Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 35

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA R. Bradley Maule, indiv. and p/k/a PhillySkyline.

Com, 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1130 Philadelphia, PA 19103, Plaintiff, v. R. Seth Williams District Attorney of Philadelphia Three South Penn Square Philadelphia, PA 19107-3499 Defendant. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

CIVIL ACTION No.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT Jurisdiction and Venue 1. The jurisdiction of this court is based upon 28 U.S.C. 1400(a), in that Plaintiff is an owner of a valid copyright which has been infringed upon by the unlawful acts of Defendant herein, who regularly conducts business in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 2. Jurisdiction over this cause of action is also proper before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 as this copyright infringement civil action arises under the Constitution and/or laws of the United States, and Title 17 of the United States Code in particular. 3. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1400 and/or 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2) in that a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs claim for copyright infringement occurred in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and in that Defendant has been broadcasting, selling and distributing infringing advertisements, and/or other media in the Philadelphia area, throughout the United States and abroad, as well as on the Internet. 4. Venue is also proper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(c) in that the Defendant has substantial business contacts with the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as Defendant (or his agents) have been creating, broadcasting, selling and distributing infringing advertisements, and/or other media in the Philadelphia area, throughout the United States and abroad, as well as on the Internet.

Parties 5. Plaintiff R. Bradley Maule, individually and p/k/a PhillySkyline.Com, is a locally based photographer, and is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, who can be served with process at the office of his undersigned counsel, located at 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1130, Philadelphia, PA 19103. 6. Defendant R. Seth Williams is an adult individual with a principal place of business located at the Office of the District Attorney of Philadelphia, Three South Penn Square, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3499 (and is a Pennsylvania citizen), and at all times relevant was and is the District Attorney of Philadelphia. Defendant Williams has unlawfully infringed Plaintiffs copyright.

Facts 7. Plaintiff is a well-known and highly respected Philadelphia photographer, whose work is regularly posted on his website, phillyskyline.com. Plaintiffs talents in documenting his attention on Philadelphias neighborhoods, its people, culture, architecture, and its urban development, are of such a caliber that he is perhaps the premier photographer in Philadelphia today. His accomplishments are such that he is regularly consulted by a variety of media concerning the aforementioned areas of interest, and his website is beloved by countless fans throughout the Philadelphia region and beyond. 8. In May 2005, Plaintiff took a unique photograph of the Philadelphia skyline, from the 18th floor of Penn Tower, the hotel located high above Franklin Field and positioned on the west side of the Schuylkill River. 9. The photograph itself was a wide, expansive shot of the Center City skyline in particular, encompassing a panoramic view from the Commerce Square buildings located at 2100 Market Street to the apartment buildings around Rittenhouse Square. A true and correct copy of the photograph is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. 10. wit: The Plaintiff then took his photograph, and altered it in the following fashion, to a) the Plaintiff placed artistic conceptual renderings of the finished versions of Comcast Center and Mandeville Place, and placed them in his photograph, at their approximate locations, then under construction; and, in addition, the Plaintiff altered a billboard that appeared above an apartment building beside the Schuylkill river to read Visit Philly Skyline Dot Com in order to serve as a watermark/signifier of his own creation.

b)

A true and correct copy of the Plaintiffs enhanced photograph is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B (hereinafter the Projected Skyline Photograph.). 11. Immediately thereafter, on May 9, 2005, Plaintiff posted the Projected Skyline Photograph on his website as a visual representation of what the Philadelphia skyline would look like in 2008 A true and correct copy of the posting of the Projected Skyline Photograph on Plaintiffs website is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit C. 12. Then, on or about April 1, 2013, the Plaintiff discovered that the Defendant had been using Plaintiffs photograph as a background picture for the Defendants Twitter webpage located at http://www.twitter.com/dasethwilliams (hereinafter the Twitter webpage.). A true and correct copy of the Defendants Twitter webpage, on April 1, 2013, is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit D 13. On or about April 23, 2013, Plaintiff gave an interview to Philebrity.com, a local news and gossip website, wherein Plaintiff identified (via a link in the article) that the Defendant had been unlawfully using Plaintiffs photograph without Plaintiffs permission. (Plaintiffs interview with Philebrity is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit E). 14. Defendant nonetheless continued to unlawfully use Plaintiffs photograph on his Twitter webpage. 15. Then, on this past Election Day (May 21, 2013) Plaintiff was having lunch with his undersigned counsel at Famous 4th Street Deli, at 4th and Bainbridge Streets, in Philadelphia, when the Defendant suddenly appeared beside Plaintiffs table. 16. Undersigned counsel introduced the Plaintiff to the Defendant, whereupon undersigned counsel said to the Defendant, Seth, this is Brad Maule, whos a photographer in town. Youve been using one of his photographs on your Twitter page, and we dont know who to ask to prosecute you for the theft! 17. Plaintiff then explained to the Defendant, in an absolutely friendly and respectful tone and manner, that the Defendant was using Plaintiffs aforementioned photograph as a background picture on the Defendants Twitter page, without Plaintiffs permission. 18. Defendant immediately denied using Plaintiffs photograph on Defendants Twitter webpage. 19. On July 26, 2013, undersigned counsel contacted the Defendant at his office and informed the Defendant of the continued, unauthorized use of Plaintiffs photograph on the Defendants Twitter webpage. Defendant then contacted undersigned counsel, and informed him that he took the photograph down from Defendants Twitter webpage. (A true and correct screengrab of Defendants Twitter webpage on July 26, 2013 is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit F).

