Stalked for Protecting Copyright, Author Gets Restraining Order founder Matthew Chan founder Matthew Chan

An author who was stalked and bullied online for her efforts to enforce her copyrights has won a permanent protective order against the perpetrator, Matthew Chan, who is also in the sights of stock photo agencies for thwarting their efforts to enforce photographers’ copyrights. The restraining order reflects an increasingly vitriolic tone and no-holds-barred personal attacks against copyright holders and their attorneys on Chan’s website, (aka ELI).

A Georgia state court judge issued the restraining order against Chan on February 28, at the request of Linda Ellis of Marietta, Georgia. Ellis writes and markets inspirational poetry, and is the author of several books. As a result of her efforts to protect her copyright by issuing demand letters to individuals and organizations who published her work without her permission, she was subject to attacks by Chan and his followers on the ELI website.

The court said Chan’s actions “placed the petitioner [Linda Ellis] in reasonable fear for [her] safety, because [Chan] contacted [Ellis] (and urged others to contact her) and posted personal information of the petitioner for the purpose of harassing and intimidating [her].”

Victims of ELI’s attacks–including stock photo agencies and attorneys who help them enforce copyright– are cheering, but doing so quietly, for fear of fueling renewed attacks if they speak up. Chan and his attorney say he is being denied his rights of free speech, and that he is the victim of judicial overreach and error.

The judge ordered Chan to remove the offending posts from the ELI website, and to leave Ellis and her immediate family alone–without contact of any type in the future, including online or through social media. Chan risks a charge of aggravated stalking, a felony punishable by fines and imprisonment, if he violates the order.

Ellis sought the restraining order because of the campaign against her that Chan and his followers launched last year. The attacks began after Ellis reportedly sent a $7,500 demand letter to a Seattle auctioneer who had posted one of Ellis’s poems online without permission.

Ellis told her hometown paper, the Marietta Daily Journal in Marietta, Georgia, that Chan and his supporters posted her address and pictures of her house on the ELI website. Then they began insulting her personally on the site. Ellis said she could ignore all of that. “But then he posted a video screaming at me saying I wouldn’t understand anything but brute force,” she told the newspaper. “This was cyber stalking at its worst.”

Fearing for her safety, Ellis finally approached law enforcement officials, and sought the restraining order. She was supported in her efforts by Timothy McCormack, a Seattle attorney who has pursued copyright infringement claims for Getty Images, and who has also been a victim of Chan’s online attacks. (Chan’s crusade against what he calls “copyright trolls” and “extortionists” began several years ago when he received a demand letter from Getty for infringement. He considered the demand excessive for the use in question, and fought with such tenacity that Getty finally dropped the matter).

“In 15 years as an attorney, I have never witnessed such a dangerous and uninhibited pattern of behavior. I believe that Mr. Chan is a danger both to himself and to others. He is a zealot to his ’cause’ and believes he is irreproachable and unstoppable,” McCormack wrote in an affidavit to the Georgia court. “Based on his own words and pattern of escalating behavior that I have personally witnessed, I believe Mr. Chan is likely to follow through on his threats of physical retaliation against Linda Ellis.”

McCormack added that his own property has been vandalized since he became an ELI target, “which I believe to be a direct result or Mr. Chan’s hate and harassment campaign directed against me.” McCormack noted that Chan posts addresses and photos of his targets, as well as photos of their homes. “I believe serious harm is likely if he remains unchecked,” McCormack wrote in the affidavit.

McCormack also filed numerous exhibits with the affidavit, showing examples of what Chan posted on the ELI website forum in his campaign against Ellis.

In a post dated June 11, 2012, for instance, Chan threatened to divulge personal information about Ellis, her brother, and her daughter. “There are people who hate you and looking [sic] to put you into the ground,” Chan wrote in a post to his ELI forum. “My patience is fairly low. It wouldn’t take much to push me over the edge on this.”

Ellis says she was frightened by a post dated June 19, 2012, in which Chan described ELI as his “cult” in an open letter to McCormack. Chan also wrote in that post:  “My dazzling, hypnotic, persuasive, and entrancing words and prose are somewhat masterful I must confess.  I can convince the most intelligent, self-determined, and self-motivated person to blindly follow any public suggestion I might make.”

Ellis says she asked Chan’s internet service provider to review content associated with her name; as a result, the ISP shut down the ELI website. Angered by that, Chan moved ELI to a new ISP. He then escalated his attacks against Ellis, she says.

On December 10, 2012, Chan announced on the ELI forum that another alleged infringer who had received a demand letter from Ellis had hired ELI to fight a demand for money from Ellis. “Given ELI’s many past successes using unorthodox, lethal, hard-hitting, reputation damaging strategies, [ELI was hired] to take on Team Ellis,” Chan wrote. “If there is collateral damage that goes beyond Linda that spills over to her friends, family, attorneys, and business associates, so be it.”

Chan also wrote in that post, “Some people might get it into their heads to come after me. That could be a big mistake…I absolutely believe in revenge and payback…I am capable of many things. I won’t elaborate…”

Then Chan went on to say, “Marietta [Georgia, where Ellis lives] was my old stomping grounds. I have a video camera. I have access to a lot of financial and real estate records. I know how to track people down….I have a freaky photographer friend from Florida…that [sic] is just aching to visit me in Georgia and join me in a tour of Marietta with a video camera.”

Several days later, he posted to the ELI forum that he was asking ELI’s “client” for expense money to access databases for the purpose of digging up “dirt” on Ellis and her family.

On January 30, 2013, Chan insulted Ellis’s appearance in graphic terms. Then he added, “I am NOT stalking her pitiful ass. I am here on ELI, at my home base, saying what I want to say while not violating any laws….Too fucking bad if her ‘fans’ want to look her up and find my personal write-ups about her…I am carrying through with my promise on payback plain and simple.”

The next day, after some ELI forum members apparently asked Chan to be “professional, focus on the true issues, [be] a better human being, [take] the high road,” Chan responded: “What I will be writing will be mean, malicious, retaliatory, vicious, ugly, distasteful, and get very personal. It will make a LOT of people cringe and that is fine.”

He concluded that post by writing, “For now, I don’t care about Getty, Masterfile, McCormack [Getty’s outside counsel], or any other copyright extortionists. They get a free pass. This shitbag named Linda Ellis and her despicable team, is what I am focused on.”

On February 9, he announced on the forum that he had visited Marietta, Georgia. “I’m not going to say where exactly in Marietta I was at but let’s just say I was in East Cobb very close to a Kroger grocery store.”

Ellis told the Marietta Daily Journal, “In court, the paper [Chan] was holding shook so much it was like there was a ceiling fan,” Ellis said. “He was nervous seeing me face-to-face. His weapon is his keyboard.”

Chan sent several lengthy e-mails to PDN defending his actions, and arguing that the court order against him was an injustice. He said he began complying with the court order immediately by removing posts on the ELI website about Ellis.

He argued that a permanent protective order that bars him from writing about Linda Ellis infringes his right of free speech.

“Having a lifetime PPO [Permanent Protective Order] against someone who has never met, phoned, emailed, text-messaged, voicemailed, FAXED, or visited the plaintiff [Ellis] is outrageous to me,” he wrote.

His attorney, Oscar Michelen, says: “Matt was not charged with being boorish or rude or hurtful.  He was not even charged with threatening Ms. Ellis. He was charged with stalking her. Even though he never contacted her or called her or emailed her.”

Chan added, “I didn’t tell anyone to do anything directly or indirectly. I bluster and bloviate on my own forums, there is no denying that,” he wrote. “Having interviewed me, you know I do get worked up. But seriously, have I ever once come close to discussing anything violent, dangerous, and the like?  NO.  And that isn’t the case now.

“No question about it, it was definitely stupid for me to take up someone’s case and wrote [sic] some of what I wrote. It certainly doesn’t paint me in a flattering light and I’m not proud of it.” He said that out of context of the hundreds of posts he has made to ELI, the handful of posts about Linda Ellis paint a distorted picture of him.

He went on to justify his actions by alleging that Ellis “regularly issues $7,500 extortion letters to  dental/medical centers, churches, charities, non-profits, etc.  for mistakenly printing her poem. But that information is now buried.  Plaintiff has been engaged in intimidation for many more years than ELI has even been in existence?  So who is truly the bully here?”

Chan says he’d like to appeal the protective order, but may not have the resources to do so.

Michelen, adds,  “If we do appeal it will be because the order stifles free speech in general and future speech on ELI specifically.”

Meanwhile, McCormack–the Getty attorney–says he will continue to pursue Chan, ELI attorney Oscar Michelen and ELI. For McCormack, the fight is personal: Besides attacking McCormack for his copyright enforcement efforts, ELI members have posted degrading and homophobic images of McCormack, and used SEO strategies to ensure those images appear high in any search results of his name. ELI has also attacked one of his female paralegals repeatedly.

“I don’t think people understood the depth of the vulgarity that have been done to Linda Ellis, my staff, and other people,” McCormack told PDN in a telephone interview. “When they take the law into their own hands, and they brag about it–‘We will do whatever it takes, cross any line’–they use threats and intimidation. That’s not free speech. That’s the issue here, and there will be a day of reckoning.”

In December, McCormack filed a 36-page professional misconduct complaint against Michelen with the New York state bar, alleging violation of state cyberstalking statutes. It included 100 exhibits, mostly screen grabs of posts from the ELI website.

As part owner of the ELI website, “Mr. Mechelen oversees hateful smear campaigns…which are often racist, misogynistic, and homophobic in nature….with the intention of disrupting the legal process and intimidation opposing parties into ceasing pursuit of their claims,” McCormack wrote in the complaint.

But the New York state bar declined to pursue the complaint, saying it wasn’t the proper “first forum” for it. “We are still in the process of discussing forum with the [New York] bar,” McCormack told PDN.

Asked why he hasn’t sued for defamation, libel, or other civil claims, McCormack said, “That might happen.” He adds, “I believe they have not only crossed civil boundaries, but they’re in the realm of criminal violation.”

Asked whether ELI is the subject of any criminal investigations, McCormack said, “I can’t comment about any knowledge I have or don’t have about any investigations.”

Meanwhile, ELI’s enemies are showing themselves capable of nasty, bare-knuckle smear tactics. Another attorney who has been subject to ELI’s attacks for issuing demand letters to infringers on behalf of stock agencies provided PDN with a private investigator’s report on ELI and Chan. It includes names, addresses (past and current), phone numbers, and photographs of Chan and others affiliated with ELI who are considered “hostile threats.” The report also lists web sites registered to those individuals. And it includes names and photographs of some of their family members, along with some embarrassing, unverified, and potentially slanderous personal information.

The attorney who sent the report referred questions about who commissioned it to McCormack. He was not immediately available for comment. But one thing is certain: The report is a salvo from ELI’s enemies in what has shaped up to be a very dirty war.

Agencies Step Up Copyright Enforcement as Infringers Fight Back (subscription required)

Tags: , , , , , ,

140 Responses to “Stalked for Protecting Copyright, Author Gets Restraining Order”

  1. Brown Says:

    The facts are that Brown was sent The Dash poem by a client in one of those “girlfriend emails” women are asked to pass on to their best friends. Instead of passing the poem along she briefly posted The Dash (purportedly authored by Linda Ellis) on a blog back in 2011 along with a poem written by Mother Teresa. Within a few days, Brown began receiving legal looking letters from John W. Jolin claiming to represent Linda Ellis. The letters demanded $7500 and threatened Brown with a Federal lawsuit and the possibility of paying as much as $150,000 in fines.

    Brown’s attempts to negotiate with Ellis and Jolin failed so she decided to go public with her story to see if others were in the same boat. Linda Ellis retaliated with a barage of vitriolic emails and intimidating tactics. Ellis contacted April Brown’s clients and told them not to do business with her. Ellis contacted her husbands employer, Bonneville Communications, twice filing false charges claiming violations of the Federal Communications Commission. Mike Brown is a sports broadcaster in Seattle. Ellis bought several Google ads under April Brown’s name and her company, Charity Auction World, and then placed links to multiple essays naming Brown as a thief and liar. Ellis claimed Brown promoted sexual explicit content and claimed she was unpatriotic. Ellis filed false DMCA notices on all of April Brown’s online content – successfully closing down 3 youtube channels. Squarespace, Brown’s hosting service refused to comply with Ellis’s false DMCA notices. Brown proved Ellis lied about the claims and Youtube restored her channels.

    At that point Brown contacted Matthew Chan, an affective and loud voice for people caught up in the Getty extortion letter scheme. Chan was shocked Linda Ellis had been able to scare people into paying exorbitant amounts of money for innocently infringing on a copyright instead of first sending a Cease and Desist Order allowing the infringer the opportunity to remove the poem without harm.

    Chan created the Linda Ellis Extortion letter forum as a lark to see if the issue was real. In time the forum revealed scores of people who have been suffering in silence and fear of Linda Ellis. Many paid up, others went underground, but most wanted and needed to speak out. Ellis stalked the forum using aliases to monitor the posts. She contacted Chan to give her side of the story but was quickly rebuked by the forum participants when she refused to admit she sent letters to grieving families. Chan too became incensed at the heavy handed tactics Ellis uses against innocent infringements. When an author who had put the poem in a book as Author Unknown contacted Chan he decided to use satire and mockery to humiliate Linda into backing off her demand of $100,000. Since Ellis went after Brown’s family, Chan felt mentioning Linda’s family was fair game. He was wrong.

    Who are the victims of the Dash Extortion Letter scheme? Grieving families who simply shared the poem in a funeral program. Students who read the poem and then post that reading on YouTube. Pastors who share the poem in a sermon, and printed in a church bulletin. Teachers who use the poem in an assignment and that poem ends up on a proud families blog. Brown tells the story of a young mother who called one evening saying she felt like she had been kicked when she was down. “Imagine you just buried your child and then you open an email demanding $7500 because your mom put The Dash in your baby’s funeral program.” Brown says.

    Brown claims to be the only person willing to speak out publicly. “You can see why everyone is afraid. Linda Ellis doesn’t sue anyone for copyright infringement. She knows the Federal Courts would not support such ridiculous demands for a simple sharing of a simple poem.” Brown asks why, if Linda Ellis was so afraid of Matthew Chan, why didn’t she ask him to cease and desist and why did she wait 7 months from the date of the offending post to file the Stalking Ex Parte charge? “For Linda Ellis to claim she is afraid of Matthew Chan is laughable considering it is Linda Ellis who is the purveyor of fear”.

    “People are so angry”. Brown claims the anger comes because of the message of a poem about how people live the through the years between life and death. “How could an inspirational author create so much pain and suffering over the sharing of a poem?” Brown continues to warn others to BEWARE DON’T SHARE the Dash poem to avoid any contact with the author.

    Brown speaks highly of Matthew Chan. “He is a warrior for those people who are too afraid to speak.” Brown says his words were mostly comedic and entertaining much like John Stewart’s tongue in cheek diatribes. “Had those words been spoken the humor would have been clearly understood”, said Brpwn. “People need to know that the reason the Extorion Letter Info forum exists is because people are being hurt, bullied, harassed and stalked by copyright trolls, not the other way around.”

  2. Ben Avic Says:

    Ms. Brown, it’s amazing how far will you continue to take your smear campaign against Ms. Ellis. Your rant just displays your desperation and attempt to justify your and Mr. Chan’s despicable actions and threats. You are incapable of keeping your opinions professional. You continue to increase your slander when the lies do not bring you enough satisfaction. Look up the word: LIE. Wait, you don’t have to look it up, you wrote the definition.

  3. Mara Mulrooney Says:

    In my opinion, it sounds to me like April Brown is lying. April Brown should be ashamed and embarrassed to be a cohort of this Matthew Chan. How can we teach our CHILDREN about bullies whether it is in our schools or online, when by all accounts, Chan and his comrades sound like ADULT bullies doing the same thing. How do you have condone such behavior by Mr. Chan? Ms. Brown is a disgrace to fellow women as she blindly turned her eyes to the unscrupulous things Mr. Chan and team said about Ms. Ellis. In a word, Ms. Brown, you are PATHETIC.

