clear that ownership of copyright of any works created by Josh' Timonen's company belong to those who hired him (I've read up on copyright law quite a bit lately, but for another matter) and not to him. Here he doesn't have a leg to stand on. The kink in the film reel, or the fly in the lube, is that it is an oral contract - this will make things more difficult for RD and RDF in court, unless they've failed to mention there was an aural witness, however, such cases are not without precedent and, at this point, given what we know now, I'm confident that RD and RDF will win the civil suit, though I'm not so confident they'll be awarded the full damages they seek.

[Don't Panic]

I'd love to get my hands on his resume.

He's made quite a name for himself... http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2808370/

Up 88% in popularity this week.

His GF, on the other hand, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0636265/

Up 374% in popularity this week

[Bella Fortuna]

I'd love to get my hands on his resume.

He's made quite a name for himself... http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2808370/

did those disscussions with RD really require much directing, producing, editing skills, or use advanced filmography?
I thought that was a simple interviewed filmed with a handcam like anybody with a couple grands to splurge could have.

Considering that OBC did a great deal of it himself with his own stuff - for free - I'd say no.

[Coito ergo sum]

Also, last time I checked, software engineers averaged about £35,000/year in the UK

Competent web software engineers are quite a bit more in the U.S., especially for contractors who have to cover additional taxes and other costs such as health insurance. Josh was operating from California, was he not?

And, the operation of the Store entailed more than just software engineering. He wasn't just handling the software project. According to the complaint, he was running the Store (and even an online store requires more than just the software element).

Oh please. Spare me the expert opinions here will you you two?

I wasn't providing an opinion. RDF states in his complaint, paragraph 21, that he and Timonen agreed to create The Store to market DVD's, tshirts, hats, mugs, pins, and other merchandise. In paragraph 22, it says that RDF couldn't do it for regulatory reasons, and so Timonen agreed to run the Store through his own company, UBP. Running the store involves everything related to the online store -- Timonen would be "operating the store" and "developing the "merchandise or marketing materials" etc. (paragraph 23)

In any case, you aren't shy about expressing your opinion. Why should anyone else have to "spare" you?

Running an online store is something a mildly retarded middle-schooler can do.

Perhaps. That's your opinion.

Also, as I already said Josh Timonen is not a software engineer! At best, he's a web designer. (I doubt he has more than a "study-at-home" degree in that)

Well, that may be correct. What I know is what the Complaint says, which is that he did video production, web designing, web maintenance, and "assorted other activities" for Dawkins personally and for RDF. On top of that, he created and ran "The Store." The difficulty of those tasks or the number of hours, or the complexity, etc. is open to debate.

From his twitter page: Josh Timonen is a designer, filmmaker and musician based in Los Angeles, California.

From his personal site JoshTimonen.com: Josh Timonen (IMDB) is a freelance designer, musician and filmmaker based in Los Angeles, California.

Oh and do check the IMDB site for his list of impressive accomplishments!

According to statistics, the average salary for a basic web designer is right around $50,000 a year. While this by all means a decent income for nearly anyone, there are several factors that are used to determine your exact salary when working as a web designer. And depending on your exact circumstances, you may be earning less or even more than this for yourself.

Factors that may affect your salary when compared to the average web designer salary:

Education
What post secondary institution did Josh go to? Did he go to one? What level of education did he attain and with what grades?


Hands-on experience within the industry
How much experience does Josh have? Jack-fuck-all. We all saw how hamfisted he was implementing his new, exciting, front page and we can still see what a design disaster it is.


Experience with related software and technology
He never could fix the database for the forums - technical idiot. It took him how long to implement that piece of shit front page that I could have crapped out in less than a week? How long was it delayed?

The size of the company
It's a CHARITY. His little company has been contracted by a, relatively, quite small, CHARITY.

Read where I got this shit from here.

From my vantage, as a professional expert in the field, Josh is lucky to have been making $40,000 a year, let alone what he was.

Perhaps so. I'm not advocating on behalf of Josh Timonen.