20. On July 29, 2013, however, it was apparent that despite his aforementioned representation to the contrary, the Defendant did not remove Plaintiffs photograph from the Defendants Twitter webpage, and undersigned counsel for the Plaintiff left a message at the Defendants office regarding the same. (A true and correct screengrab of Defendants Twitter webpage on July 29, 2013 is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit G). 21. On the afternoon of July 30, 2013, the Defendants secretary, Regina Purtell, called undersigned counsel for the Plaintiff, and asked for proof that the Plaintiffs picture was on the Defendants Twitter webpage. Undersigned counsel suggested to the secretary that she look at http://www.twitter.com/dasethwilliams on her computer, but the secretary said she was unable to look at websites from her office computer, and requested that undersigned counsel forward a screengrab to her via email. (A true and correct screengrab of Defendants Twitter webpage on July 30, 2013 is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit H, and a true and correct copy of the email forwarding said screengrab is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit I). 22. Within an hour of sending Exhibits H and I to Regina Purtell, the Defendant himself then called undersigned counsel and again claimed that there was no such photograph on the Defendants Twitter webpage, because the Defendant was looking at his Twitter account on his smartphone and there was no skyline on his smartphone rendition of his Twitter account. 23. Undersigned counsel for the Plaintiff then asked Defendant to look at his Twitter webpage on his computer at work, and Defendant said that he could not look at it on his office computer. 24. Undersigned counsel for the Plaintiff then asked Defendant to look at his Twitter webpage on a regular persons computer, to which Defendant replied that he didnt have access to a regular persons computer and that any claim of copyright infringement in this regard was silly bullshit. Defendant then suggested that undersigned counsel might as well go ahead and file this lawsuit for copyright infringement. 25. The infringing Twitter webpage is clearly a theft and carbon copy of Plaintiffs Projected Skyline Photo, as many of the attributes of the Plaintiffs photo (in particular, his artistic conceptions and placement of Comcast Center and Mandeville Place ) are evident therein. Compare Exhibits B and C with Exhibits D, F, G and H. 26. Indeed, as further evidence of stealing the Projected Skyline Photo, the Defendants Twitter webpage clearly demonstrates the watermark/billboard from Plaintiffs photograph, which is conspicuously centered on the right hand side of the photograph in Exhibits D, F, G & H reading Visit Philly Skyline Dot Com. 27. The Defendant intentionally stole the Plaintiffs photo and/or intentionally maintained it on his Twitter webpage, as Defendant was notified of the theft on at least

one occasion by the Plaintiff himself at Famous 4th Street, as aforementioned, and the Defendant nonetheless continued to use Plaintiffs photograph without permission. 28. At best, the District Attorney of Philadelphia has no idea how to use a computer, a smartphone, a Twitter account and/or a Twitter webpage. 29. At worst, the Defendant lied and/or misrepresented to the Plaintiff, on no less than three separate occasions (May 21, 2013, July 26, 2013 and July 30, 2013) that he either did not have Plaintiffs picture on Defendants Twitter webpage, or that he removed the Plaintiffs photograph from his Twitter webpage. 30. Plaintiffs Projected Skyline Photograph was registered with the Copyright Office, with an effective copyright registration date of May 13, 2008 at registration number VA 1-632-353. See Copyright Registration, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit J. 31. The Defendant has intentionally and unlawfully stolen and reproduced the Plaintiffs photograph, infringing upon his copyright therein and inuring considerable profits and/or publicity from the same. 32. In so doing, the Defendant has been producing the infringing Twitter webpage through his own websites and/or other media, adding to the considerable public popularity of his own political career and/or services, and thereby infringing upon Plaintiffs copyright therein and inuring considerable profits and/or publicity from the same. 33. Upon information and belief, the Defendant owns a copyright (via registration with the Copyright Office or automatically by statute) to his own infringing Twitter webpage. 34. Upon information and belief, no copyright registration submitted by the Defendant to the Registrar of Copyrights mentions any derivation in Plaintiffs original photography, as aforementioned. 35. By contrast, Plaintiff properly registered his copyright interest in the aforementioned photograph, by delivering his application, deposit material (consisting of two CD copies of the work), along with the required payment, to the Copyright Registrar. Plaintiff has an official copyright for the aforementioned works from the Library of Congress with an effective registration date of May 13, 2008. See Exhibit J. 36. The Defendant never contacted the Plaintiff at any time prior to, during, or after the infringing Twitter webpage was published, concerning the use of his aforementioned photograph. 37. Plaintiff did not give his consent, permission or license, in any way, to the Defendant to reproduce his copyrighted photograph, in any fashion, for any use in the