  4. Brown Says:

    One of the tactics Linda Ellis uses is on display here right now in this forum. Name calling and a total disregard of the facts.

    I have documented every single word Linda Ellis has ever written to me and made those words public. I have documented every victim story shared with me and made those stories public. I have documented every incident Linda Ellis has used to silence me and made those public. Linda’s emails, the letters to my husbands’ employer, the Google ads, Linda’s essays are all posted. Calling me a liar and pathetic in the face of all the evidence to the contrary is lying and pathetic.

    From the outset Linda Ellis, John Jolin and a handful of Ellis supporters have accused me of lying without ever posting a single lie I supposedly have told.

    What do you have to say about all the other victims? This is not a campaign of revenge headed by a pathetic, lying, shameful, unprofessional woman business owner living in Seattle. It is the uncovering of horrific abuse by this author.

    I will concede I’m a liar when Linda Ellis makes a public written statement refuting these facts. I’ve asked her for that statement for many months now and she has never once publicly denied any of the above incidents. Why? Because every single word is true and verifiable.

    Accusing Matthew Chan of stalking was just another attempt to silence me through severance. Do you really think that every single person will stop talking just because Chan has a PPO against him? Or if and when I’m silenced, the other victims will shut up?

    That is just not going to happen. The people that have paid off Linda Ellis are fuming. The grieving families are fuming. Teachers, preachers, rabbis and priests are furious. Even if you don’t think I have credibility, do you believe those people will tolerate being labeled a thief and liar? This extortion scheme and the fallout from it is Linda Ellis’ doing, not mine.

    You can’t kill the messenger with more lies. It’s too late for that.

  5. Ben Avic Says:

    Ms. Brown…Ms. Ellis doesn’t have to publicly refute any of your LIES. Why do you think she has to answer to YOU or address anything you’ve made up? YOUR own partner is guilty of stalking and this ELI website you are an integral part of, threatened her and her family and friends. What makes that OKAY to you? It’s all in the facts. I would bet money that she has been advised to stay as far away from you and your vindictive crusaders as she can. I’ve read your side. You distort, stretch and completely misrepresent all facts to your liking. Ms. Ellis is allowed to protect her copyright, her property, whether you approve of it or not.

  6. Ian Says:

    I live on the other side of the world in Jerusalem, Israel. It would of course be absurd for Linda Ellis to require a restraining order against me, but no less absurd than her need for such an order for Matthew Chan! He has never so much as initiated any form of communication with her.

    I am also the victim of copyright extortion letters, and Matthew and his forum provided immense support, guidance and education to me in my efforts to cope with the legal threats I faced.

    Why a victim of extortion? Because out of the blue, people receive threatening legal letters demanding obscene amounts of money ($7,500 in Ms. Ellis’s case) for what is always a small and innocent copyright infringement. The letters bully and threaten the recipient with impending legal action unless they pay up! People suffer a great amount of emotional and financial hardship when they receive these letters. People such as Linda Ellis harass them, and they usually pay up in order to reduce their high levels of stress and anxiety.

    Matthew Chan is morally outraged by the actions of those like Linda Ellis. His forum, which is seen by people the world over gives invaluable information to thousands, and offers emotional and other support to the victims.

    Matthew Chan is a model citizen, sacrificing his time, energy and even money to help others and fight back against the moral turpitude of the copyright trolls. Matthew Chan is a people’s hero! He fearlessly puts himself at risk in order to fight a just and moral battle.

  7. Brown Says:

    So, I will rest my position with the posts from Ben and Ian.

    You have to believe that a woman who sent me over 100 emails would be thrilled to post any lie she could sink her teeth in to.

    There are simply no lies to refute.

    And Ian, it is great to know this story has made it all the way to Jerusalem. It is clear, Linda Ellis will never be able to operate in secret again.

  8. Mara Mulrooney Says:

    Ms. Brown, just to be 100% crystal clear: I AM NOT Linda Ellis. I am a woman who does not believe your story. I am a woman who thinks you are a liar, who continues to propagate stories (lies) about Ms. Ellis. I am a woman who feels that Linda Ellis was targeted unfairly, harassed, intimidated and was the victim of being cyber-stalked to the point that she needed to seek a PPO. I am a woman who feels that you should be embarrassed by whatever definition of relationship you have with Mr. Chan. He himself says he was wrong for what he did and said his actions (which come in the form of words) were stupid. They were beyond stupid. His words and the words of others were dangerous. You are a bully and so is Mr. Chan, in my opinion. You all are so crazy & over-reaching, that you cling to any forum, blog, book review, Facebook quote to spout your web of lies. It is just a sad state. One final question, who are all of you to unilaterally determine how each person who owns a copyright, reserve their right to defend their copyright?

  9. Not-An-Ellis-Fan Says:

    To be honest, this Linda Ellis situation is a bigger mess than what Chan or Brown have shared. When an unfortunate incident occurred on my website (I will not bore you with details), I began receiving the demands for $7500. When I realized this was not just a scam (it sure seemed like it since I never received anything in writing, only emails), I contacted my insurance company and my attorney. My insurance company immediately responded with instructions NOT to offer a red cent to Ellis because they have a long list of clients who are being scammed by Ellis for large sums of money for similar infringements. Ellis maintained that the internet archives will always carry an image of her poem on my website so I have an obligation to pay her for damages. The claims agent for my insurance company (a reputable, high profile and well known insurance company) insisted that I not have ANY contact with Ellis or her cohorts because they have a group of infringement experts working on this unethical demand for damages due to alleged infringement.

    I have known Brown now since we began talking about the similarities between our situations. She is NOT exaggerating. The situation is way out of control. Ellis continues to post anonymously under assumed names, manipulating public opinion against the alleged infringers and building a case on lies and half-truths. She uses a third-party (most likely a close relative) to scam funeral homes, churches, women’s groups, forums, terminally ill men and women, and some of the most innocent who were somehow touched by the little ditty. Her attempts to exploit people have continued to grow in numbers as she and her cohorts actually troll the internet looking for possible victims.

    This protective order must have been the work of another close relative of Ellis. From all that I know and have been made privy to by my insurance company and attorney, Ellis has infringed upon the rights of a multitude of people who did nothing but share the little ditty, giving proper credits, and doing so to bring encouragement to others. As an author myself, I would be so honored to have something I wrote touch so many lives. Instead, Ellis wants to turn it all into cash.

    It’s an outrage! I hope Ellis is enjoying the benefits of her little ditty now. One of these days it is all going to backfire on her. You can’t treat people this way for very long and get away with it; it will catch up to her, mark my words.

    Ellis, if you’re reading this (I am sure you are since you’ve already posted under at least one assumed name), get over yourself! Your little ditty may have inspired some, but we know the true heart behind it. It was a sad day when you decided to use your talent to exploit others by demanding outlandish sums for sharing your work.

  10. Ben Avic Says:

    I have read all of this and that is ridiculous! 100 emails. It is so very apparent you are trying to egg Ms. Ellis on to respond. She’s probably on a beach somewhere ignoring your hatred and rants. At least those of use who enjoy her words (posted for free on her website for everyone to read legally) can hope. You must’ve learned those intimidation and harassment tactics from your partner Matthew Chan, who was charged with stalking. April Brown’s name and reputation and Matthew Chan’s are becoming inextricably linked. It would appear you and Ms. Ellis were exchanging correspondence initially, or did you fail to mention that too, Ms. Brown? Also, Ms. Ellis addressed your fabricated and exaggerated accusations on posts between the two of you. I read that your husband, Mike Brown from ESPN was contacted as well, because he is involved with the business who posted Ms. Ellis work illegally on a business web site. So, please stop distorting the facts, April Brown and stick to the absolute truth. You know what you’re doing. Just try to be completely honest and professional, if it’s possible.

  11. Chai Says:

    All this through the inability, or refusal, to acknowledge an error in judgment. Brown’s site featured the poem without proper permission or attribution. It was an easily resolved matter. One woman’s ego could not abide by that…an admission of copyright violation. How this has spiraled this high and reached the proportions it has is confounding. I feel sure Brown would not have seen her *services* go unremunerated whenever she worked. Yet she denied the plausibility of that to another. Again, a matter that could have been amicably settled had her ego not been so indomitable.

    Enter the Chan. Champion of the ego. He took Brown’s martyrdom and added rocket fuel. All “ME” engines on full-forward. Where legal challenges failed he resorted to intimidation. Bullying tactics online. Degradation. Attempts at demonization. It matters not who is in the right and who is in the wrong at this point. Once the core of the issue has been abandoned and egos become entrenched there IS no victory. Only muckraking. Chan [and Brown] would not rest until they had *succeeded* in bringing the author [Ellis] down BELOW their perceived level, for which they seem to have an affinity.

    Again, this might have been avoided, and Chan could obscurely go about attempting to deprive other authors/creators of their rightful recognition and remuneration. He doth protest too much. He seems to have hoisted his own petard. He went too far. Justice should prevail and his tactics of intimidation are indicative of a desperate man. One driven by ego. One driven by a faulty premise. One who should CERTAINLY practice impulse control. A “people’s hero”? Perhaps, but what kind of people? For honor among thieves?

  12. Brown Says:

    Talk about bating. There are actually 102 emails and yes, I did respond to nearly all of them. If you want to read the emails they are on the BEWARE DON’T SHARE blog.

    And to be correct, the term “illegal” is another one of “Ms. Ellis’s” exaggerations. The term should be unauthorized. Copyright infringement is not criminal and is not decided in a criminal court.

    I have to say, Ben, you write and relate very much like Linda Ellis. Hmmmm. Could it be this is THE infamous Linda Ellis hiding under a bushel again?

  13. Ben Avic Says:

    With respect Ian, perhaps you should learn ALL the facts before you refer to anyone as a model citizen. I saw the video online where Mr. Chan screamed obscenities at Ms. Ellis and threatened her with force. They were public for everyone to see. He yelled, she is a PIECE of SHIT loudly and repeatedly as I remember it. I was appalled. In the articles, did you read that on-line he threatened her and her family? He said she was dead. He said he went to her house. He threatened her family. Is this a model citizen to you? Is this a model citizen’s way of communicating his views? How would you feel if he disagreed with you and threatened you and your family? I’ve read about copyright law and she is entitled to protect her legal property. Just as Chan or April and Mike Brown would protect theirs if the tables were turned.

  14. Mara Mulrooney Says:

    To ‘Ian of Jerusalem': Until you are a woman and you feel threatened for your own safety when a man is saying to you via the cyber world, “You wouldn’t understand anything but brute force.” – You will simply never get it. You shouldn’t be quite so quick to defend a man of Mr. Chan’s character, if that is what his character continuously reveals. As a complete outsider to this situation, Mr. Chan and Ms. Brown lost all credibility with me. Maybe you just wouldn’t understand – unless of course you have a Mother, Wife, Daughter, Sister and then you SHOULD understand! This is not a copyright issue. This is not an issue regarding freedom of speech. This is simply an issue of a woman who sought a PPO because she was in fear for her life and the life of her family. Clearly Mr. Chan’s initial web hosting company agreed that the comments on his website were threatening and over the top and asked him to remove some of those threatening posts…which he refused to do; hence why he switched to a new web hosting company. I presume the judge agreed that the threats were valid and that the over-whelming evidence was worthy of issuing a PPO. I side with the judge on this one and I hope that Ms. Ellis was given some peace of mind after the PPO was issued.

  15. Ben Avic Says:

    Ms. Brown, you are so incorrect, but you are consistent. On and many other sites, it states that it is indeed illegal “to copy large sections of someone else’s copyrighted work without permission, even if you give the original author credit.”

    Yep, illegal.

    No, I’m sorry…but you are not communicating with Ms. Ellis here. I hope she doesn’t bother to read your obsessive rants. I’ve read up on and will continue to follow this story because I feel strongly against bullies and…and stalkers.

  16. Brown Says:

    It is considered Fair Use. Name one person who has ever been arrested, convicted and sentenced to jail or fined for sharing a poem with author credit on website, in a church bulletin, a funeral program, a school play, a sermon, facebook, business blog, personal blog, forum, etc.

    We are all waiting….

  17. Ben Avic Says:

    And more posts from those guilty of taking and distributing what is not legally theirs. I suppose if you’re found doing something ILLEGAL, you fight back any way you can to save face…even if you have to lie. Why believe these words from those who have ALREADY taken legal property from another? Isn’t that a definition of theft? Why would they tell the truth now? To seek revenge.

  18. Ben Avic Says:

    Please, Ms. Brown. Stop displaying your ignorance to the world. Go look up Fair Use, as I did to remind myself so I don’t post mistaken facts, as you do. Ms. Ellis’ attorneys are not fools. My little one needs me now and he is more important to my dash than you. Be well. God bless you.

  19. Brown Says:


    Please provide the examples of someone being criminally charged and convicted of sharing a poem.

    Please refute that Linda Ellis sent me 102 emails.

    Please refute Linda Ellis sends extortion letters to the families of the dead and dying.

    Please list each and every lie you claim I’ve told and am telling now.

    And the definition of theft is not sharing a poem with someone you love. That is called sharing. But for Linda Ellis it is permission to harass and intimidate her readers and followers.

    Again, name one other author who is doing what this woman is doing.

  20. Ben Avic Says:

    One more tidbit, I just went on Ms. Ellis’ web site and she clearly states that recitations (for sermons, etc.) ARE allowed! She encourages them! She says the text of her work should not be posted on web sites because it takes away customers from her business. Makes perfect sense. How would a product maintain any worth (licensing or otherwise) if it was available everywhere unauthorized? Would YOUR business be able to do that with your products? I think the LEAST we can do to thank her for sharing her work with us for free is to respect her rights. Why would anyone have to take advantage of her in that way? Why did you?

  21. Truth be told Says:

    I guess for you to really see ellis for who/what she is, you need to have lost an amazing person in your life. A person who’s life inspired and touched so many other people that you felt inclined to innocently use her poem at the funeral to sum up this amazing life….then post the funeral bulletin and watch the vultures swirl. While I wouldn’t even wish that on you, to be so deeply engulfed in grief and to have some one extort money from you in your darkest hour. Well only then will you begin to see ellis for who she is.
    If you applaud her tactics that target the grieving, the sick and the vulnerable….tactics that have hit churches, widows, orphans and the lonely then that speaks volumes on YOUR character as well as the insect ellis that you are trying to shield from the prospective s of victims of her extortion campaign. She has hurt people for her personal gain…pure and simple. She makes a living at threatening widows with legal action and all the time she sells herself to the christian community. She has facebook posts inviting people to share her toxic poem and when they do….she pounces with her trolls. Regardless if you like it-this is what she does, and her victims have a right to speak out and warn others and that is all that is going on in these forums. Bottom line-DONT share the DASH…and if ellis was really concerned about her copyright she would applaud these efforts warning people not to share the toxic poem.

  22. Mara Mulrooney Says:

    Again…I am far more concerned about Mr. Chan being a stalker than I am about Ms. Ellis and her copyrighted work. When you google search Mr. Chan, far more eerie information comes up about him. Ms. Ellis was very brave to seek the PPO. The judge was wise to issue the PPO. Again, this is NOT a copyright issue or a freedom of speech issue, this is about Ms. Ellis’s legal right to secure a PPO for her safety and the safety of her family. Ms. Brown – you are like moths to a flame…

  23. Brown Says:

    “One more tidbit, I just went on Ms. Ellis’ web site and she clearly states that recitations (for sermons, etc.) ARE allowed! She encourages them! She says the text of her work should not be posted on web sites because it takes away customers from her business. Makes perfect sense.”

    I guess you haven’t read the emails from the religious leaders on my blog. They run about neck and neck with grieving families. In fact, use your search engine and you can easily find synagogs, parishes, Baptist and Methodist churches. Seems that little lie is encouraging more victims don’t you think?