The fact remains, though, that he and Dawkins, at arms length negotiated the work that Timonen was to do for Dawkins personally in 2006. That involved "video production, and website design and maintenance." As time went on, additional duties, for additional compensation, were performed for RDF the entity, and that involved, "video production, and website design and maintenance and assorted other activities." He was paid, apparently well, for those activities. He was, presumably, agreeable to the amount he was paid, since he did it for several years and it's a free country, so to speak.

In 2007, he discussed with Dawkins creating the Store. Dawkins told Timonen that RDF couldn't do it for regulatory reasons. Timonen took on the additional duties of creating the store and running it, through his own company - UBP. So, if UBP was owned by Timonen, then generally speaking he would be allowed to pay himself out of the company's revenues. Normally, a person's company is not subject to the dictates of some third party.

That's where the issue of the verbal contract comes in. That's what it all seems to hinge on. Dawkins claims that he entered into a verbal contract where Timonen was to run the Store for the benefit of RDF, and that the consideration paid to Timonen for those services is the same consideration paid to him for the services rendered to Dawkins and RDF.

So, the reason, I think, for the amount of Josh's compensation to be an issue is to make sense out of the whole situation. If, as you say, running the store was a non-issue that any idiot could do with little time or trouble, then it makes some sense that Josh's already generous pay would include those services. However, if running the store involved a lot of time, expertise, dedication, work, risk, etc., then it would stand to reason that an independent contractor would not take on those duties without compensation. That's, of course, just my opinion - not in any way claimed to be expert.

[Blondie]

Your honour, speculatore!

No time, must get showered, have a smoke, make a coffee, and get my ass to work. Respond later I will.

[Coito ergo sum]

So, what do you think is going to happen? What is your assessment of the legal document that RD filed? I have heard all kinds of diverse opinions from people, and some say they know what will happen:

You mean what do I think the verdict will be? It's a little early to start prognosticating, especially in the absence of a statement from Timonen's lawyers, however, at this point I feel the case is quite straightforward: Josh's little company was contracted by a little charity to create and manage a product by, what is by our only account (presumably true) an oral contract. I don't need to go into thousands of words to say that copyright law and IP rights are quite standardised across the board, with some small variations here and there, and it is clear that ownership of copyright of any works created by Josh' Timonen's company belong to those who hired him (I've read up on copyright law quite a bit lately, but for another matter) and not to him. Here he doesn't have a leg to stand on. The kink in the film reel, or the fly in the lube, is that it is an oral contract - this will make things more difficult for RD and RDF in court, unless they've failed to mention there was an aural witness, however, such cases are not without precedent and, at this point, given what we know now, I'm confident that RD and RDF will win the civil suit, though I'm not so confident they'll be awarded the full damages they seek.

It is too early to tell what the verdict will be, if indeed there ever is a "verdict." In the vast majority of civil cases, the matter ends with a settlement. Odds are, the case will never go to trial.

I think you oversimplify copyright and IP law. It's not as simple as you suggest. If a work is created by an "employee" then it is automatically a work made for hire, and the issue is quite simple. But, it is not that simple where an independent contractor creates something. If a work is created by an independent contractor then the work is a specially ordered or commissioned work, and there must generally be a written agreement between the parties specifying that the work is a work made for hire. Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989) And, that's actually simplifying it a bit.

Here is the definition of "work made for hire" in the US copyright law (and US law applies in this case): http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html

Here is is chapter 2 of the copyright act which goes over who owns a copyright: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html

To say he "doesn't have a let to stand on" is quite an overstatement. Without a writing designating something Timonen created as a work for hire, then RDF has to argue that he was an employee. The problem there is that they've alleged in the complaint that he was an independent contractor.

Their complaint for damages, however, does not hinge on who owns copyrights and trademarks. It hinges on whether there was a contract for Timonen to turn over the revenues/profits of the company and not take salaries and incur unnecessary expenses, or alternatively whether he committed fraud in falsely representing that he would operate the store for the benefit of RDF and turn over all the money to RDF.