infringing Twitter webpage. The Defendant reproduced Plaintiffs copyrighted photograph anyway, in violation of 17 U.S.C. 106(1). 38. The Plaintiff did not give his consent, permission or license, in any way, to the Defendant to specifically include Plaintiffs copyrighted photograph as a derivative work contained in the infringing Twitter webpage. The Defendant prepared the derivative work namely, the infringing Twitter webpage based upon Plaintiffs copyrighted photograph anyway, in violation of 17 U.S.C. 106(2). 39. The Plaintiff did not give his consent, permission or license, in any way, to the Defendant to specifically engage in the public distribution of Plaintiffs copyrighted photographs contained in the infringing Twitter webpage. Through the creation, publication, distribution, unlawful registration of copyright and/or sale of the infringing Twitter webpage, the Defendant publicly distributed Plaintiffs copyrighted photograph anyway, in violation of 17 U.S.C. 106(3). 40. The Plaintiff did not give his consent, permission or license in any way to the Defendant to specifically include Plaintiffs copyrighted photograph in any public display (such as the infringing Twitter webpage). The Defendant performed and/or displayed Plaintiffs copyrighted photograph anyway, in violation of 17 U.S.C. 106(4) and/or 106(5). 41. The Defendant has not compensated the Plaintiff in any fashion whatsoever for the use of his copyrighted photograph in the creation, publication, distribution, unlawful registration of copyright and/or sale of the infringing Twitter webpage and/or use of the Plaintiffs photo therein. 42. Upon information and belief, the Defendants infringing behavior, as aforementioned, has generated great utility for the Defendant and assisted him in his political and governmental career without the Plaintiffs permission, and without any remuneration to the Plaintiff. 43. The Defendant knowingly and willfully, directly and/or derivatively, copied without independent creation, Plaintiffs copyrighted photograph for the specific purpose of infringing upon Plaintiffs copyright and to unlawfully enrich the Defendant at Plaintiffs expense, as the Defendant never obtained a license from the Plaintiff, let alone his consent or permission, for the specific use of his copyrighted photograph in the infringing Twitter webpage. PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANT COUNT I COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT 17 U.S.C. 501 et. seq. Request for Damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 503 through 505