    You need to stop focusing on April Brown (me) and arm yourself with the truth from other voices.

  24. Mara Mulrooney Says:

    Ms. Ellis – if you are reading an of this which I highly doubt, my Father owns a funeral home in North Carolina and he will be contacting you to sign a licensing agreement with you, to be able to use The Dash Poem at his funeral home. My Father is a smart business man and understands that he needs an author’s authorization before he can use your work. It’s amazing that other supposed ‘business people’ don’t get that! What a novel idea! Your words are an inspiration and you deserve every right to your use of copyright and I pray that you are feeling safer now with that PPO!

  25. Ben Avic Says:

    That is called communication and corresponding. You say she has the same amount FROM you as well?

    What a nice word you use to explain your taking HER property unauthorized and illegally — sharing. Is that what you’d say if someone took your car? They wanted to share it with me!

    I’ve followed this story and am familiar with it. You know what you’re doing, Ms. Brown. You are clever and manipulative. You are trying to turn the conversation around and I won’t be a part of it. Good day. Again, I say God Bless you April Brown.

  26. Brown Says:


    Soon the legal documents will be available and posted. There is a very different side to this story and you are not aware of those facts.

    As someone with 3 domestic violence shelters as clients, nothing, literally nothing Matthew Chan did even comes close to stalking. If Linda Ellis was so afraid, why was she laughing about using this against Matthew well before the charges were filed. I guess you forgot about that little episode.

    Again, what you have heard is absent the rest of the story.

    BTW, I like your analogy of “moths to flame”. When Linda Ellis stops this horrible practice all the bugs will go away.

  27. Brown Says:

    So what Linda Ellis did to me and her direct emails to me is called communication and correspondence, but Matthew Chans’ communication and correspondence on forum with no direct contact, no history of violence, in the contest of humor and satire is stalking. Gee that sounds fair. Not.

    BTW, I stopped responding to her emails long ago. I have been public for over a year now. I don’t operate in secrecy and I certainly have never tried to silence anyone, ever.

    You might notice Linda Ellis regularly uses other people’s content on her Facebook page and website. She even embedded my videos and photo on her website — unauthorized.

    If you have literally been following this for the past 18 months, then you would know that every single word I post is true, backed by screen captures, victim stories and Linda Ellis’s own words.

    Again, you can try to kill the messenger…

  28. Ben Avic Says:

    Ms. Mara, I thank you. I did Google as you said and found this: and MORE web pages like it.

    Be well. Be safe.

  29. Ben Avic Says:


    16-5-90. Stalking GEORGIA

    (a)(1) A person commits the offense of stalking when he or she follows, places under surveillance, or contacts another person at or about a place or places without the consent of the other person for the purpose of harassing and intimidating the other person. For the purpose of this article, the terms “computer” and “computer network” shall have the same meanings as set out in Code Section 16-9-92; the term “contact” shall mean any communication including without being limited to communication in person, by telephone, by mail, by broadcast, by computer, by computer network, or by any other electronic device; and the place or places that contact by telephone, mail, broadcast, computer, computer network, or any other electronic device is deemed to occur shall be the place or places where such communication is received. For the purpose of this article, the term “place or places” shall include any public or private property occupied by the victim other than the residence of the defendant. For the purposes of this article, the term “harassing and intimidating” means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes emotional distress by placing such person in reasonable fear for such person’s safety or the safety of a member of his or her immediate family, by establishing a pattern of harassing and intimidating behavior, and which serves no legitimate purpose.

  30. Ben Avic Says:

    So, Mr. Chan’s threats, intimidation and harassment were “satire.” I give our judges more credit than that! So should you.

  31. Mara Mulrooney Says:

    Ms. Brown – You appear to be antagonistic, which again makes you appear to be a bully…in my opinion. My Mother always taught me that expression ‘birds of a feather’, so I guess you fit in good with Mr. Chan. If saying “putting somebody in the ground” and “Ms. Ellis wouldn’t understand anything but brute force” doesn’t constitute stalking, threat and intimidation, I don’t know what else does. For a person who dislikes Linda Ellis so much, I would find it interesting to know how much time you spend each day talking about her and saying her name. It sounds like you are obsessed with her…and not in a good way. That is not indicative of being the picture of mental health. I could never, ever focus so much of my time on another human being. For your own mental health, you should not spend the majority of your day (which it sounds like you do) worrying about somebody else, let alone somebody you despise. I am so sure like moths to a flame, you will repost again here.

  32. Brown Says:

    So again, could you answer just one question I ask of you?

    I stand by my comment on stalking. You will never convince me that Linda Ellis, who operates probably one of the most aggressive and fear based copyright trolling campaigns is afraid of any one or any thing. If that were the case she’d be hunkered down with a bullet proof vest and body guards. Literally hundreds of people hate her for what she’s done to them personally and professionally. When you consider that she wants every school in a school system to pay her $7500 per school because one teacher put that stupid poem on an intranet, that is a load of bad publicity and anger that cannot be contained. How many examples do you need and is every single school filled with thousands of thieves and liars? Get a grip.

    If she hadn’t tried to do to Matthew what she did to me, he would have never had skin in the game. He simply hosted a forum for victims. It was Ellis who started filing false DMCA notices and creating fake identities so she could sneak around the forum and copy content. Again, Matthew Chan is a satirist and nothing he did warranted that stalking claim or the conviction. If you think all people who are convicted of are guilty then you live on another planet.

    I appreciate the RipOff report posting but you might consider tracking down the people mentioned in the complaint before you reference it as fact.

  33. Brown Says:

    I have never posted one word about hating Ms. Ellis. Please send a link to that reference. I agree you probably could not focus any energy on this issue because you don’t know the victims and you don’t believe it is real. You make many assumptions about me that again, are simply not true. You have no idea where I do with my time and talents.

    I will repost here and I will always address any questions, persons or comments that apply to copyright trolling, Linda Ellis and the victims. The issue is interesting, thought provoking, worthy of debate and certainly needs to be tested in a court of law – repeatedly.

    If we stop exposing this cruel activity, who benefits? Certainly not the innocent infringers. And if Linda Ellis wants the infringements to stop, why doesn’t she warn people and tell the truth about her scheme?

    The fact is every single person who shares that stupid poem authorized or not is creating another victim. This is Linda Ellis’s legacy and she has to live with it.

  34. Not-An-Ellis-Fan Says:

    I think those of you who are defending Ellis’ antics have no idea what you’re talking about. In many instances, the little ditty wasn’t even posted by the website owner and, while ultimately responsible for what appears on their sites, things happen without any intention of infringing on anyone’s rights. For instance, if John Doe posts Ellis’ little ditty on Facebook, does she have a right to go after Facebook? They can’t possibly police every comment by every member every minute of every day! Many times those who are caught up in this nonsense have been in the same place as Facebook and even unaware that there was a problem until they received a demand letter for $7500 from Ellis’ representative.

    What if someone commented on your blog and quoted Ellis’ little ditty. Unless you moderate every post, you may not catch it for minutes, hours, days or longer. Then, if proper acknowledgements accompany it, you most likely will not think twice about it.

    Sure, ignorance is no defense in this or in any situation. But things like this happen. No one had any ill intentions, no one had any thought to rob Ellis of any opportunity for sales, no one had a plan to exploit her work. It was posted sincerely, quoted properly, etc. Many times the one who posts it has picked it up off another website from someone who picked it up somewhere else. Let’s not be ignorant of how all this stuff works. I’ve had it done with my work as has every other author out there who posts their work on the internet — it’s a risk you take when you post your work publicly.

    Ellis knows that; she also knows that her little ditty appeals to the emotions, many of those people dealing with some very critical life situations. To leave her work on the internet is baiting people to copy and share. If she doesn’t want her work shared, get it off the internet.

    Ellis needs to wise up and stop looking for ways to scam people who mean no harm by using her little ditty to comfort those dealing with difficult life issues.

  35. John Says:

    In the original article it says that Chan contacted Ellis, but that is not true from everything I have read, he did not contact her in any form. Did Chan say things that were not very nice? Yes he did, but he has the right to speak his opinion it is called freedom of speech. I cannot even begin to count the number of shows and radio programs where I have heard people say, “I wish so and so would die or get ran over by a bus.” I have heard others talk about how people hate the actions of others and that those people wish those people were dead. There is a big difference between speaking ugly words of frustration about the dirty underhanded tactics of someone like Ellis and threatening her life.

    Linda deems herself as a public figure. Like any public figure, one can expose dirt they find on them and their family. I personally would not do that, but read the tabloids, they not only dig up dirt, take pictures, etc. of the stars and their family, they also make lies about them that are not true. So for Chan to threaten to reveal information about Linda and her family may not be a nice thing to say, it is done every day against public figures. The thing is he only threatened to do it. In my opinion he did not stock her in anyway, he just spoke out against her and expressed the frustration of many that have received the $7500 letter after losing a loved one or by accidentally pasting her poem not realizing it was wrong to do.

    I watched the forum and they never stated that Linda did not deserve something for people posting her poem. That is not the problem. The problem is how she does it and the amount she for. She gives you no warning, but scans the internet and demands $7500. She makes it out like she could get 30,000 from you if you do not give her the 7500, but the most she would most likely receive would be 200 for an innocent infringement.

    Don’t you think it is a little bit suspicious that she never takes any of these people to court? If she really thought she could get 30,000 every time she took an innocent infringer to court, don’t you think she would have done it by now? It is much easier to scare people into paying 7500 because it does not cost much to send a pre-written scary letter to someone through email and just sit back a make your haul with little effort on your part.

    I like how April Brown wants anyone to show where she lied and she backs up everything she say with screen shots and saved emails, yet no one is willing to show where she lied. They just want to claim it. It is much easier to call someone a liar than prove it.

    The bottom line is the Linda has a nice sounding poem that she had turned into a money making scheme. She does not care if you lost your child or if you want to inspire someone because if you post her little poem she will come after you.

  36. MarkBurek Says:

    I never thought I would see the day when I would have to take a stand for someone who has impacted so many lives in a very positive way. Let me simply state that I have served to protect the rights of Americans like Linda Ellis through twenty one years of service in the United States Navy. I served because I believe in this country and what it stands for. Apparently, I’m not the only person that felt Ms. Ellis’ rights were violated as is the case with the judge who awarded the restraining order and others who have posted here. That is what is really at issue here.

  37. Ben Avic Says:

    John, Mr. Chan did not “stock” Ms. Ellis as you say. He “stalked” her. No wonder you don’t understand…

    Don’t believe what you’ve read from Ms. Brown…you can take “stock” in that.

  38. Ben Avic Says:

    Ms. Brown as Matthew Chan’s ‘Defense Team Member,’ are you saying here and now that everything Mr. Chan did to Ms. Ellis is acceptable to you? You condone everything he said and did against her and her family? You approve of it all?

  39. RevdJanus Says:

    I appreciate Linda Ellis is your Sponsor and you have to be careful, but if you have any influence the other way around, please do look into this fully.
    America has never stood for the rights of individuals or companies to cause untold hurt and misery to others, especially those in the darkest and most vulnerable times of their lives.
    Fight the Good Fight! :)

  40. Ben Avic Says:

    It looks like Ms. Ellis has been forced to make rules to save and protect HER property, but it is the law that people cannot take what is not theirs. PERIOD. Ms. Ellis is a victim…people take her property every single day. There have to be rules in place to protect work when there are others who LICENSE these works from creative artists. We, as Americans have a right to make a living and hold on to what is legally ours, including the RIGHT BY LAW to decide who can use our legal PROPERTY, where and when. THOU SHALT NOT STEAL. Perhaps some people are exempt from this commandment?

  41. Ben Avic Says:

    Ms. Ellis, if you do read this, I’ve sent you an email. I look forward to your response.

  42. John Says:

    Thanks for pointing out my typo. I am sure there are more because I had to type my response quickly because I had people waiting on me, so I did not have time to proof it at all. In my opinion, when people attack a typo of what a person has written, it is because that is the only thing that person can do. Ben, can you refute what I wrote or are you just going to play the English teacher and point out typos and minor grammar errors?

    I have been reading through your posts, and I have noticed you ignore just about any question asked of you. Instead, you just rant and rave about how Ellis has the right to protect her work, which no one denies. Here are some questions that April posted earlier that Ben nor anyone else has answered:

    1. Please provide the examples of someone being criminally charged and convicted of sharing a poem.
    2. Please refute that Linda Ellis sent me 102 emails.
    3. Please refute Linda Ellis sends extortion letters to the families of the dead and dying.
    4. Please list each and every lie you claim I’ve told and am telling now.

    Can anyone deny this statement made by April in her first post: “Ellis filed false DMCA notices on all of April Brown’s online content – successfully closing down 3 youtube channels. Squarespace, Brown’s hosting service refused to comply with Ellis’s false DMCA notices. Brown proved Ellis lied about the claims and Youtube restored her channels.”

    Ben, did you even attempt to answer anything that I said? No. Why would someone like Chan not have the same freedom of speech as the countless other sources that speak harshly against public figures? How in the world could a judge convict him of stalking when he NEVER contacted Linda in any way?

    No one is saying that Linda cannot protect her little poem, but consider this. Let say that your young child of 17 dies in a car accident and he or she was your only child. Your heart would be broken and your world would be turned upside down. As you are making the funeral preparations a cousin tells you about this poem called The Dash. You read it, and you think it has a good message so you decide to make a memorial page for your son or daughter. You are not thinking about copyrights or anything other than honoring your only child. You know that your family members are torn up from his or her death, so you think that little poem my lift them up a little bit. Then you post that little poem on your page.
    Two weeks later you get an email from Linda’s team, telling you how you have broken the law and that you need to remove her poem from your dead’s child memorial page, and you need to pay her $7500 for putting it on there. If you refuse to meet her demands she claims she will take you to court. Within this letter she sends you, she talks about how she won 150,000 plus lawyer expenses from this one case against a man who used her work. She has this lumped in with the claim that she is guaranteed up to 30,000 dollars for your innocent infringement.

    Think about how scary that sounds. $7500 sounds like a good deal. Besides, you do not have any fight left in you because you are still grieving your lost child. These are the kind of people that Linda and her team are going after. She does not care if what your story is there will be no mercy because she wants her 7500 no matter what.

    What Linda does not tell you is that 150,000 plus case she won was not an innocent infringer but a man who intentionally violated her work. She also does not tell you that she has never taken an innocent infringer to court because it is too easy to write off those who will not pay and focus on those who will. That is some easy money. She claims in her letter that she will automatically get up to 30,000 for your innocent mistake.

    However, nothing in the copyright law says that an author will automatically recover statutory damages of up to $30,000.” There is nothing automatic about it. The author will have to sue the defendant to try and get money from them. If you look at the copyright law you will notice that it says that an innocent infringer may have to pay a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. Linda conveniently leaves this part out of the letter because it sounds scary to say up to $30,000 instead of $750-$30,000. Under most cases, innocent infringers will not even have to pay $750 because in the next paragraph of the copyright law, it says:

    In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200.

    From what I have read, it is hard to prove that a person is a willful infringer. From what I have been hearing, if Linda took you to court, which she would have to do in your district, about the most you would have to pay as an innocent infringer is $200. There would have to be something major against you like your infringement causing a great deal of money loss to Linda for a judge to ever make it go to the max of 30,000.

    Linda also claims that her attorney fees will automatically be recovered as well, but the copyright law says this:

    505. Remedies for infringement: Costs and attorney’s fees In any civil action under this title, the court in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party other than the United States or an officer thereof. Except as otherwise provided by this title, the court may also award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs.

    Notice, the judge MAY ALLOW. It is not automatic or a sure thing. Based on this law, if the author loses, not only will the author be stuck with his or her legal fees, the author might have to pay the defendant’s attorney fees. No wonder she says in her letter, We do not enjoy lawsuits and hope to not have to resort to the courts; She knows that there is a strong possibility that she will only get $200 for her trouble and may not receive compensation for her lawyers.

