FAX (7 18) 654-1505 

!E-MAIL: copyright karnlnsky@grnall corn 

5rqwlr+ 90- .(I h~ 

cr: lrurcr C k 6 dbu 

I* 

Uecember 28, zuu 1 D I 

o! ! ! 

Honorable Richard M. Berman 

Daniel Patrick Moynihan 

rJt;l_ite? States Courth~use 

500 Pearl Street 

Room 650 

New York, New York 10007 1 I g Richard M. Berman, U.S.D.J. I -- 

Re: Christopher Pape v. Electronic Arts, Inc. 

07 cv-5760 (RMB) 

Dear Judge Bennan: 

I was surprised of the letter addressed to you by Daniel H. Davis, Esq., a 

copy of which was addressed to John W. Crittenden, Esq. and m,yself. 

I am somewhat perturbed by the facts involved. Messrs. Crittenden in San 

Francisco and Daniel H. Davis of New York raise serious questions of law as well as 

facts. 

My client made a street work painting which occurred in 1983. 

Included in this work was a portion of the painting called "Freedom" 

which it purportedly took my client's work. My client has been receiving telephone calls 

from around the country of his work of art. ivir. Cri~rendc~~ dnd Mi-. Eavis tzks 2 strllrge 

relationship to the work of my client. My client made a work pursuant to 5 106(2) of the 

Copyright Act of 1976, as amended. The copyright owner grants the right "(to prepare 

derivative works based upon the copyrighted work)". Mr. Crittenden and Mr. Davis take 

the position that Plaintiffs work is not the same as Defendant's work. However, my 

client's work is based on a derivative right pursuant to 5 106(2). 

Plaintiffs work was similar to Defendant's work. In 2001 the magazine 

called "Source" was delivered throughout the world including Clopenhagen. Copenhagen 

has a vibrant street art work. In the Fall of 2001, Plaintiffs work was infringed. In 2002. 

Defendant 

countries. 

released copies of the work throughout the 

Defendant takes the position that his work 

ited States as well as other -----. - . ?_X.LI .*Y-.. 

JhiJ iJ 2 20G9 / 

Case 1:07-cv-05760-RMB Document 17 Filed 01/03/2008 Page 1 of 2
Honorable Richard M. Berman 

December 28,2007 

Page -2- 

Plaintiff. That is not the issue. The issue involved is whether Defendant's employees or 

licensees used Plaintiffs work as a basis for making a different work. 

I am of the opinion that Electronic Arts, Inc. licei~sed or hired individuals 

in Copenhagen, Denmark that after reading the recent magazine "cSource". The licensees 

or employees in Copenhagen prepared a piece of work whiich contained the word 

"Freedom". Plaintiff and Defendant are different, but Defendant's work is based on 

Plaintiffs work. 

However, it appears that the party who created t.he work in Copenhagen 

knew on reading the magazine, that they used that work as a basis for making their game. 

They feel that I am all "wet". I do not believe it. 

Defendant takes the position that if Plaintiffs work is different than 

Defendant's work, there is no liability. 

At this stage, I have not had any discovery with respect to Defendant's 

employees or licensees of the Defendant. 

Carl I. Raminsky 

cc: Daniel H. Davis, Esq. 

Cooley Godward Kronish, LLP 

1 114 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, New York 10036 

John W. Crittenden, Esq. 

Cooley Godward Kronish, LLP 

101 California Street, 5th Floor 

San Francisco, California 941 1 1-5800 

Christopher Pape 

304 West 104~~ Street, P.H. 

New York, New York 10025 

Case 1:07-cv-05760-RMB Document 17 Filed 01/03/2008 Page 2 of 2