44. Averments 1 through 43 are incorporated as though fully set forth herein at length. 45. The infringing Twitter webpage flagrantly infringes upon the Plaintiffs copyrighted photo, as aforementioned. Compare Exhibits B and C with Exhibits D, F, G and H. 46. Upon information and belief, the Defendant falsely copyrighted (and/or automatically enjoys a copyright in) the infringing Twitter webpage as an original work, with no credit given for the derivative photograph of the Plaintiff which is included therein. 47. As set forth more comprehensively above, the Defendant has willfully and deliberately infringed upon Plaintiffs copyrighted photograph, and continues to do so on on his Twitter website and on the Internet, despite being advised of the theft on numerous occasions. 48. At no time did the Defendant have a license or authority of any kind to specifically use Plaintiffs copyrighted photograph in the infringing Twitter webpage. 49. The express use and inclusion of Plaintiffs copyrighted photograph in the infringing Twitter webpage, as aforementioned, is evidence of the Defendants direct access to the same; furthermore, the literal reproduction of the Plaintiffs photograph (and the clear appearance of the Plaintiffs watermark/billboard in Exhibits D, F, G and H) raises a clear inference of such access. 50. The Defendant has willfully infringed on the copyright owned by Plaintiff, which was properly registered with the Copyright Office. See Exhibit J. 51. Based on the foregoing, and pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 504, Plaintiff is entitled to have the Defendant disgorge all profits earned (directly or indirectly) as a result of Defendants copyright infringement. 52. In the alternative to payment of Defendants profits, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 504, Plaintiff is entitled to One Hundred Fifty Thousand ($150,000) Dollars per willful infringement after the date of registration of the official copyright. 53. In addition, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 503, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to order the impounding of the infringing Twitter webpage, and to order the Defendant to cease and desist from further broadcasting the infringing Twitter webpage in any fashion, including on the internet, as the same is in violation of Plaintiffs copyright. 54. In addition, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 505, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to order the Defendant to pay all costs incurred by the Plaintiff in the prosecution of this civil action, including, but not limited to, attorneys fees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against the Defendant for an accounting of all profits derived from use of the Plaintiffs copyrighted photograph, plus compensatory, punitive, and/or statutory damages, in excess of $150,000 (ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS) representing said damages, Defendants profits, interest, costs, attorneys fees, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANT COUNT II COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT 17 U.S.C. 501 et. seq. Request for Injunctive Relief pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 502 55. Averments 1 through 54 are incorporated as though fully set forth herein at length. 56. The Defendant has willfully infringed on the copyright owned by Plaintiff, which was properly registered with the Copyright Office. See Exhibit J. 57. Defendants infringement, use, sale and/or pirating of Plaintiffs copyrighted photograph has caused permanent and irreparable harm to Plaintiff. 58. Unless an injunction is granted barring Defendant from further distributing, marketing, selling, publishing, or otherwise promoting his infringing Twitter webpage, Plaintiff will continue to suffer ongoing irreparable harm. 59. Plaintiff does not have an adequate remedy at law.

60. Based upon the clear and willful violations in this case, and the unlawful inclusion of Plaintiffs photograph in the infringing Twitter webpage, Plaintiff has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. 61. Greater harm will befall the Plaintiff than the Defendant if the injunctive relief herein is not granted. 62. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 502, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant a temporary and/or final injunction on such terms as this Court deems reasonable to prevent and restrain the infringement of Plaintiffs copyright. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter an Order:

(a)

restraining the Defendant and his agents, domestically and abroad, from promoting, selling, marketing, advertising, shipping, transporting (directly or indirectly) or otherwise moving in domestic or foreign commerce, any and all products which infringe upon Plaintiffs copyrighted work; and/or, ordering Defendant to forfeit (and/or recall) the infringing Twitter webpage; and/or, ordering Defendant to recall or remove any and all of his catalogs, websites, books, posters or brochures or other material which contain an infringement of Plaintiffs work; and/or, ordering all of Defendants agents to refrain from selling or marketing the infringing Twitter webpage in question; and/or, ordering that Plaintiff be remunerated for his work in any future versions sold; and/or, providing such other relief as the Court deems just, including costs and attorneys fees. PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANT COUNT III Request for Declaratory Relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201

(b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

63. Averments 1 through 62 are hereby incorporated as though fully set forth herein at length. 64. Upon information and belief, Defendant falsely filed for copyright protection (and/or enjoys copyright protection automatically) on the infringing Twitter webpage, as Defendant did not identify the infringing advertisement as being derivative of Plaintiffs copyrighted photograph. 65. Defendant falsely filed for copyright protection (and/or enjoys copyright protection automatically) on the infringing Twitter webpage, knowing that Plaintiffs photograph enjoys copyright protection. This raises a legal dispute that can properly be decided by a request for a declaratory judgment that Defendants copyright in the infringing Twitter webpage is invalid. 66. Defendants copyright in the infringing Twitter webpage should be invalidated based upon Defendants use of Plaintiffs original photograph for unlawful inclusion therein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests for judgment declaring Defendants copyright as it applies to the infringing Twitter webpage to be invalid as said copyright is

a derivative of Plaintiffs copyrighted photograph, and Plaintiff is entitled to protection of the copyright. Plaintiffs also seek all attorneys fees and costs incurred in seeking this declaratory action. PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANT COUNT IV SUPPLEMENTAL STATE LAW CLAIM RESTATEMENT (SECOND) TORTS, 652(c) 67. Averments 1 through 66 are hereby incorporated as though fully set forth herein at length. 68. The Defendant appropriated the name and/or likeness and/or identity of Plaintiff (p/k/a PhillySkyline.Com) by including his photograph and/or his watermark in the infringing Twitter webpage. 69. The Defendant thereby appropriated the name and/or likeness and/or identity of Plaintiff, as well as his photograph, for a commercial purpose namely, the Defendants own political advertising. 70. Plaintiff never consented to the appropriation of his name and/or likeness and/or identity for the Defendants use thereof in the infringing Twitter webpage. 71. The Defendant neither consulted with, nor obtained a license or permission from, the Plaintiff to appropriate Plaintiffs name and/or likeness in the infringing advertisement. 72. Plaintiff is offended and aggrieved that his name and/or likeness and/or identity, not to mention the brazen use of his copyrighted photograph, was manipulated for the commercial and/or political aspirations of the Defendant in the infringing Twitter webpage, without any remuneration to Plaintiff whatsoever. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against the Defendant for an accounting of all profits derived from use of the Plaintiffs copyrighted photograph, plus compensatory, punitive, and/or statutory damages, in excess of $150,000 (ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS) representing said damages, Defendants profits, interest, costs, attorneys fees, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANTS COUNT V SUPPLEMENTAL STATE LAW CLAIM 54 Pa.C.S.A. 1124 and 1125