    I have nothing against Linda personally, but I despise her deeds because she hurts so many innocent people that were just trying to inspire or make someone feel good by using her poem. It is wrong to share copyrighted poems? Yes, it should not be done. The problem is that many have no idea that is wrong nor do they share it to promote their website or make money off of it. In many ways, when poems like hers do get shared, it does not take away money from her, it gives her more exposer and can potentially send more people to her little page to buy her product.

    So, her winning the court case against Chan was her simply trying to silence him from exposing the money making scheme of hers in my opinion.

  43. Ben Avic Says:

    John, if you had a product, would you be able to afford to let everyone give it to millions every single day? Would others buy it from you, when millions didn’t, even though they are legally supposed to? How would you make a living this way? How would your product hold its value? What steps would you take to protect your own product? And in reference to your legal questions, I doubt Ms. Ellis wrote those letters herself. She has lawyers. She writes poems.

  44. Ben Avic Says:

    When someone uses someone’s copyrighted work in a video on youtube, they are allowed to file a complaint. Whatever youtube did, they did. If Ms. Ellis complained and youtube acted, they must have seen the violation themselves. I am not familiar enough with this particular situation.

  45. John Says:

    For the record, notice that once again Ben did not answer one single question or argument posed to him. However, watch as I answer all his questions.

    John, if you had a product, would you be able to afford to let everyone give it to millions every single day?

    Depends on the product Ben. If it was a short poem or story, yes I could afford it because other than my initial work it does not cost me a dime for someone to share my work. While there can certainly be the potential of losing money from those who might have bought my poem or short story, many of those sharing the poem or short story would have never bought the product in the first place. I would simply view it as an advertisement for my product.

    Would others buy it from you, when millions didn’t, even though they are legally supposed to?

    Yes, there would be many that would buy it. In fact, I believe it would increase my sales for products with my poem or short written on them because many times no one would ever hear about my product if millions had not shared it. For example, I had never heard about the The Dash until someone shared it with me. While I did not personally go buy any of Linda’s products, I finally knew her name and that she had a poem. Keep in mind, I would not buy any of her products anyway because it is not my thing. However, I might be inclined to pass on her poem to a person who might look her up and see her products and buy them.

    How would you make a living this way? How would your product hold its value?

    I answered this above. In my opinion, if my poem was spread around like Linda’s is, I think it would increase my bottom line because more people would know about it.

    What steps would you take to protect your own product?

    Let me answer this from the perspective as someone who did not want their poem spread all over the place by those sharing it. First, I would create a website with the poem on it kind of Linda did, and I would make it clear that I do not want my poem shared because it is a product to be purchased. I would state on the website that if you want to post my poem, you have to buy a license for a certain amount of money. If someone wanted to license it, I would make them include a statement that it is being licensed and cannot be shared in any way.

    One thing I would not do is put my poem on YouTube without a copyright statement or clear warning about not sharing my poem on fb, blogs, etc. However, this is what Linda has done. She puts her poem on YouTube with no warnings or copyright notice. If you ask your average person on the street if you can share the things on YouTube, most will say, “yes.” Most do not realize that things on YouTube can be copyrighted material.

    Let’s say I am really dedicated to keeping my poem from being spread around like its free. Well, if I used a program to scan the internet and found people sharing it, I would send them an email and tell them that they are not authorized to post it and they need to take it down. If they refuse, then I would send them a cease and desist order and would ask for a small sum, no more than 500.
    Do you see the difference Ben? I would give a person a chance to take down the poem before asking for money. I would only ask for money after I had to go through the trouble of sending cease and desist order, which would cost me money to send, but I certainly would not ask for 7500, that is ridiculous. I certainly would not send a letter designed to scare the pants off someone to extort 7500 from them.

    Ben, if you look at the evidence of how Linda files false DMCA claims to shut down YouTube videos that speak against her tactics. How she took out ads on google against April Brown and the tactics she used as described Aprils’ first post, it becomes abundantly clear in my opinion that she is just trying to keep people silent about her money making scheme because the more the word gets out, the less people she will be able to find that will simply hand her over 7500.

    Linda has done very little to protect her poem because I think she wants it to spread around so she can have more people to get 7500 from. Do you really think you could make much of a living from selling a few products with a so so poem on it? I do not know how her sells are going, but I would find it hard to believe if you told me she made 7500 in 4 months from her products alone. Think about how easy it is to scare someone who shares your poem into given you 7500 especially if you buy into the idea that it might cost 30,000 or more if you do not. Linda can say she is just protecting her work, but I think the evidence shows that it is simply her excuse for ripping hurting people off from their hard earned money. I really do not know how she is able to sleep at night knowing what she does. I know I couldn’t.

  46. Oh Please Says:


    I have watched you and April go back and forth. I have also seen John’s very reasonably worded post. In it, he asked several reasonable questions. I will repeat most of them and ask you to respond in good faith. Like you, I believe Ms. Ellis is entitled to reasonable compensation when someone publishes/posts her poem without express written permission.

    1. In the one lawsuit Ellis filed (Ellis v. Aronson) she correctly claimed that she licensed the the poem for him to print in a major book he was publishing. Her license fee for a major book was $500. He didn’t pay the paltry $500 and she won her case. Everyone who has seen the case agrees with Ms. Ellis. Now on to the question, if her price for licensing the poem for a major book, being sold for commercial use, is $500 why is her price to a funeral home who posted the poem on a tribute page, for non commercial use, for a grieving family $7500? Aside from the stock answer “because she can”. How do you rationalize that? How do you rationalize terrorizing that same family with a threat they could have to pay $150,000 when you know well that this will never happen to the funeral home or the family?

    2. Do you condone Linda Ellis taking out Google Ads so when someone searches for April Brown, they get directed to an anti-April Brown site?

    3. Do you condone Linda Ellis contacting April Brown’s husband’s boss and Ellis telling them that he has violated some ethics policy that nobody can find?

    4. Do you condone Ellis sending Brown over 100 email messages in a weekend?

    5. Do you condone Ellis filing false DMCA take down notices against April Brown’s YouTube channels. FYI, YouTube will take down anyone’s channel if a complaint is filed. April Brown filed a counter notice and the channels were immediately restored because Linda Ellis did not respond. Do you know that by law, if you don’t respond when someone submits a counter notice against your DMCA take down notice that you are liable for damages. However, April has decided for the time being not to sue.

    Documentation for every point I have made exists and in fact, April has an email from Linda where Linda admits to EVERYTHING I have said above.

    Now, I just finished writing a fairly polite, accurate, comment (albeit with lots of typos). I await your similarly candid response.

    Just to be clear. My post is not about Mr. Chan. My post is not about whether the Linda has copyrights. My post is about her other behaviors.

    Also, I will remind you that lawyers do nothing without the approval for their client. So, while I do not think Ms. Ellis is writing and mailing the letters herself, she is directing her team which includes lawyers and a secretary to do the bulk of the work so, and you are right here, she can write poetry.

  47. John Says:

    Ben, YouTube will shut down any YouTube video right away when a DMCA is filed. They do not go and look at the video to see if has anything in it or not. It is easier for them to shut it down and wait and see if the owner will challenge it. Well, April did and had her videos restored because the DMCA claims were false. Those are the facts. You have to answer the question of why would Ellis makes FALSE DMCA claims other than to silence the person exposing her money making scheme?

  48. Ben Avic Says:

    How does pointing out the fact that Ms. Ellis took the time to answer Ms. Brown’s exaggerations an argument? It just shows Ellis has nothing to hide. I tire of this. Ms. Ellis was stalked. Ms. Brown is a copyright infringer. Copyright is the law. Ms. Ellis is twice the victim from this pair. Goodnight to you. God bless.

  49. Ben Avic Says:

    About the many emails, did we not read above where Ms. Brown said she also emailed Ms Ellis? Anyone count those? I’ll take ‘WHAT IS A CONVERSATION’ for fifty please Alex. This could go on forever. It’s obvious that a group of infringers is trying to use the attention of these horrible stalking actions against Ms. Ellis to further their agenda. I realize I have done Ms. Ellis an injustice participating. I was bullied in school. Now I see bullying as an adult and it unnerves me.

  50. John Says:


    If you were really concerned about bullying, you would not be defending Linda. She and her team are the bullies. Bullies intimidate to get their way. Linda and her team send out a 7500 demand letter to whomever shares her poem. Bullies have no compassion and exaggerate what they will do to you if you do not do what they say. Linda and her team have no compassion or mercy for those who share her poem and they bark loudly with threats of taking you to court and making it seem like they are guaranteed at least 30,000 or more.

    When you stand up to a bully, they leave you alone. When stand up to Linda’s team either by telling them you are not going to pay or by completely ignoring them, they will leave you alone and go find some new guy to pick on.

    Ben, if you want to help the cause of those being bullied, you need to fight against the bullying practices of Linda’s team.

    Not to be too repetitive, but you still have not dealt with anything I have posted. I am still patiently waiting.

  51. Mara Mulrooney Says:

    John – who are you to demand answers from Ben? After much research into this case, all that is apparent to me is that every loser from that stupid website who fight against the ‘copyright trolls’, has now hijacked this blog. I can see it now: the guy with bad teeth typing away on his laptop, I presume Chan in the picture above is the one with what sounds like a speech impediment is behind his laptop typing away and the old lady with the long, stringy grey hair is behind her computer, along with some other shady cast of characters all posting on this blog, under pseudonyms and fictitious names. You all think you are such heroes to fight copyright trolls. Why don’t you all put on your super hero capes and fly back to the hole in the wall that each of you has crawled out of? As for me, I printed out this picture of Matthew Chan and sat my daughter down and explained to her what the face of a stalker looks like. I commend Ms. Ellis as a woman, Mother and business professional for taking the steps to apply for a PPO and thank God the Judge was wise enough to see through Mr. Chan’s bullshit. Sleep soundly Ms. Ellis. It is apparent they are all quite obsessed with you; monitoring your Facebook page and your Twitter posts. Their very actions sounds like a sad existence to me, but look at the psychological power that you hold over them!

  52. Ben Avic Says:

    Attack the victim to bring attention away from April Brown’s team member/stalker. I saw this strategy on an SVU episode!

  53. Ben Avic Says:

    Why can’t you just respect a property owner’s rights and requests? Ms. Ellis’ says the (below) on her site and it makes perfect sense. She states that compassionate and fair compromises are reached with infringers. So the $$$$ figure you keep throwing up is a negotiating point because until “communication lines are open,” they have no way to determine how much damage was done. But I suppose that info will be lost on your obsessive rants in defense of a stalker because it helps your smear campaign against her to leave out important information. You are attacking a victim of stalking AND property theft.

    From Ms. Ellis’ own site:

    “Reciting my work (with author attribution) at any public gathering is always permitted (and appreciated). It’s the printing, reproducing and/or distribution of my copyrighted works (and posting on the worldwide web) that require permission and/or a Limited License Agreement.
    No permission will be granted for Internet/Web posting of my work except in rare circumstances. This is due to the fact that any interested party searching for a particular work should rightfully be brought to the creator of that work, who has invested years in building the brand and success of that work, not to someone else’s site who would, intentionally or not, be capitalizing upon the popularity and success (and years of sweat and tears) built by the author and copyright owner. This is why we have copyright and this is why authors file for protection of their works.

    A link to any particular poem or story is requested in lieu of publication of the text of my work(s) on any web site. If you want to share it, please post a LINK.”


  54. Oh Please Says:

    Linda, oops, I mean Ben. You have answered exactly one question, the question about the emails. How about the others.

    You clearly have no interest in talking about the facts.

    Mara — Congratulations on teaching your daughter that Chinese Americans are stalkers. Perhaps that was your agenda the entire time….racism.

  55. Bob Kleimon Says:

    I was amazed when I read all this about Linda who I have known for over ten years. Ms. Brown, you are way out of line. Linda has done more chartable, civic, and military activities than I can count and I’m probably only aware of 10% of her efforts in supporting others. You obviously have way too much time on your hands and I suggest you dedicate some of it to support your community and country. If you require an example of how you can help, Linda and she can provide you with several of the programs, charities, and various religious institutions she dedicates her time to. If you are the type person that requires a ‘cause’ you might try finding a positive one. I would bet that you’re the type of individual who thinks that they are ever wrong so I’m probably wasting my time. However, given the opportunity to spend time with you or Linda, my choice would be an easy one.

  56. Ben Avic Says:

    Interesting that you would think that I am Linda Ellis. Your statement can only be explained by one fact, and it’s completely obvious from your assumption…that you are indeed April Brown…or possibly the stalker himself or one of the stalker’s team members.

  57. Brown Says:

    It has been a long 18 months of reading posts, comments, emails and essays from Linda Ellis and her camp. I remember when my first extortion letter arrived in my in-box. I googled Linda’s name and found her website. I thought, this guy John Jolin must be a fraud. I sent her an email thinking she would confirm that. She didn’t respond. I called her and she didn’t respond. I let it go. Then the 3rd letter came and I sent out a press release to find out if I was the only one. That press release uncovered what I now refer to is The Dash Virus. From that day on my phone and inbox introduces me to good people who read a poem and share it in some capacity with the intention of inspiring others. I haven’t met one thief, liar or criminal.

    Since then, every person associated with Linda Ellis, the Dash, and the Live Your Dash “lifestyle” who has ever contacted me has been nasty, evasive, uninformed, condescending, judgmental and dishonest. It is as if they think all these people from Priests to Preachers, Teachers to School Board Presidents, Business owners to moms working at home decided to hate Linda Ellis for no reason.

    I’ve read repeatedly comments like “after all she’s done for the world”. Well, I happen to think writing one poem nearly 2 decades ago pales in comparison to the collective good deeds of her victims. I think “kicking people when they are down” as several families have said, is not acceptable.

    No matter the tactics used to protect the legacy of The Dash, the real legacy is in the stories of the victims, the lying used to discredit people, the followers who represent the dash lifestyle and in Linda Ellis herself.

    This all boils down to the story I listened to today. Here is the Reader’s Digest version. “Dad died. Mom put the poem in his funeral program. My brother wrote up a newsletter about my dad’s life and put The Dash on the front page. My sister-in-law put the newsletter on her blog. My mom is beside herself. The whole family is horribly depressed. Mom has a small insurance policy. She needs that money to live as her health is bad.” This woman’s heartache was palpable. They are considering paying Linda Ellis $7500 because they actually believe they could end up in a Federal Court.

    That is the story behind The Dash, Live Your Dash, and Linda Ellis. That is the story all this noise hopes to bury. She will never give solid answers. We will never hear her admit the truth. One day when the pain is greater than the fear and when one of those letters lands in the inbox of a politicians daughter – all hell will really break loose.

  58. Ben Avic Says:

    Ms. Brown, you are ignorant. This is not an insult. It’s “Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular:” You are seeking revenge. Visit Ms. Ellis’ site, everyone. Read her copyright statements. Read the hundreds of comments from those she has helped. She is an amazing woman who has done so much for so many. We are heartbroken that someone like you and Matthew Chan would cause harm to someone like her.

  59. Ben Avic Says:

    REPEAT: Ms. Brown as Matthew Chan’s ‘Defense Team Member,’ are you saying here and now that everything Mr. Chan did to Ms. Ellis is acceptable to you? You condone everything he said and did against her and her family? You approve of it all?

  60. Jon Fairplay Says:

    It’s pretty obvious that people could post here 24/7 about these events and nobody will “win” the debate. Nobody’s going to concede wrongdoing or defeat. But, this news article does offer a good platform to discuss some of the issues at hand. It will be noted that I’m a reader of ELI, and a “demand letter” recipient (but not from Ellis/The Dash). I do not speak for ELI in any official capacity, however.

