Statement On Tommy D's 'Makaveli Book' Kickstarter & Unfair Business Practices

GOBI , FAILED '7 DAYZ: THE MOVIE' HACK

GOES AFTER TOMMY D'S BOMBSHELL BOOK

While enjoying press from many hiphop outlets and raising more than DOUBLE the money than Gobi's FAILED 7 Dayz project, Tommy D's 'The Makaveli Book' was struck unfairly and without merit by Gobi Rahimi, Maker of 7 Dayz The Movie.

I can report you that Tommy D's team has fired back a Counter-Claim and it reads below:

Re: Copyright Claim - Help 2Pac's Chief Engineer Release 'The Makaveli Book' [Submitted by Static Free Films, Inc.]

THIS MESSAGE SERVES AS A FORMAL NOTICE OF A COPYRIGHT COUNTERCLAIM AGAINST Mohammad Ghobad Rahiminedjad, (a.k.a. ‘Gobi’), AKA STATIC FREE FILMS

To whom it may concern, our Copyright Counterclaim is as follows:

In his copyright claim against us, Mohammad Ghobad Rahiminedjad, (a.k.a. ‘Gobi’) *hereto referred to as the claimant,states: "They are offering studio footage of Tupac that I own. They are using my footage in their trailer as well as the still image of the engineer with Tupac is footage I

personally shot. If this offering isn't removed immediately, I'm suing you all."

These are several false claims of copyright by Static free Films (claimant). The trailer used does not contain the claimants copywritten work. The trailer is an original creation by us and does not use any of the claimant's copywritten material. If the claimant is referring to an older trailer that was hosted on the site, it had already been

removed by the PERSONAL request of the claiment to us, even though we felt the claimant assurtions of copyright were false. The trailer we had hosted days before the time of the copyright claim, once again, had completely original content created by us.

Secondly, 'Footage' referred to by the claimant does not belong to claimant, nor would the claimant know whether the footage we are offering would actually belong to the claimant due to our kickstarter only teasing 'Un-Seen Tupac Footage' in a text format. No un-seen Tupac video footage was ever aired in our kickstarter campaign, streamed on our campaign or so much as a single frame of said footage has ever been made availiable. This would mean, at best, the claimant's claim of copyright would have to border on the telepathic, for the claimant does not own all un seen video footage of Tupac, nor has he seen the footage we are offering. Our page only teases the footage in question , in text, and until an actual copyright has been infringed a charge by the claimant of infringment is entirely based on speculation and therefore, FALSE.

As for the picture of Tommy the claimant has claimed a copyright to, we hold firm that this is also false. Tommy Daughtery (pictured) has never given the claimant likeness rights to use his image for profit and as of this writing claimant has failed to provide any proof of alleged copyright for the image in question. We ask that the dissolution of Case Number: BC655294 TOM WHALLEY VS GHOBAD M RAHIMINEDJAD RE: Othr Breach Contr/Warr-not Fraud (General Jurisdiction) be clarified and an actual copyright for the work in question to be provided to support these bogus claims of infringment.

As for the bogus claims of infringement, the claimant's claim of an ownership interest does not give him one; neither does a Copyright filing.

1. In a Copyright claim, you will first need to overcome (and will likely fail) via a burden of proof, that you own the product. You claim to be “his videographer” and “director,” and your recent allegations that “Tupac wanted you” (or “hired you”) “to follow him around and videotape him” in many books and publications, in interviews and other media. This may compromise your claim of “independent contractor” to that of an employee. In Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989), the Supreme Court held if the person doing the work is an "employee" within the meaning of the common law, and the work was done within the scope of his employment (whether the work is the kind he was employed to prepare; whether the preparation takes place primarily within the employer's time and place specifications; and whether the work was activated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the employer), then the work is a work for hire and the employer is the initial owner of the copyright, rather than the employee who actually conceived and fixed the expression. Ironically, you yourself have blurred the line between disinterested commissioned photographer and possible employee by over-exaggerating your business relationships with Tupac. It is likely that Tupac, had he lived, would be the owner of those tapes (a claim you would not have disputed in his presence, we believe it would be fair to say) and as such the likely owner of the tapes may very well be the Estate, who also controls his likeness. Audiovisual works are specifically referenced as one of the nine (9) attributes for work for hire.

We would like to conclude that we are protected from false copyright claims and can be awared monetary damages under false Takedown Notices and Counter-Notices pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512(f).

MESSAGE TO KICKSTARTER: Kickstarter, PBC 58 Kent Street Brooklyn, NY 11222 USA

We also ask that our Kickstarter Page AS ABOVE MENTIONED : Help 2Pac's Chief Engineer Release 'The Makaveli Book be immediately restored pending proof from claimant

that a federal lawsuit has been filed. This is intended as our notice of counter-claim.

Message to the claimant, Mohammad Ghobad Rahiminedjad, (a.k.a. ‘Gobi’), AKA STATIC FREE FILMS:

KickStarter is legally obligated by federal law to reinstate this page within 10 to 14 business days if the you do not file a Federal Copyright lawsuit against him, and (2) monetary damages are available to victims of false Takedown Notices and Counter-Notices pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512(f). Moreover, a Counter-Notice is not just another appeal. If the party who sent the original Takedown Notice does not respond to the Counter-Notice by filing a lawsuit in federal court within fourteen (14) business days, then KickStarter, PBC is required by law to immediately restore the page to it's previous position. 17 U.S.C. § 512(g)(2)(C). We would highly recommend that you retract the false Copyright claims by contacting KickStarter and making KickStarter aware that there was a concession made by both parties. Each day that this crowd-funding KickStarter campaign is offline, our campaign loses money and increases our punitive claims against you. In the meantime, demand is hereby made that in the next 24 hours you: 1) Cease and Desist all attempts at filing False Claims against XXXXXX ; 2) Provide our offices (via email is appropriate) the exact nature of your alleged copyright claims; 3) Provide our offices with documented proof of your alleged copyrights.