10

73. Averments 1 through 72 are hereby incorporated as though fully set forth herein at length. 74. Plaintiff is the owner of a mark (Phillyskyline.com) which is famous in this Commonwealth, and which appears on every web page on his site (at the very least, within the address bar of his webpage). 75. The Defendants knowingly, willfully, outrageously, intentionally, wantonly, recklessly and/or maliciously used and/or abused Plaintiffs mark by including the aforementioned photograph with Plaintiffs watermark, as aforementioned, for publication on the infringing Twitter webpage, and did so after Plaintiffs mark had become famous. 76. The Defendants actions and/or inactions in this regard have caused the dilution of the distinctive quality of Plaintiffs mark. 77. The Defendant knowingly, willfully, outrageously, intentionally, wantonly, recklessly and/or maliciously intended to trade on the Plaintiffs reputation or to cause dilution of Plaintiffs mark. 78. The Defendant knowingly, willfully, outrageously, intentionally, wantonly, recklessly and/or maliciously and/or in bad faith used Plaintiffs photograph for inclusion in the infringing Twitter webpage, as aforementioned. WHEREFORE, pursuant to 54 Pa.C.S.A. 1125, Plaintiff respectfully requests judgment against the Defendant, and an Order requiring the Defendant to pay to Plaintiff all profits derived from and all damages suffered by reason of his wrongful use, display or sale of Plaintiffs photograph, plus punitive and/or treble damages and reasonable attorney fees, in excess of $150,000 (ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS). DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Trial by a jury of twelve (12) persons is demanded as to all issues. Respectfully Submitted, Date: July 31, 2013 _____________________________ J. Conor Corcoran, Esquire 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Suite 1130 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 977-9300 Fax: (215) 864-0188

11

Case 2:13-cv-04428-TJS Document 1 Filed 07/31/13 Page 12 of 35

Case 2:13-cv-04428-TJS Document 1 Filed 07/31/13 Page 14 of 35

Case 2:13-cv-04428-TJS Document 1 Filed 07/31/13 Page 16 of 35

Case 2:13-cv-04428-TJS Document 1 Filed 07/31/13 Page 18 of 35

Case 2:13-cv-04428-TJS Document 1 Filed 07/31/13 Page 20 of 35

Case 2:13-cv-04428-TJS Document 1 Filed 07/31/13 Page 21 of 35

Case 2:13-cv-04428-TJS Document 1 Filed 07/31/13 Page 22 of 35

Case 2:13-cv-04428-TJS Document 1 Filed 07/31/13 Page 23 of 35

Case 2:13-cv-04428-TJS Document 1 Filed 07/31/13 Page 24 of 35

Case 2:13-cv-04428-TJS Document 1 Filed 07/31/13 Page 25 of 35

Case 2:13-cv-04428-TJS Document 1 Filed 07/31/13 Page 27 of 35

Case 2:13-cv-04428-TJS Document 1 Filed 07/31/13 Page 29 of 35

Case 2:13-cv-04428-TJS Document 1 Filed 07/31/13 Page 31 of 35

Case 2:13-cv-04428-TJS Document 1 Filed 07/31/13 Page 33 of 35

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA R. Bradley Maule, indiv. and p/k/a PhillySkyline.Com, 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1130 Philadelphia, PA 19103, Plaintiff, v. R. Seth Williams District Attorney of Philadelphia Three South Penn Square Philadelphia, PA 19107-3499 Defendant. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

CIVIL ACTION No.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, J. Conor Corcoran, Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Complaint in the above captioned matter has been sent to the following by first class, United States, certified mail: R. Seth Williams District Attorney of Philadelphia Three South Penn Square Philadelphia, PA 191073499

Date: July 31, 2013

_______________________ J. Conor Corcoran, Esquire

12