    It may surprise some readers that ELI ( does respect “copyright”. In fact ELI members have acknowledged on more than one occasion that Ellis’s poem is registered with the copyright office, and the words “The Dash” are trademarked. I also recall vividly that ELI members do not deny the fact that Ellis has the right to be compensated for her work, and she also has the right to protect such works.

    Ellis’s legal demands for the unauthorized use of her poem range from 7500 to 100,000 per incident. Most of these demands are made against churches, clergy and bereaving families due to the nature of her poem. Now, her supporters will again say that she has this right. Nobody is denying that. However, Ellis has become quite a controversial figure because of this.

    Ellis doesn’t actually sue people over the unauthorized use of her poem online. I’m guessing that the courts wouldn’t actually award her enough to make it worth her while to litigate otherwise she would employ that avenue. A lawsuit (even if she wins) would set a tangible value on her poem which might not be very high. It would probably be quite a tiny fraction of 7500 dollars. Also, such a lawsuit would very likely make big headlines, and her reputation might suffer greatly. In cases of alleged copyright infringement, ELI has always recommended removing the allegedly infringing content immediately, and to make an offer of compensation, usually a sum of 200 dollars. Now, some might say “200 dollars?! That’s not enough!!”, but that’s just an opinion, not a court determination.

    My personal opinion is that Ellis has taken on some great personal risk recently in the pursuit of compensation. I don’t recommend that anyone take out paid advertizing to humiliate their adversaries, or perform actions that shut down people’s websites or YouTube accounts (even if you’re in the right). These actions may cause tangible losses to businesses, and such losses could easily be proven in court. A well-known copyright troll attempted to destroy the reputation of a company (Bernina America) in order to enforce payment. Eventually, that person was sued by Bernina and lost in court. Therefore, I’m sure that we can all agree that it’s best to use legitimate and reasonable means to solve these issues.

    Lawyer Mr McCormack is retained by corporate giant Getty Images. ELI has never posted any photos of Mr McCormack’s residence, his home address, or suggested that anyone vandalize his property. Mr McCormack sends hundreds of threatening demand letters weekly demanding large amounts of money. That’s the right of McCormack and Getty to do so. However, with so much threatening correspondence being sent out en-mass, I don’t see any reasonable logic in connecting ELI with McCormack’s woes. As an aside, McCormack/Getty used to accuse alleged infringers with actual “copyright infringement”, even though Getty Images didn’t own any of the copyrights in most cases. My understanding is that McCormack/Getty has recently become a bit more truthful, due in large part to the efforts of Mr Chan and ELI.

    Lawyer Michelen can certainly defend himself. But, it should be noted that Mr Michelen doesn’t own the site (ELI), and has never posted anything untoward about McCormack.

    Websites and people such as ELI, Chan, Michelen and the general public that discuss the issues at hand have saved victims of copyright extortion (or outright greed) many thousands. That’s a lot of money that isn’t in the hands of the trolls. That’s why some want to see Mr Chan and ELI silenced. It’s about the money. The trend that I’m seeing now is that all this will be driven underground. People will discuss the issues, post evidence (including threatening letters, demand letters, phony DMCA takedowns, and even threatening phone calls) on sites that are anonymous. I’m sure that Mr Chan will appeal this ruling against him. Even if he doesn’t prevail, it will be “business as usual”.

  61. BobC Says:

    This story is on PHOTO District News so I’ll weigh in with some photo perspective.

    ELI is a forum run by a guy called Matthew Chan who has a mission to deny stock photographers money for copyright infringements. He himself is a self confessed image thief. He has a team of moderators all of whom were caught stealing images. He has a lawyer/cheerleader called Oscar Michelin who has made a small fortune sending template letters which he claims get thieves off the hook with Getty. On some other forums Mr Michelin claims the ELI forum as his.

    The moderators are unlike any other moderators I know. Instead of removing offensive posts the moderators are the main authors of rude, insulting and offensive posts aimed at any lawyer who has the temerity to defend photographers’ copyright. Their posts include crude and offensive cartoons and photo montages which most intelligent adults left behind in their first year at high school.

    They post photographs of lawyers and their paralegals with rude, sexist and offensive remarks. Their aim seems to be to get their odious ideas high in Google searches.

    Chan and Michelin seem to be in this for the money. For telling image thieves that they don’t need to pay for what they stole they appeal for donations via Paypal. Chan charges for phone consultations while his buddy Michelin charges $295 per letter and claims to have written over 650 to Getty alone. That is nearly $200,000 which could have gone to stock photographers but ended up in Michelin’s pocket instead.

    In a bid to get donations from image thieves in other countries they have a section on their forum for the UK. As far as I know Michelin has no right to give advice on UK law but he still weighs in with a crazy opinion. He writes; “To see the limits Getty will go to, visit the FSB site (there’s a link on the our homepage)* to see how people in the UK are dealing with Getty’s program in a region where the law says if there is innocent infringement, you pay NO damages. This clearly stated law has not slowed Getty down one bit.” He also states, as a suggestion to a change in US legal procedure, “The answer is a two tier system: (1) Make innocent infringement a defense to all damages, not just a reduce statutory damages to $200, simultaneously giving folks** chance to cease and desist upon notice (this is the UK’s system);”

    There is only one problem; he has it wrong. UK law says there is no such thing as innocent infringement, just the opposite of what this lawyer states. Lets just say he is not really a copyright specialist as his case load includes property conveyancing, murder cases, civil liability and much else.

    Read this for the truth………

    *Actually the Federation of Small Businesses realised they had been duped into posting a load of false information and removed the thread.

    ** Michelin is keen on referring to businesses who infringe copyright as “folks” when for the most part they are far bigger enterprises than the single photographers whose images are used without permission.

  62. RevdJanus Says:

    Dear Bob Kleimon,

    I do like Linda Ellis’ poem about Colonel Robert Kleimon. I hope, despite your defense of this woman here, you are a man of Integrity.

    You must see, if you know anything at all about the her company’s business methods (and if you don’t please, please do make the time and effort to investigate) that many innocent people are being hurt and put under undue stress on a daily basis. A Man (or woman), if s/he has any personal integrity, cannot stand by and do nothing.

    In any case, there are some entrenched positions which feed a situation which will only get more and more messy.

    I firmly believe you are a man who can put an end to all the hurts and hostilities, if you have the compassion and the will.

    Get involved: broker a deal in which Linda Ellis and her staff subscribe to the model of good practice which is used by the vast majority of poets and other creatives when dealing with copyright infringement. Namely, for Linda’s staff to simply send a cease & desist note in the first instance. If the poem is not removed then the threatening letters/emails can be legitimately employed. Most will happily comply and Linda Ellis will no longer generate the kind of hatred and loathing she does currently. Its a sound business model which leads to good will and increase in sales – and in which copyright is successfully defended. Everyone wins.

    If on the other hand, she refuses you, then you will see clearly her true heart: short-term money-grabbing with little regard for her fellow men and women. The Line will have been drawn and you will see the face of the enemy across it.

    I hope you are the man I think that you are. And will pray for success if you will rise to the challenge.

    In case you don’t return to this webpage, Bob, I will contact you via the Country Club in a few days. God Bless.

  63. Jon Fairplay Says:

    In regard to the posting of BobC;

    Much of the alleged “copyright infringement” claims that ELI assists with have no basis in terms of actual “copyright infringement”. Specifically, Getty/McCormack accuse alleged infringers of such, even though Getty does NOT own the copyrights to said images.

    There’s no such thing as image “theft”, unless you steal a painting like the Mona Lisa. It’s actually called “piracy”. But, Mr Chan did NOT steal or pirate anything. Mr Chan’s web designer overseas used an image without permission. Mr Chan never settled with Getty, because the latter couldn’t prove to him that an actual infringement against them occurred.

    Memes, satire and cartoons are not illegal. Neither Mr Chan nor Mr Michelen authored or posted any of them. If the satire displeases you, you’re entitled to your opinion.

    Mr Michelen does offer a service wherein he will write a letter for a legal demand letter recipient. He does charge a small fee for this service. The fee is not much more than a simple 30-minute consultation with a lawyer would cost. However, everything anyone might need is also offered for free on the (ELI) website. One needn’t buy anything. Getty/McCormack mail out so many letters that if Mr Michelen didn’t charge a fee, he would have zero time for anything else. Mr Chan does charge for phone consultations. But again, all of the same information is available on the website for free. Additionally, nobody is forced to use such services. You mentioned that this money should have gone to stock photographers, but that isn’t true. The paid services that are provided have nothing to do with copyright infringement monies that you allege are owed to photographers. These two people provide a service, which they are paid for. That’s not your money, or some photographer’s money.

    Mr Michelen has never implied that he practices law in the UK or is an expert in that regard. However, he is entitled to his opinion, just like anyone else. I can’t really comment on the whole “UK law” thing. You’re using some other forum as an example. But, you admit that it’s been taken down. So, we can’t really check to see if you’re telling the truth.

    You mentioned that that the alleged infringers that Getty pursues are actually large enterprises. This is not true. Getty only pursues smaller businesses and individuals that cannot afford legal counsel.

    As far as anyone being “a mission to deny stock photographers money for copyright infringements”, if photographers and/or Getty aren’t being paid, it’s because they flat out fail to provide any proof of their demands. It’s a scam. If it’s not a scam, they should forward their registrations from the copyright office along with their inflated legal demands. It’s simple.

  64. ben Avic Says:

    RevdJanus –

  65. Truth be Told Says:

    It is obvious that there are passionate people on both sides of this issue. My question is, “how many people have actually step back and take a look at the facts rather than playing a game of “he said, she said.” The fact is Mr. Chan did write the things that were quoted. Was it wise? No. Was it professional? No. Was there any intent to harm Ms. Ellis or incite others to? No. I’m sure if we all look back we can all find times in our life where we said things to others or written letters we wish we had not, but unfortunately in this modern age when something is written, it is out there for good.

    I am a believer in facts and truth. I also believe that artists should be compensated for their work. I also believe that the amounts requested should be fair. I do not think that asking for $7,500 up to $100,000 for sharing a poem is reasonable especially when on Ms. Ellis’s website she offers a five-pack of laminated poems for $9.99 or $1.98 each.

    It is a shame that Mr. Chan had to take this discussion forum down as we can no longer go there and read all the posts in context rather than selected excerpts. There were many more benign, informative posts. The discussion forum also contained screen captures where Ms. Ellis would make Facebook posts as well as post in other places making wild claims and saying not nice things and then would take them down very quickly thereafter and if anyone commented on it she would reply saying I took it down because it was unprofessional. Also, remember that Mr. Chan was held accountable for what other people had posted in addition to what he had said. So over in another article on this same story someone using the name Southern Patriot has stated “She should buy a gun and learn how to use it! Matthew Chan will change his tune when he looks down the barrel of a gun.” It is obvious that this person is passionate and feels strongly on this issue and has posted something he shouldn’t have and I am sure he isn’t really threating Mr. Chan. Should the operator of the Marietta Daily Journal now be charged and have a PPO placed against him because this gentleman was exercising his free speech right? No. Just like the majority of what was held against Mr. Chan which was posted by others be held against him. Likewise, ALL of the pictures held against Mr. Chan were done by other people and were no worse than some of the political cartoons I have seen.

    In defense of her copyright, Ms. Ellis also engages in some very questionable tactics. In her dispute against April Brown who owns and runs a charity auction business, Ms. Ellis tried to silence her speaking out about her business model of $7500 settlement demand letters. Ms. Ellis tried to damage Ms. Brown’s business by taking out Google ad words redirecting potential clients to her site where she basically trashed Ms. Brown and told potential clients she is a thief. A screen capture of this may be seen here:
    She also sent letters to her husband’s employer trying to cause problems for him at his work. Ms. Ellis dispute was with Ms. Brown yet Ms. Ellis is now going after Ms. Brown’s family members and not just making posts but actually sending letters to his employer. Which may be seen here:
    You’ll notice in the letter Ms. Ellis also references her DMCA strikes against Ms. Brown’s YouTube accounts which were fully restored by YouTube. YouTube would not have restored Ms. Brown’s accounts if there was infringing material on them as Ms. Ellis claimed.

    So if you look at what I have been briefly able to outline, you have Ms. Ellis constantly sending emails to Ms. Brown and contacting her family member’s employer, taking out Google ad words to redirect potential clients and much, much more. And remember all of this happened many months prior to Mr. Chan’s involvement. Again should Mr. Chan have said what he did? No. But all of the people rallying around Ms. Ellis should look at the facts and see she has been doing the same type of thing long before Mr. Chan’s involvement.
    The story is out there for those who care to look for it.

    Having stated and shown the facts I will close with the definition of extortion from Wikipedia:
    Extortion (also called shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offence of unlawfullyobtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense. Making a threat of violence which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence is sufficient to commit the offense. Exaction refers not only to extortion or the unlawful demanding and obtaining of something through force,[1] but additionally, in its formal definition, means the infliction of something such as pain and suffering or making somebody endure something unpleasant.[2]
    All of this and more is documented and I do say documented with screenshots and links in Ms. Brown’s website warning others not to share the Ms. Ellis’s poem. This also contains all of the emails between her and Ms. Ellis.

  66. Ben Avic Says:

    RevdJanus – You have crossed your boundaries. What real “reverend” acts in this way? I suppose it is easy to hide behind encrypted user names and false accusations? Does a policeman issue a speeding ticket when you drive 110 through a school zone, or a cease and desist? He issues an expensive ticket because the crime has been committed already. Do parking tickets when you’ve parked in a NO PARKING ZONE equal the same as a .50 fee to park? NO. The crime has been committed. When someone steals property of someone else’s and gives it to millions without their knowledge…well you get the point. Intentionally or not, damages are done and financial loss occurs. WHO ARE YOU to decide how others are compensated for theft and distribution of their legal property? It seems as though YOU are researching and harassing everyone who defends Ms. Ellis and her rights. GOD BLESS YOU!

  67. Ben Avic Says:

    “Rev Anus” — I just noticed your username. Now I believe 100% that it is one created by a member of this anti-copyright group. On the Internet, there have been many postings of perverted images involving gay slurs and homophobic photoshopped images attributed to these extortion letter people. This name falls exactly in line with their other acts. I note also that you are quite the Internet sleuth…for a reverend.

  68. Jon Fairplay Says:

    Personally, I don’t blame anyone for not using their real names on the comments section. Ellis and her team have used paid advertizing to intimidate at least one person, and she’s sent over a hundred harassing/threatening emails to the same person in one weekend. So, people are understandably afraid of her and her team.

    I’m also surprised as to the reaction to these “memes”. I guess that whoever did them caused some extreme butthurt. So, mission accomplished there.

    In the article, lawyer Timothy McCormack stated that he had filed a state bar complaint against Michelen. McCormack failed to mention that he’s the subject of several dozen state bar complaints himself. These were submitted by people that received legal settlement demand letters from him on behalf of his client Getty Images. Most of these complaints were filed after the letter recipients asked for proof of McCormack’s legal claims. Both McCormack and Getty tend to be rather flippant about it, and state basically that they “don’t have to provide any proof unless it goes to court”. The state bar complaints arose when McCormack kept sending threatening letters to these alleged infringers even after he was asked to provide proof of his claims or cease sending the letters.

  69. Brown Says:

    This discussion reminds me of her email declaring I am not the “kind of person” she wants reading her poem. It’s pretty clear where the prejudice lives.

    The implication that one’s sexual identity, race, religion, color, political party has ever been part of the ELI forum is laughable. Only someone who is homophobic, racist, sexist would even bring up this argument.

    The fact is Getty and Dash victims come from every race, sexual identity, religion, political affiliation and age. The MEMEs of Linda being flushed down a toilet and Linda’s face on a horses behind send a clear message of how victims feel about her. Like it or not, they are funny. These protests are about grabbing her attention NOT actually cutting off her real head and stuffing it up a real horses behind or drowning the real Linda Ellis in a real toilet. I agree those would be terrible ways to die but to extrapolate them into a death threat, come to think of it is actually a whole lot funnier.

