Public Rebuttal to Public Comments by Jed Knudsen

[originally posted on another website June 8, 2004]

This post is in response to "Jed" from "Salt Lake City, Utah," who is
presumably Jed Knudsen, the owner of Association of Working Talent (AWT),
based in Utah.

Jed Knudsen was contacted privately, but he would not respond privately;
instead he chose to make unsubstantiated claims publicly. This is a public
response to his public response.

Jed Knudsen acknowledged that an effort was in fact made to contact him
about the Association of Working Talent, a company which travels all over
America, looking for money, sorry, models.

Here he said: "They did send my company an email asking "questions."
However, I do not want to respond to them and give them phrases they can
take out of context to make us look bad."

Below are the questions which Mr. Knudsen was asked privately, the same
questions which are asked of other modeling companies who charge upfront
fees.

Knudsen/AWT was asked more than once, but he refused to answer the
questions. He even admitted he refused to answer the questions.

Here are the exact emails he was sent, dates and content:

Date:  Thu, 18 Mar 2004
From:  Easy Background Check
To:  <info@workingtalent.com>
Subject:  AWT

1. How many people have paid AWT?

2. How many of them have got paying work through AWT?

3. How many of them who have got paying work through AWT earned more than
they
paid AWT?

Easy Background Check

---

Date:  Wed, 14 Apr 2004
From:  Easy Background Check
To:  <jedk@workingtalent.com>
Subject:  AWT

1. How many people have paid AWT?

2. How many of them have got paying work through AWT?

3. How many of them who have got paying work through AWT earned more than
they paid AWT?

What's the difference between AWT and WSN (Wilhelmina Scouting Network)?

Easy Background Check

---

These are very basic questions. Consumers have a right to know. They are the
same type of questions the Federal Trade Commission asks when they
investigate modeling companies (see the site article "FTC Legitimacy Test").

Jed Knudsen's stated reason for not answering the questions was: "I do not
want to respond to them and give them phrases they can take out of context
to make us look bad."

Knudsen, you already look bad, because you have not provided the information
on your website. If you want people to pay you, why didn't you already
provide the information? Why do you have to be asked?

By not answering these questions it only makes you look worse. How could you
possibly be taken out of context?! Come on! You were only asked for three
numbers. How do you think three numbers can be "taken out of context"?! Get
real!

I didn't ask for words or phrases; I asked for numbers, so your entire point
is lost. If there are no phrases, you can't be taken out of context.

By coming here and implying that answering the questions you were asked
could result in you being taken out of context is disingenuous or
misleading. The fact is the answers to the questions cannot be taken out of
context.

You were just looking for an excuse not to answer them because the numbers
are so bad, right?

Furthermore, if you were so worried about being taken out of context
(despite the fact in this case it's impossible), you could have posted your
answers on this board where you know they would not be edited or "taken out
of context."

So if the real reason you didn't answer the questions privately by email is
because you don't want to be taken out of context, and the reality is if you
post your answers here you won't be taken out of context, why don't you
answer the questions here and now on this web page?

Moreover, if you had not figured it out by now, which you should have
already done, because you have a website, you can post the answers to the
questions on your website where they cannot be edited or "taken out of
context."

In fact why don't you answer the questions here and put the data on your
home page?

Your complaint about the use of the graphic from your site shows you don't
understand freedom of speech laws. The site attempts to substantiate
arguments or claims as much as possible as well as report news.

Section 107 of the Copyright Act (Title 17, U.S. Code) contains a list of
the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be
considered "fair," such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching,
scholarship, and research.

That is exactly what Easy Background Check offers: criticism,
comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining
whether or not a particular use is fair:

  1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

  2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

  3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and

  4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.

Easy Background Check has nonprofit educational purposes. The nature of the work
(graphic) on your site is not copyrighted. It is a map of the United States.
You do not own the United States. You cannot claim to have a copyright on a
map of the United States! The amount of the work is small. One graphic of a
map which was coloured in. (Do you have a copyright on a coloured-in map of
America? In gray?) Value of the work (which is not copyrighted)? How much is
it worth to you?

More importantly than a map of America coloured in gray of places where the
Association of Working Talent has been, how much is Association of Working
Talent worth to America?

1. How many people have paid AWT?

2. How many of them have got paying work through AWT?

3. How many of them who have got paying work through AWT earned more than
they paid AWT?

Knudsen,

Are these answers good guesses?

1. 4,000
2. 250
3. 10

Show me the money!

---

Spokeo scam search

 

Crimes of Persuasionon


Model Scam Check Home / Disclaimer / Modeling Advice / C of P Home