[Coito ergo sum]

I skimmed the formal complaint posted over at Ratskep, and (I'm probably repeating others' points here) it seems a lot of the online store set-up and initial negotiations was done only verbally. While this was foolish of both parties, particularly RDF, I don't see how a lack of a paper contract could or should equal Timonen's assigning funds to himself (and others)-- if he (and they) were doing more work than they felt they were being fairly compensated for, the proper next course of action would be for Timonen to negotiate a new contract with RDF, where appropriate salaries or pay for hire would be specified. I hope the court sees it the same way-- particularly since, without a contract, Timonen et al can't show they were unfairly not being paid. There's no evidence they didn't agree to do the work pro bono.

There would be no "assignment" of funds. Timonen operated the store through is own company, UBP, which was wholly owned by him (or so says the Complaint). As such, Timonen would NORMALLY be able to pay himself whatever he wants, just like if you or I started ABC, Inc. and ran an online store - if we make money we pay ourselves what we like. that's where the oral contract comes in - RDF says Timonen agreed to turn over the $ made through UBP's operation of the store, without paying any money out in salaries or other "improper" expenses.

[Svartalf]

Further questions... who has pockets deep enough to actually let this go to court?
what does each party have to win and lose from settling?
Can RD (and foundation) actually get any compensation out of court, since it seems that the embezzled funds were happily spent and I doubt either josh or his cougar can afford to dish out any amount of cash that might not be regarded as insulting

[Blondie]

So, what do you think is going to happen? What is your assessment of the legal document that RD filed? I have heard all kinds of diverse opinions from people, and some say they know what will happen:

You mean what do I think the verdict will be? It's a little early to start prognosticating, especially in the absence of a statement from Timonen's lawyers, however, at this point I feel the case is quite straightforward: Josh's little company was contracted by a little charity to create and manage a product by, what is by our only account (presumably true) an oral contract. I don't need to go into thousands of words to say that copyright law and IP rights are quite standardised across the board, with some small variations here and there, and it is clear that ownership of copyright of any works created by Josh' Timonen's company belong to those who hired him (I've read up on copyright law quite a bit lately, but for another matter) and not to him. Here he doesn't have a leg to stand on. The kink in the film reel, or the fly in the lube, is that it is an oral contract - this will make things more difficult for RD and RDF in court, unless they've failed to mention there was an aural witness, however, such cases are not without precedent and, at this point, given what we know now, I'm confident that RD and RDF will win the civil suit, though I'm not so confident they'll be awarded the full damages they seek.

It is too early to tell what the verdict will be, if indeed there ever is a "verdict." In the vast majority of civil cases, the matter ends with a settlement. Odds are, the case will never go to trial.

I think you oversimplify copyright and IP law. It's not as simple as you suggest. If a work is created by an "employee" then it is automatically a work made for hire, and the issue is quite simple. But, it is not that simple where an independent contractor creates something. If a work is created by an independent contractor then the work is a specially ordered or commissioned work, and there must generally be a written agreement between the parties specifying that the work is a work made for hire. Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989) And, that's actually simplifying it a bit.

Here is the definition of "work made for hire" in the US copyright law (and US law applies in this case): http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html

Here is is chapter 2 of the copyright act which goes over who owns a copyright: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html

To say he "doesn't have a let to stand on" is quite an overstatement. Without a writing designating something Timonen created as a work for hire, then RDF has to argue that he was an employee. The problem there is that they've alleged in the complaint that he was an independent contractor.

Their complaint for damages, however, does not hinge on who owns copyrights and trademarks. It hinges on whether there was a contract for Timonen to turn over the revenues/profits of the company and not take salaries and incur unnecessary expenses, or alternatively whether he committed fraud in falsely representing that he would operate the store for the benefit of RDF and turn over all the money to RDF.