  70. jim Says:

    When my daughter was murdered I found The Dash poem written by Linda Ellis very comforting. I read the poem at a memorial that was videotaped. I sent Mrs Ellis a link to the video. I was amazed at her response. She was the most loving caring human I have ever met. Mrs Ellis even paid her own travel expenses to come speak at our foundation event to honor my daughter. She donated hundreds of dollars worth of books and framed “Dash” pieces. She has cried with me and became someone I am proud to call friend. Linda is one of the most thoughtful, loving and inspirational authors of our time. Anyone who has a problem with her has a problem with me. One must be judged by what comes out of the mouth. Because words originate from the heart. All her words speak of honor and truth. What is flowing out of yours?

  71. Brown Says:

    Honor and Truth.

    I have no idea why your daughters’ death was valued differently than most. Would you like to connect with people who offered up the exact same loving act but were not so lucky as to get a pass from Linda Ellis?

    You are asking the wrong person the right question.

  72. Ben Avic Says:

    Ms. Brown, there’s nothing to say after that. You are proving yourself to all. I now am praying for you because you must have had some people in your life who were very unkind to you. God bless.

  73. Brown Says:


    You slipped up with this last post. You said this to me once already but you were Linda back in June. And you are right I have had someone treat me very unkind – you.

    Ending a post with “God bless” doesn’t sanitize your words and deeds. So to quote the infamous Linda Ellis, “you are proving yourself to all.”

    (you can always give us a link to the real Ben Avic and prove I’m wrong)

  74. Don Says:

    There are very good reasons why those who take things that don’t belong to them need a deterrent, not just a polite request not to do it.

    It’s all just an innocent theft once you get caught. You sound like those shoplifters with a bunch of goods in their handbags. “Goodness, how did that get there, I’ll just put it back.”

  75. bernicem77 Says:

    Don’t actions speak louder than words? I don’t know Ms. Ellis, and I don’t know Ms. Brown. I’ve been reading and watching this “battle” go on for months now. Both sides have done things that I am sure they are not proud of.
    @Jim: I am so sorry for the loss of your daughter. I commend you for sticking up for your friend. I am sure Ms. Ellis has dome some wonderful things in this life, but I know that she has done some terrible things also. I’ve heard too many stories of people losing their loved ones, and then getting a demand letter/email for $7500.00 from Ms. Ellis.
    I am getting off topic here a little bit. For that I apologize. I am sorry that Ms. Ellis felt she needed to seek a PPO from someone who never called, emailed, faxed, mailed or met her. I have no idea how she must have felt, just as I do not know how the people who received demand letters from her while grieving the loss of a loved one must have felt. I am not defending anything that Mr. Chan may, or may not, have done. I am not defending anything that Ms. Ellis may, or may not, have done. The point of my post is that there are always two sides of a story. Ms. Ellis has helped people, Mr. Chan has helped people.

  76. Brown Says:

    I like the shoplifting analogy. I will be happy to pay for getting caught stealing her poem and I will even pay the amount of her most expensive mounted masterpiece.

    Please send me a link to Paypal for $29.99.

  77. Jon Fairplay Says:

    Ben = Linda Ellis
    Pretty creepy.

  78. Tom Stevens Says:

    If I’m paying that much, I want a “The Dash” garden gnome for free.

    Come to think of it, if she’s charging 100k for each time somebody “steals” her poem, she’d make a million bucks for every ten “thefts”.

  79. J. Turner Says:

    This is a test to see if I can post in here now because this website stopped allowing me to post for some reason.

  80. J. Turner Says:

    This is John for some reason, I was blocked from posting but I found a way back in.

    Response to Mara Mulrooney.

    Who am I to demand that Ben answers my questions? I am not one important and I cannot force anyone to answer any question. All I am doing is pointing out the fact that he has not answered the questions posed. He simply rants and raves about the injustice of Linda, but refuses to acknowledge the horrible things that she has been doing.

    Mara, when people are discussing a subject, the only way to find a resolution is by honestly answering each others questions. I have answered EVERY question posed to me to the best of ability. All I am asking for is mutual respect, Ben apparently does not know how to answer questions, he just wants to make claims based on his opinion.

    Mara, you have not brought anything helpful to the table. You are just making fun of those who have been burned by Linda’s 7500 demand letter. You are making fun of a person’s speaking ability. Are you in grade school? Are you teaching your daughter to do the same?

    Thank you for acknowledging that Linda is a copyright troll because you said, “You all think you are such heroes to fight copyright trolls.” Since you did not say she was not one, I will take it that you know she is one.

    You showed Chan’s picture to your daughter and said that is what a stalker looks like? Really? The poor girl will probably think that all Asians look like stalkers. Stalkers do have a look and they come in all different packages. In my opinion, Chan is not a stalker. If he was a stalker that posed an actual threat to Linda, I would certainly applaud her for what she did. I hope that Chan is able to appeal this judgment against him and have heard again, but this time with a lawyer on his side, instead of being by himself.

    I cannot speak for others, but I do not see people like April as being obsessed with her. However, they are passionate about fighting against Linda’s underhanded ways. For example, April receives phone calls all the time from people calling her about this $7500 letter that Linda has sent them. Every story is similar. Someone posted her dumb poem innocently while giving her full credit for the work, yet she wants the money. People like April are simply trying to help those who have their lives turned upside down by the scary $7500 letter. So, this means that she and others like her must keep up with the latest stunts the Linda pulls in order to be more effective at helping those terrorized by her money making scheme.

  81. J. Turner Says:

    I find it strange that I got blocked. Oh well. Here is my second post.

    In response to Ben Avic March 17th, 2013 at 11:47 am

    Pay attention Ben. NOBODY is denying Linda’s rights as the property owner of her poem. NOBODY is denying that there are certain cases in which she deserves some kind of compensation. THAT IS NOT THE PROBLEM. The problem is her methods. You CANNOT honestly tell me that if a person pastes her poem on his blog that might receive 100 visitors a month that it somehow equates to $7500 of lost revenue for Linda. Let’s say that all 100 visitors would have bought 15 worth of product from Linda had they been directed to her website. That only adds up to $1500. Can you not see how ridiculous it is to start pressing innocent infringer for $7500.

    I think we all know that even if a blogger had 10,000 visitors the likelihood that even 100 people out of 10,000 would buy Linda’s product is slim. I mean come on, it is just a poem recorded on some cheesy merchandise. If she were lucky maybe about 10 people of the 10,000 would buy her stuff.

    She is not compassionate or fair when it comes to her precious poem because she will not give people a break. Now, I did hear one story where she did compromise for $3500 instead of $7500. Oh what compassion, not! If she were fair and compassionate she would ask people to remove her poem or replace the poem with a link to her page. If they do not conform then she should try and get money from them because once informed they are no longer innocent infringers.

  82. J. Turner Says:

    Here is my third post that I could not get to post earlier.

    In response to jim March 17th, 2013 at 8:53 pm

    Jim I am sorry for your lose. I love hearing that Linda’s actually has a heart and has done some good things. As an earlier poster said, she has apparently given to charities and did other helpful things. I want you to imagine a different scenario. When you sent her the link to your video out of respect for Linda, imagine how you would have felt if she sent you a $7500 demand letter instead. You certainly would not be ready to stand by her side and defend her would you?

    I think it is wonderful that Linda did what she did in your case and she should be praised for it, but you are the exception and not the rule. There are many stories of people who are nice and give of their time that have turned out to be murders or guilty of severe crimes. While they may have done some nice things it does not justify when they do horrible things. Linda and her team continue to send out there scary letter to hurting people. They have no compassion, they just want the money. So, I am not opposed to Linda and her good works, but her good works do not justify the money making scheme she has in place.

  83. Ben Avic Says:

    Such foolish rants. Your facts are incorrect and you don’t even want to know it. Get the facts, jack. Wow, you guys really are obsessed with this chick. A CULT…just like your website states…A CULT.

  84. J. Turner Says:

    Wow! Ben, you told me. Not! Prove that my facts are incorrect. It is easy to say it, but much harder to prove, especially when one does not even try. You are wrong, I do want to know. Show me if you can.

  85. jim Says:

    Hmmm, this is a tough one. Whom should I believe? A woman of great words,character and good works, or thieves caught with their hand in the cookie jar?

  86. Jon Fairplay Says:

    Jim, I do not think that Ellis even denies that she has a business plan in place to collect monies. She does send legal demand letters to infringers and alleged infringers. In fact, she has a video on YouTube which explains her position.

    Until Mr Chan’s legal troubles came about, there was a collection of legal demand letters as sent by Ellis. Furthermore, all of the emails that she sent to Brown were posted. Brown also has screen captures of the advertising that Ellis used to intimidate Brown.

    Granted, these have been removed I believe because of the aforementioned legal issues. In fact, Mr Chan was going to bat for a victim that Ellis demanded 100k from, when this all “exploded”.

    I believe that some of this evidence may have been posted on other sites. In any case, these exhibits still exist, and I see no reason that they cannot be displayed in the future, with the permission of the original recipients and independently of Mr Chan.

    Do you care to change your position on this matter?

    I am glad that your encounter with Ellis was a positive one. It’s not my purpose here to tarnish your positive memories of your meeting. However, Ellis clearly intends to come out of this “smelling like a rose”, and I feel that there is another side of the story that should be told.

  87. Mara Mulrooney Says:

    @ Oh Please – considering my Daughter was adopted from China…you just blew your entire racism theory right out of the water. Way to go! Another ignorant A-hole from that dummy anti-copyright team…

  88. Mara Mulrooney Says:

    Wow…grey hair, marble mouth and toothless kept themselves pretty busy blogging here yesterday under pseudonyms! They are grasping at straws… I can smell their desperation from here and I do not live near any of them…

  89. Oh Please Says:


    We recall your posts about “marble mouth” etc. on April’s blog. So this is obviously an issue you keep in close contact with.

    Just one question. I can accept that fact that you do not like Mr. Chan or anyone who supports him.

    However, is your name calling consistent with the values and standards that Linda Ellis supports? And if not, then why are you “stooping to what you perceive to be our level”

  90. JonMChe Says:

    Matthew Chan’s behavior was horrible. His hyperbole was over the top and irresponsible. Ms. Ellis makes her living suing people for reposting her sappy greeting card poem. People,often in grief and emotional turmoil, are losing their retirement funds, church funds, and college funds. They have obvious reasons to hate Ms. Ellis. She is unarguably loathsome. I believe her fear of physical harm is probably real and merited. However, it is important to realize that her fear is ultimately the result of her actions, not Matthew Chans. By publishing her PUBLICLY available address, he made her AWARE that hundreds of people who bear her serious ill will can find her at any time. However, her address was already available and he didn’t cause those people to bear her ill will. The ill will is a result of her greedy exploitative evil behavior. In a twisted way they did each other favors. He made her aware of the danger she is causing to herself and her family. By putting a restraining order on him, when a grieving or emotional distraught victim of Ms. Ellis
    actually does her harm, he will be free of guilt from encouraging it.

  91. Mark Anthony Says:

    I have read some unbelievable things here that leads me inclined to rename Mr. Chan’s forum to “Fools Parade” and Ms. Brown’s please stop your career as an auctioneer and take up Yodeling since nothing you say is coherent as logical language. You have all sought one another out to make Mrs. Elli’s life a living hell plain and simple. Get off the demands for money thing. Intellectual property and other forms of copyright material is not being “saved or salvaged” here. On one hand you claim to be trying to help educate people about the trials and tribulations of copyright. Really? There are sites on the Internet that allows you to “steal” songs of artists without due payment and although there are some who are caught and prosecuted the largest faction of that group continues to steal the talents of others. There is obviously a collaboration of people here who have “went after” Mrs. Ellis for being a money monger and painting her to be the villain which is exactly the smoke and mirrors tactics used by both by pirates and paper thugs with hidden agendas.

  92. Jeff Wheelan Says:

    No one should deal with the fear of stalking, although it is debatable as to the degree of true danger in this instance, Mr. Chan did cross the line with some of his language and hyperbole.

    We are still left with the issue of how Linda Ellis uses copyright laws in this digital age of information. Almost everyone has violated some aspect of copyright law through the sharing of pictures, quotes, video clips, etc. on social media and websites. People singing Happy Birthday to friends or family on YouTube videos have violated the copyright of Summy-Burchard Publishing.

    Copyright holders absolutely have the right to protect their work – but when does that cross the line into extortion? How does a demand $7500 for non-commercial use seem right to anyone?

    No one is arguing against Mrs. Ellis sending a cease and desist letter. It is the amount of money demanded, the tone of the threats and the people who are being targeted that is upsetting to us.

  93. Brown Says:

    What we are actually seeing here is exactly what victims of Linda Ellis experience repeatedly until they go underground or pay up. The Live Your Dash lifestyle, although purported to be spiritually based, apparently is impossible for the author and her supporters to actually live in real-time.

    Linda Ellis lit a match with this extortion letter scheme more than a decade ago. The grass has been smoldering and the trees have finally caught fire. When you lose your house in the arsonists fire, few people feel sorry for that person when they get burned.

    Linda Ellis has almost no defenders. The people posting on the forums were her victims long before they found ELI or the BEWARED DON’T SHARE THE DASH blog. They found us, we had no way of finding them. The ELI forum is fun, entertaining and informative. Satire and bloating are common ways to expose injustice. Maybe you want to research how change occurs with grassroots movements.

    Linda Ellis has successfully shut down the Linda Ellis Eli forum by charging Matthew Chan with Stalking ExParte. That victory increased the outrage and those people now know just how far she will go to silence people. Matthew Chan will never, I mean never speak her name again, comment on her scheme again, or make fun of her again. He never had skin in the game anyway so the loss of the ELI forum is almost meaningless. It is Linda’s extortion letters that keep the controversy churning. Period.

    The Dash poem is becoming the logo for copyright trolling. I appreciate that her 3 supporters think I have the power to make Linda Ellis’s life a living hell, but she is not the focus of anything I do. My goal is to prevent other victims, wipe that stupid poem off the internet, be part of or witness to a Federal case and settle this issue once and for all for everyman.

  94. Jon Fairplay Says:

    Mark, anybody can still visit and see what’s going on there. It’s just an informal legal clinic/support group. Ellis made concerted efforts to have documents taken down from the site, and she even tried to shut down the website in its entirety. Yes, Matt blew his stack. I can’t really blame him. Ellis wants to hide what she’s doing.

    The victims of Ellis’s legal demands are mainly churches, people in bereavement, or clergy. I’m rather dismayed that you have compared these organizations to people downloading Metallica from the Pirate Bay. I do not feel that that this is a fair comparison. Even Sony/BMG doesn’t have harassing social media/advertising campaigns such as Ellis does.

    Ellis is the classic copyright troll. She sends out boatloads of threatening letters. She demands a settlement that is so insanely high that it would bankrupt some people if they paid it. Most importantly, the people that do actually pay up are often those that are scared or bullied into paying. It’s not a “legal” issue that makes it to court. Ellis even employs somebody to handle her settlement demand letter program.

    Ellis has made great PR efforts to position herself as an inspirational, spiritual person. There’s nothing in this world more stomach-turning than to realize the whole truth of how her and her associates are making money.

  95. Ben Avic Says:

    Hello Jeff. Ms. Ellis’ web site states that the $7,500 to which you refer is a negotiating point because Ms. Elis’ company doesn’t know the extent of any infringement initially. Let’s focus on the real facts here. This info is clearly posted on her own web site and in their letter, which has been posted as well. Ms. Brown used Ms. Ellis’ work on her business site and created exaggerated anonymous stories to seek revenge because this appears to be her street-fighting mentality. Ms. Ellis is a poet who has taken a stand against someone who threatened her family and Ms. Brown is using this forum to turn the attention away from the actions of her partner, a guilty stalker. If you go on the website of the stalker, April Brown is listed as an Ambassador for them.

  96. BobC Says:

    Jon Fairplay

    If you don’t want click on the link I gave to see that Michelin is wrong about UK law that is up to you.

    I have been following the ELI site for some time and can see nothing to change my mind. Its a money making scam pure and simple. Its sole aim is to undermine photographers right to charge for use of their work.

    The message is simple; don’t pay the photographer pay ELI instead.

  97. Brown Says:

    Linda Ellis again is lying. I am not a partner of Matthew Chan – although it would be an honor I would cherish. I am not an ambassador. I am an advisor. As an advisor, I share my expertise as a Dash Victim Representative with other Dash victims. Linda Ellis is naming me as Matthew Chan’s partner hoping that Timothy McCormack will assist her in filing a Stalking ExParte charge against me here in Seattle where both Tim and I live. I have stated many times I welcome the bright light of public opinion and after what Matthew has been through I fully expect the same outcome. Although, it would be pretty hard fro me to believe that any judge in tech-savvy Seattle would buy that argument. I also have a hard time believing that in a city filled with successful, intelligent and fearless business women that a judge would believe that Linda Ellis, the ultimate purveyor of fear is actually afraid of anything. But, if I go to court and get convicted based on lies – as Matthew Chan was – I will spend some time in jail finishing the book about this experience. I have no intention of giving up my freedom of speech or paying one dime of my charity’s donations to Linda Ellis. Again, I am prepared for the worst possible outcome should a charge be filed. Tim McCormack has no skin in the Dash Extortion scheme and the idea that he would actually involve himself in a case with her is laughable, but again, I am not Tim McCormack and he just might have a positive working relationship with Linda Ellis.

    So here we go again. Linda, will you please list all the exaggerations you claim I’ve made NOW for the edification of these readers. I will happily get those victims to post their stories as evidence for the PDN readers.

  98. Jon Fairplay Says:

    Ben Avic aka “Linda Ellis” and/or her daughter(s); at least you’re acknowledging that your legal demands exist. Yes, I’ve heard that it’s negotiable. How much did the alleged infringer negotiate the price down on the 100,000 dollar legal demand?

    BobC, yes I admit that I didn’t click the link. I didn’t have the time to research what Michelen said about UK law. If Mr Michelen WAS wrong about something, maybe that counts as a “win” for the Ellis or McCormack camp?

    I stand by my assertion that everything that people need is offered for free on the ELI website. Yes, there are some premium services that cost money. Nobody’s forced to pay. People that have used Michelen’s letter program have praised it. It has saved people from three solid years of legal threats from the likes of Getty and Masterfile.

    I’m quite familiar with the photography industry. I’m acutely aware that a photo that used to cost 2000 dollars yearly to license for web use now costs only 50 cents for unlimited use. That’s not the fault of ELI, nor does ELI infringe on your copyrights.

    The only thing that young people will get from reading all these comments is that stock photography and writing poems is the worst field that one can get into. Get a haircut and a real job.

  99. Brown Says:

    When I first started investigating Linda Ellis’s extortion scheme I discovered she required “the thieves” to post the following admission:

    “Previously we published a poem titled, “The Dash”, without crediting the author. We recently learned that Linda Ellis of Linda’s Lyrics, Ms. Ellis owns and has registered the copyright to her poem.”

    I used that search to find the list of victims below. These people paid her and as part of the payment signed a confidentiality agreement. BTW, she got wise to my research and now no longer requires a shameful public admission.

    I ask the reporter(s) to contact these organizations. You will discover that fear has silenced them. Only 4 people on this list were willing to talk to me. The statute of limitations has run out now on most of these agreements so the odds are in the reporters favor now that more people will speak up allowing for a ge fair and balanced story about the Dash Extortion letter scheme.

    ATL Foundation

    Turning Point of

    Tampa, Inc.

    Sermon Central

    Daniel D. Meyer / Christ Church of Oak Brook

    First Baptist Church, Olds Alabama

    Formal Times Newsletter

    South Dakota Chapter American Society Farm Managers

    Green Valley Villas West, Green Valley Arizona

    Garden Court Real Estate Management Corporation

    Bookkeeping 411

    USA Triathlon Mideast Region

    The Magazine of United Methodist Men

    IOWA State USBC Women’s Bowling Association

    Bourbon Garden Court

    Marco Island Civic Association

    Main Street Baptist Church

    Neidlinger Garden Court News

    Argos Garden Court News

    Rubel Shelly

    All Saints Church, Rome Italy

    Texas A&M University

    User Talk

    Kemper Mill Civic Association

    Git Hub

    TARA Association

    Waukegan Public Schools

    Gerry Spence Attorney

    Children’s Lit

    The Helixx Group

    The Hindu

    Mount Pleasant Memorials

    Character Education

    Baylor University Seminary

    Neighborhood Link

    David E. Smith Publications

    Church of God, In Truth

    Yasni, UK

    Willet Elementary School PTA

    The Northeastern Pennsylvania Synod

    Autism Resource Central

    First Baptist Church St. Clair, Missouri

    Center for Successful Aging

  100. Mara Mulrooney Says:

    Ms. Brown is just a crazy, old cat lady I guess. She does not seem to get it and neither do any of the other knuckleheads. This is not an issue about copyright. This is not an issue about freedom of speech. This is the issue of a woman who sought a PPO pertaining to a man who was harassing her on a DAILY basis. Nobody should have to live in fear for their safety. I presume what he posted was SO over the top, as his own web hosting provide asked him to remove the content. He has such a huge ego, which prevented him from removing the content, so he moved to a new web hosting provider. Apparently the Judge agreed too, as the overwhelming evidence that was presented led him to come to that decision. Maybe Linda Ellis can sleep soundly now. You are all just one creepy crew (of 6 people) with WAY too much time on your hands. Idle Hands Are the Devil’s Workshop!

  101. Jon Fairplay Says:

    I found this poem that seems appropriate:

    “The Cash”

    I read of a man who stood to testify
    At the trial of a friend.
    He referred to dates on her docket
    From the beginning to the end.

    He noted that first came the date of service
    And spoke of the following spate with tears,
    But he said what pained him most of all
    Was the fight between those years.

    For that fight represents all the time
    That evidence was so dearth
    And now only those who support her
    Know how little a single poem’s worth.

    For it matters not, the content we own,
    The picture, the poem, the google cache
    What matters is how we live and love
    And how we earn our cash.

    So ponder long and hard;
    Are there laws you’d like to change?
    For you never know how much precedent is left
    That can still be arraigned.

    If we could just slow down enough
    To consider what’s true and real
    And always try to understand
    The way other people feel.

    And be less quick to sue
    And show fairness more
    And respect the people in our lives
    Like we’ve never sued before

    If we treat each other with respect
    And deal in a fairer style,
    Remembering that our copyright
    Only lasts a while.

    So when your lawsuit is being read
    With your attorney’s actions to rehash
    Would you be proud of the things they say
    About how you made your cash?

    by “S.G.”

  102. Jeff Wheelan Says:

    The amazing irony here is that the Dash poem is mainly known to the public BECAUSE of copyright violations. It was not introduced to the world by appearing in a movie or being quoted by Oprah. It gained fame by going viral all those years ago, a rash of criminal activity that had people sharing it on email chain letters, websites etc.

    One could reasonably argue that if everyone had respected the author’s rights almost no one would have heard of her or her poem. Pretty hard to sell necklaces of a poem no one knows.

  103. Brown Says:

    This is an issue of both copyright trolling and the filing of a stalking charge based on a false fear of Matthew Chan.

    If Linda Ellis was and is so afraid, why did she contact him? Send him videos? Sneak around the ELI forum? Why did she mock him? We are talking about a woman who is not afraid to call Bob Dole and and settle his infringement for a letter extolling her virtues instead of money. She’s not afraid to contact the President of Bonneville Corporation. She IS afraid of being exposed and that fear motivates her to lie about the most obvious and provable.

    The historical evidence of the judicial system, especially in small Southern towns, just does not support justice in every case.

    BTW, who’s the moth to the flame now? Who has way too much time on their hands? Who needs to get a life? Like, Linda, the hypocrisy of your writings is lost on you.

  104. Jon Fairplay Says:

    Just to clarify, pirating Ellis’s poem isn’t a “criminal” act.
    This sort of thing is governed by civil laws.

  105. Oh Please Says:


    I have no idea what the “What” is, but I can tell you “Why” a significant part of the internet dislikes Linda Ellis.

    Why. Because is is responsible for sending out letters that scare people when you know (because you NEVER SUE these innocent infringers) that the huge numbers in your letters are there only to scare people. You are a bottom feeder.

    The PPO situation is a joke. Nobody wants to or is ever going to hurt your or your family or your secretary. That is nonsense and you know it.

    But, you did win and your “victory” will serve as a bright spotlight on your trolling letter activities. And it might result in multiple spotlights on this internet of ours that shine a factual light on your well documented activities that you are afraid to share with you “frans”.

    You claim threats against you. That is your right.

    However, now we have some threatening to shoot Mr. Chan. I have seen the documents you think are threats. None of them mentions shooting you — that is because is nobody is going to or wants to hurt you.

    But your actions have motivated somebody to at least talk about shooting Mr. Chan. And if that person acts on his threat you will no doubt be considered part of the crime.

  106. Mara Mulrooney Says:

    I am fairly confident that whoever posted that ignorant comment about Matthew Chan and the gun is none other than Matthew Chan himself or one of his “cult” followers, in my opinion. He is now becoming the boy who cried wolf. That whole stupid anti-copyright website and their words & actions have completely backfired on them and now they have almost completely lost their credibility. Everybody is back pedaling now. Thank God Ms. Brown received a ‘virtual’ promotion as ‘Lead Advocate’. Like I said, birds of a feather flock together. This ‘team’ amounts to nothing more than a bunch of bullies. They were probably bullies in the school yard as children, and now from the comfort of their own home, they can work in collusion and bully MANY others. BULLIES! I will repeat: Idle Hands Are the Devil’s Workshop!

  107. Jon Fairplay Says:

    Obviously, Ellis scored a win when she managed to silence Mr Chan, and ELI’s reporting on her activities. If Ellis and her supporters have some sort of moral, ethical or legal “high ground”, I don’t understand why they are so upset about the reporting of their activities. I can’t say that anyone can “stop” her from sending legal demands. But Ellis and her team do need to get a much thicker skin about it.

    Here’s the $100,000 dollar demand letter that Ellis sent:

    I’d like to see a much better response from the Ellis camp than “Mr Chan runs a ‘cult’, and the ELI Team are ‘bullies’.

  108. Brown Says:

    I am a Lead Advocate for victims of The Dash Extortion Letter Scheme. Linda Ellis has been exposed as a liar on this comments section and in her hometown paper:’s-target-of-‘online-cult-leader’#comment_reply_21995648
    Not by just me, but by religious people, who I am fairly clear have never heard of ELI. Since you are the judge of all things good and wonderful, then you have to include these good people in your bullies assessment. Good on ya. When you are sitting all pious in church this coming Sunday, look up at the Reverend and imagine that good man or woman receiving an extortion letter from Linda Ellis. Of course in your world, this person is just another liar, cheat and thief robbing Misrus Ellis of her legacy.

    Matthew Chan is no fool and he certainly would never violate the PPO and he does not need me to defend him. I do because I too have been lied about and you are one of those liars making easily refutable claims here in this comments section. I am also posting here because the victims trembling is silence deserves a voice. You are posting here as the ONLY person defending Linda Ellis since she and her trolling team has been outed using aliases. Linda Ellis, John Jolin, nd her family will not use their real names-ever. The answer is obvious. They will never answer any questions and she hasn’t told the truth from day one and further, she didn’t tell the truth in that Georgia courtroom.

    Keep defending her. She is gonna need all the support she can get. All those victims on and off ELI are more empowered than ever in the face of this injustice. Few hands are Idle and it is clear who is in charge of the Devil’s Workshop.

    You can fool some of the people some of the time…

  109. JonMChe Says:

    Oh Please says: “The PPO situation is a joke. Nobody wants to or is ever going to hurt your or your family or your secretary. That is nonsense and you know it.”

    I respectfully disagree. Ms. Ellis has put herself in the position of being a villain. Villains have enemies. No one would have though doctors would be at risk simply for performing legal medical procedures. Yet abortion doctors have been attacked and killed aided by internet information releases. Speaking metaphorically, Ms. Ellis performs abortions on poetry. Yes, I agree, Matthew Chan was never going to harm her personally, nor do I believe his intent was to encourage an actually assault upon her (although I do believe his actions were menacing), but her victims are legion and often emotionally distraught. For example: You lose a spouse to cancer and can’t buy him a headstone because you are being legally extorted by Ms. Ellis. Isn’t it conceivable that givin an over the top sermon about stopping her and then outing her address might cause a victim to stupidly react? A vandalized car, smashed mailbox, torn up landscape, or rock through a window seem a real possibility to me. Ironically, by making a PPO and the resultant Striesand effect, she has probably increased the danger to herself and family by an order of magnitude. Effectively, she is suggesting the possibility of physical violence against her to thousands of people who would never have considered it.

  110. Jon Fairplay Says:

    I just noticed that Ellis has no Wikipedia page. I’ll get right on that.

  111. Brown Says:

    JohnMChe – good one. I really think the people at risk here are Matthew Chan and myself. We have outed her. She has escalated her attacks. Ellis is a proven liar and hypocrite. She has aligned herself with the Timothy McCormack – who is one scary dude, although it is still hard for me to imagine he would associate himself with her publicly. She has a following that is completely unwilling to believe she does what she does. The big difference between Eli members and Linda Ellis is that we are not willing to lie to make our points. She is.

    It is critical that every victim come out and tell their stories with their real identity. It is just not possible to bury the truth anymore.

  112. Mara Mulrooney Says:

    I love Ms. Ellis’s new poem: The Why

  113. Greg Says:

    I just wanted to make a clarification. I had used the name Truth Be Told and did not see some one else had used it. My response is the one on March 17th at 3:56pm. I have changed my name here and hopefully it will correct the my original post.

    My apologies to the original poster using that name it was not intentional.

  114. Jon Fairplay Says:

    Regarding Ellis’s poem “The Why”, I think that the answer is “For the Money”.

  115. Jon Fairplay Says:

    BobC said, “The message is simple; don’t pay the photographer pay ELI instead.”

    I find it funny that it’s being implied indirectly that the lawyers for the photographers and poets work for free. Call up McCormack right now, and find out how much of the settlement he gets if he successfully collects.

    About “all that money that should have been paid the photographers”… ELI routinely instructs alleged infringers to make a modest settlement offer of 200 dollars. But, neither Getty Images nor most photographers will accept that value. They want between 800 and 15,000 dollars. So, the alleged infringers pay the 200 dollars to Michelen to defend them. If you want the money, just accept the offer of 200 dollars.

    Actually, it’s pretty funny when you think about it… this pompous ass is saying that somebody’s legal defense money should go directly to some photographer that makes a legal claim. It doesn’t work that way.

    I’m waiting for that “copyright infringement” is a “strict liability tort” crap. It is, but only if you own the image, you’ve registered it, and you can prove your case.

  116. James Keenan Says:

    Gee, it sure appears Linda Ellis is pretending to be “Ben Avic” now, along with the other obviously fake names like “Mara Mulrooney”?

    “I love Ms. Ellis’s new poem.”

    What a hoot.

  117. The Answer Poet Says:

    Mara Mulrooney

    I like this poem better.

    Answer to The WHY?

    We are people who have seen
    you smile as you cash checks.
    We have searched for your victims
    and find fearful nervous wrecks.

    They also have emotions.
    Some are angry. Some weeping.
    Some are in mourning for a friend
    who lies in his grave sleeping.

    Will the pain you inflicted
    ever stop for them?

    Will they ever forget the pain
    that sprung form the gash
    inflicted by a poetess who penns demands
    insisting mourners send her cash?

    Many of people have questions.
    Others know the reply.

    We know the who,
    the how, and
    the why.
    Yes. We know the why.