I wasn't aware of the necessity of a written contract in a work made for hire re: IP rights. I'll have to look into your links and claims in depth later. Right now I'm late for work. However, the bolded part is the really important bit. See my question in one of the other Josh threads. He'll have to claim IP rights to the products sold through his 'created work' (the American store presumably) as well. If he fails in this, he's in another legal hot pot.

[Svartalf]

I skimmed the formal complaint posted over at Ratskep, and (I'm probably repeating others' points here) it seems a lot of the online store set-up and initial negotiations was done only verbally. While this was foolish of both parties, particularly RDF, I don't see how a lack of a paper contract could or should equal Timonen's assigning funds to himself (and others)-- if he (and they) were doing more work than they felt they were being fairly compensated for, the proper next course of action would be for Timonen to negotiate a new contract with RDF, where appropriate salaries or pay for hire would be specified. I hope the court sees it the same way-- particularly since, without a contract, Timonen et al can't show they were unfairly not being paid. There's no evidence they didn't agree to do the work pro bono.

There would be no "assignment" of funds. Timonen operated the store through is own company, UBP, which was wholly owned by him (or so says the Complaint). As such, Timonen would NORMALLY be able to pay himself whatever he wants, just like if you or I started ABC, Inc. and ran an online store - if we make money we pay ourselves what we like. that's where the oral contract comes in - RDF says Timonen agreed to turn over the $ made through UBP's operation of the store, without paying any money out in salaries or other "improper" expenses.

Errr... I thought the purpose of the store was to make money for the foundation? The way you present it, it would have been a gift of an extra income from RD to Josh. If that was the actual purpose, why the reversal and why did the foundation take back control as soon as the regulatory issues were solved?

[Coito ergo sum]

I skimmed the formal complaint posted over at Ratskep, and (I'm probably repeating others' points here) it seems a lot of the online store set-up and initial negotiations was done only verbally. While this was foolish of both parties, particularly RDF, I don't see how a lack of a paper contract could or should equal Timonen's assigning funds to himself (and others)-- if he (and they) were doing more work than they felt they were being fairly compensated for, the proper next course of action would be for Timonen to negotiate a new contract with RDF, where appropriate salaries or pay for hire would be specified. I hope the court sees it the same way-- particularly since, without a contract, Timonen et al can't show they were unfairly not being paid. There's no evidence they didn't agree to do the work pro bono.

There would be no "assignment" of funds. Timonen operated the store through is own company, UBP, which was wholly owned by him (or so says the Complaint). As such, Timonen would NORMALLY be able to pay himself whatever he wants, just like if you or I started ABC, Inc. and ran an online store - if we make money we pay ourselves what we like. that's where the oral contract comes in - RDF says Timonen agreed to turn over the $ made through UBP's operation of the store, without paying any money out in salaries or other "improper" expenses.

Errr... I thought the purpose of the store was to make money for the foundation?

That's what RDF says. And, even if we assume as granted that the purpose of the store was to make money for the foundation, that does not mean that money couldn't or shouldn't be paid out in salaries or other expenses for the business. Even RDF has salaries and expenses. There is no reason UBP would be assumed to not have those. The question is, did Timonen agree not to take a salary from UBP while running the store, and did he agree not to pay a salary to others who performed services for UBP (assuming they legitimately performed services)?

The way you present it, it would have been a gift of an extra income from RD to Josh. If that was the actual purpose, why the reversal and why did the foundation take back control as soon as the regulatory issues were solved?

Not necessarily. Josh could simply argue that he was operating the Store through UBP and that if there was extra money after expenses, salaries, etc., then it would be paid over to RDF. UBP did "donate" $30,000 to RDF, after all. So, as long as the salaries and expenses aren't improper, what's the issue? The argument from RDF is that the salaries and expenses ARE improper due to an oral contract entered into with Josh wherein he was not to take a salary from UBP.

Josh gave the store to Dawkins after the foundation resolved its regulatory issue, and Josh will say that it was their agreement that that occur. However, he will deny that he agreed to run the store for free (or for no additional compensation aside from what he was earning from Dawkins and RDF for his video production, website development and maintenance and assorted other activities).