    It’s for the cash.

  118. Brown Says:

    Mara Mulrooney’s posting of The Why by Linda Ellis inspired this anonymously authored poem. Thanks to whomever sent it.

    The “Why” Explained

    If you really don’t know why
    you’re not very smart.
    The answer in a nutshell …
    You were born without a heart.

    We, with hearts, would never do
    the evil things you’ve done.
    If those you’ve fooled, knew you well,
    far from you they’d run.

    To take money from poor widows
    at a time they’re full of grief,
    is what you term as business,
    and well beyond belief.

    You go after many churches
    Nine-Eleven families too.
    No honest reason or compassion.
    There’s no decency in you.

    It is we who are the victims.
    The one’s on whom you prey.
    We’ve never profited from your poem,
    or damaged you in any way.

    You know who we are
    (The ones who took your smile.)
    We’re the ones who gave you money.
    Pile after pile.

    Yes, you know the “when”,
    the “where”, the “how”, and “who”
    If you only had a heart,
    you’d understand “why” too.

  119. Brown Says:

    James Keenan – FYI – Mara Mulrooney is not Linda Ellis.

  120. Brown Says:

    I feel a Poetry Slam coming. Here comes another one…

    The Cash

    I heard of a woman who stood to talk

    At the service of a friend

    He was told about half way through a poem

    That his rhyme he’d have to end.

    Apparently it’s author requires a fee

    For anyone quoting her verse

    And you will have to pay enough

    To make a bulge in her purse.

    For that cash represents the only thing

    That she and her law firm want

    But for any artistic value

    For that you’d have to hunt.

    For it matters not the jumble of pulp

    That was combined to make this mash.

    What matters is how much she can own the cars…the house…the cash.

    So think about it long and hard

    Do you really want to be sued

    By the lawyers of this little troll

    With their greedy attitude.

    If we could all collect some sap

    To make our own sickening poem.

    And have a litigator standing by,

    Our own ambulance chasing gnome.

    To be paid every time some poor shlub

    Or a mourner tries to sob it.

    Then we could all get very rich

    By copyrighting this shit.

    If we pander to the masses,

    The honey boo boo crowd

    Then we could ALL request a fee

    Every time it’s read aloud.

    So when your eulogy is being read

    And they decide to recite this trash

    Be warned that your estate will soon be sued

    And will have to pay her cash.

  121. Brown Says:


    There once was a woman who grabbed a pen,
    she wrote and wrote until she clucked like a hen.
    Her new poem was called The Dash,
    she thought for sure it would make her lots of cash.

    Her poem is nothing new,
    many have heard the same message from their pew.
    You only have one life to get it right,
    so live for God and fight, fight, fight.

    Linda Ellis’ poem was soon spread around,
    but the cash she wanted was not found.
    Then the devil whispered in her ear with delight,
    because he knew that she would bite.

    At that moment, her heart turned black and cold,
    it was now full of greed and the hope for a pot of gold.
    The devil told her if she wants to make lots of cash,
    she needs to extort money from those who share The Dash.

    Motivated by her new plan at hand,
    she spread her poem across the land.
    The internet made it easy to set the bait,
    all she had to do now was wait, wait, wait.

    No one would be safe from her extortion scheme,
    she will send you a letter with $7500 as the theme.
    If you dare post her poem on a blog or any place,
    she will come after you, without feeling disgrace.

    She does not care if you are a church, funeral home, or school,
    she wants your money and is willing to play dirty pool.
    Moms and dads who lost a child or even 911 victims are in her sight,
    whomever you are, she will come at you with all her might.

    While many believed the lies in her nasty letter,
    April Brown and others knew better.
    Do not pay this woman one cent
    just ignore all the emails and letter that are sent.

    Linda and her crew are all bark and no bite,
    she has taken no innocent infringers to court morning, noon, or night.
    Linda has chosen how to live her dash,
    and now you know, it’s all about the cash.

  122. Brown Says:

    BTW, I am not a poet. These poems were submitted to me as Author Unknown with no imposed copyright.

  123. BobC Says:

    Here’s the $100,000 dollar demand letter that Ellis sent:

    I don’t see anything extortionate about this at all. It seems like a perfectly reasonable amount to me. The infringing author and publisher knew exactly what they were doing. They were trying to trade and profit from Linda Ellis’s success by using her IP.

    Several years ago a friend of mine had a considerable success with a series of three children’s books. Each one had a main title followed by a very catchy and memorable subtitle which was common to all three books. Because he intended to do more in the series he trademarked the sub title. A very big rival publisher decided to do a copycat series of their own which was aimed at exactly the same market. They made a big mistake. They copied my friend’s subtitle. He sued for damages and got £50,000 plus royalties out of court settlement on the offending titles. At current rate of exchange that would be about $75.000 plus.

    $100,000 seems like a quite reasonable starting point.

    By the same token the amounts requested by Getty and other image owners seem perfectly reasonable to anyone with the slightest knowledge of picture licensing. They are almost a bargain and are very far from being ‘extortionate’.

    Image thieves like those at ELI just cannot accept that the victims are the photographers whose work they have infringed.

  124. Brown Says:

    The comparison used in BobC’s comment is a classic. The author who included the poem as a dedication to his father as “author unknown” did not “copycat” Linda Ellis or rip her off. He did not target her audience or confuse them by stealing her idea or plagiarizing the content. He included her poem like millions of authors have done over the generations when writing literature. One can only imagine what “we” as a general population would never know or experience had the abuse of this outdated copyright law had been used to silence content (and people) even a decade ago. Nobody would have known Linda Ellis that’s for sure. “Reasonable”?

    I can guarantee that you have innocently infringed on a product, business, and words in your lifetime and have not been “caught”. It is not possible to avoid. If a business catches their image in a photo you took and shared on vacation, that business can demand a copyright fee. If you take an unauthorized photo of food, decor, or the menu in a restaurant, then share it, you could get a letter demanding payment. If a photographer signs on with Getty AFTER having their photos available for free or even for a small fee for years and you used that photo during that time period and are still using that photo without the knowledge it is now owned by Getty, you are subject to this harassment. Did you know that if your daughter makes a collage from photos in a magazine and then she takes a picture of her creation and posts it on Pinterest for her school friends to admire, and just one of those itty bitty images belongs to Getty, mommy and daddy are now lying, cheatin thieves subject to unending harassment. Further, do you know how much money Getty will give that photographer of that little girls’ college fund? You don’t do you? Nobody seems to know if the photographers gain anything from extortion.

    We do know that Linda Ellis collects in 99% of her demands. These are her own words. 99%!! You do the math. How many families were thrown into financial ruin, how many children lost their college funds, how many charities gave up their last dime, how many churches took up special offerings for their lying cheating preacher.

    Linda Ellis uses other authors copyrighted words and others copyrighted images to inspire her readers. That is a fact. The Dash poem wasn’t even her original idea she “stole” that from a preacher which is ironic since they seem to be some of her favorite victims.

    The woman swims in a soup of hypocrisy and seems to think everyone around her is breath-takenly stupid.

  125. Mara Mulrooney Says:

    @ James Keenan – please listen to your ‘Lead Advocate’ as she is known (Brown)…or let me enlighten you: I am not Linda Ellis, but I am a fan of hers. Not a ‘fran’, just a fan. I believe in a person’s right to defend their copyright; I believe in a person’s right to legally seek a Permanent Protective Order if they feel their safety is in jeopardy (which I presume Ms. Ellis did); I am anti-extortion; therefore I am pro-Linda Ellis. This blog has now become redundant, so I am done here. I will leave it to the lead advocates / “heroes” / leaders / bloodhounds from the other website who have lied and hijacked this forum for themselves, to stew in their own juices. Enjoy the rest of your week!

  126. Oh Please Says:


    Because I know you will be back. In an earlier post, you called me an “A-hole”.

    I give you credit for an appropriate use of The Dash and one that brings out your true character.

  127. Jeff Wheelan Says:

    Linda Ellis is currently using a quote from Dolly Parton on her business Facebook page. Dolly Parton’s words and fame are being used to help sell Ms. Ellis’ books and trinkets.

    You can send Dolly her $7500 c/o Dollywood. Cashiers check preferred.

  128. BobC Says:

    The author who included the poem as a dedication to his father as “author unknown” did not “copycat” Linda Ellis or rip her off.

    How do explain the title then? Almost straight copy.

    Almost all your knowledge of photographers and copyright seemed to have been learnt from the scam site run by Matthew Chan.

  129. Jon Fairplay Says:

    It’s obvious that BobC is among the many that have seen their careers falter because of the present state of the stock photo industry. The market has crashed. Again, the photos that used to be licensed yearly for 2000 thousand dollars now go for 10 dollars or less for unlimited use. I too am saddened by this.

    The main point that photographers need to understand is that even if people didn’t infringe on their work, these photos now sell for 50 cents to 10 dollars. People can and do infringe, and photographers are entitled to seek compensation. But, don’t mistake those facts for some sort of healthy market for expensive rights-managed images. It’s pretty much dead. I’ve worked as a marketing professional for many years, and I’d be fired if I spent my budget on generic-looking 2000 dollar images. I’m not trying to throw that in anyone’s “face”. But, let’s understand the business realities and especially the customer better.

    Everyone’s entitled to their opinion. People that feel wronged by “infringers” and can’t get the settlement that they seek, may choose to blame Chan and call his site a scam. To others, he’s a hero that stood up for churches and bereaving families that feel that they were being taken advantage of.

    Everybody knows that ELI deals mainly with companies such as Getty Images. They seek thousands of dollars in compensation for infringements of pictures depicting objects such as clouds or apples. They claim “copyright infringement”, but won’t provide any proof that they own the copyright, or that it’s even copyrighted at all. If the photog owns the copyright, he/she could join in a lawsuit with Getty. But, the photogs don’t do that. This will never be “easy money” for photographers/artists.

    Even if the court system is used, the system’s only job is to make the wronged party “whole”. So, if the image is sold for 10 dollars retail, don’t expect a 2000 dollar judgement.

    At this juncture, I don’t know what else to say. Kids with iPhones take photos that look “pro”. No money? Eat your Hasselblad.

  130. Jeannie Says:

    It has been said that Linda Ellis does not go after bereaved families. This is simply not true. My father in law died Sept 11, 2012 (11 years to the day that my brother died in the towers). My mother in law had heard The Dash at someone elses funeral a few years back. She wanted it read at her husband’s funeral. My father and brother have a small dental office and do a seasonal newletter. I put The Dash in the fall newsletter and wrote that my father inlaw had died and also gave Linda Ellis full credit for her poem. The newsletter was posted to the dental practices Facebook page. They have a total of 137 likes! Which are pretty much all friends and family, who were mostly all at the funeral. Can’t imagine how far into the google search the poem on our facebook page had to be for Mr. Jolin to find it. A couple of months later I received my first letter from John Jolin asking me to take down the poem and of course saying that there would be a $7500 settlement fee. The poem was immediately removed. The next week I received an email thanking me for removing the poem and that now it was “time to talk settlement”. In most cases, from the people and attorneys I have talked to, if you cease and desist accordingly, there should be no further penalty. My father has no idea that his beloved newletter could cost him so much money. Two weeks after my father in law died his rare cancer came back. He has not been at work since. Two weeks after that we lost our beach house in Super Storm Sandy. If I were to tell him that we owed Ms. Ellis $7500 when he has not worked in 6 months, it would set him back in his cancer fight and his hopes to be able to rebuild. So to get back to the original reason for why I am writing, yes Ms. Ellis does go directly after bereaved families. We are not a large company with insurance to cover this innocent mistake. It would come out of my father’s disability check from not being able to work. I have since received 3 follow up emails asking to discuss settlement.

  131. Brown Says:

    Becoming the Master of your DASH: 12 Principles for making the most of your life. by Peter Burwash

    I realize BobC thinks he is the smart one in the room, but even I know Linda does not own the word “Dash” or “The”. And considering Burwash makes NO REFERENCE to that stupid poem in his book – other than as “Author Unknown” on one page – which by the way no longer exists in the book – I’m not seeing a $100,000 infringement.

    Further, the Preacher who wrote the sermon entitled “The Dash” that inspired Linda to write the poem called “The Dash” means Linda has the right to stop all other people for their need to share what they have learned from the concept? Linda has the right to stop that preacher’s chain of inspiration? No more books, no more poems, no more sermons, NADA. It all ends with Linda Ellis and she is the only one allowed to profit from his words. Even HE doesn’t accept money for the concept or words.

    From now until the end of time no other human has the right to be inspired by 7 decades of that preacher preaching that sermon? And yes, he still preaches that sermon right there in Linda’s back yard. So now, every human has to get on their needs and thank Linda Ellis and pay Linda Ellis for a concept SHE ripped off from HIM? BTW, how many of HIS words are in HER stupid poem? Do you even know? Has she ever given him one moment of credit? NOOOOOOO.

    Dare I ask how much of her $7500 – $100,000 fee has Linda sent that 93 year old Man of God? Notice he did not feel the need to protect his legacy from her. He shared freely and I guarantee his legacy will forever loom as a shadow over her pitiful, greedy self.

  132. Jon Fairplay Says:

    After Jeannie’s posting, Ellis and her “team” have lost their credibility.

    A thousand personal insults courtesy of Mara Mulrooney isn’t going to change that now.

    But, we’re just waiting for more “inspirational” verbal diarrhea from “Ben Avic”, which is a just a sock-puppet for the one and only Linda Ellis.

  133. Brown Says:

    As you know, Linda Ellis won a lifetime Personal Protection Order against Matthew Chan, moderator of the forum (for victims of copyright trolls). Ellis thought she would take that “victory” and turn it into a public relations bonanza. Just the opposite has occurred. Today, Marietta Journal Online – Ellis’s hometown paper, allowed The Dash poem to be posted – in full – in the comments section following the slasher article. This is exactly how nearly every single victim got “caught” stealing from Linda Ellis. The posting of The Dash poem is in direct violation of Linda’s Copyright. MJO is protected by Fair Use. It appears they are challenging Linda Ellis to come after them too. Clearly all the letters from preachers and grieving families has had an influence on the newspaper. Linda’s denials were met with evidence. Linda Ellis’s interview has proven she used the author to spread even more lies about Matthew S. Chan. It appears the writer is getting her revenge for being lied too and she’s not too happy about it. She can write another story but Matthew Chan? He can’t even speak Linda Ellis’ name or defend himself publicly. His freedom of speech was taken away for LIFE! I can’t imagine how horrible it must be to be wrongly accused and never be able to tell your side of the story. Never.

    Will the post stay up? Standby…‘online-cult-leader-s’-cyber-stalking?

  134. The Sad Thing Is Says:

    The sad thing is that Linda is now using the Marietta newspaper to spread her poem over the internet. If Linda’s actions are consistent with her words she will insist that the poem will be taken down. In fact, she should have already made that request.

    But, perhaps she won’t because people will read the poem and undoubtedly a few will kind of like it and post it on their own sites. Then her legal team will go after them.

  135. Jon Fairplay Says:

    There’s a press release:

  136. Jon Fairplay Says:

    There’s word on the street that all comments have been removed from the Ellis story on the Marietta Daily Journal newspaper site.

    Therefore, I surmise that PDN and Mr Walker can expect some sort of threatening letter or “cease and desist” from Linda Ellis and her Team.

    I know that all this has been a bit of a PR failure for Ellis, however, I do hope the PDN errs on the side of free speech.

  137. Jon Fairplay Says:

    Check out the new article about this on the EFF:

  138. “The Dash” has hit the fan. » Says:

    […] someone stupidly posted The Dash poem in its entirety. Coupled with this story was an article on PDNonline which was a bit more balanced with regard to quotes from both sides. The article also gained some […]

  139. Jon Fairplay Says:

    Linda Ellis’ web site has been reported as having an “UNTRUSTWORTHY REPUTATION”.

  140. Stock Photo Tips Says:

    […] […]