December 16, 2011 Mr Paul Bost Manatt Phelps & Phillips, LP Los Angeles, CA Re: VM2- The Virtual

Marilyn (copyright/trademark 1996) Dear Paul: On December 9, 2011 I received an emailed letter from you claiming that my 1996 copyright and trademark in "VM2-The Virtual Marilyn" infinged upon purported IP rights owned by the Marilyn Monroe Estate ("Estate"). This was an almost identical demand letter to the first (and only previous) such letter your client directed to me in 1996. As Yogi Berra so memorably stated "It was Deja Vous all over again". I have to admit to some mystification as to why, 15 years after my original and never amended response was directed to your client, denying any infringement and demanding that the Estate refrain from interfering with my exclusive copyright and trademark rights to my character,"VM2- The Virtual Marilyn", that these issues should be raised by the Estate now. As I advised the Estate's legal counsel then, the character I created in 1995,"VM2- The Virtual Marilyn", the first virtual actress to live and work from Cyberspace, did not in any way infringe upon the purported IP rights that were asserted by the Estate. Analysis of the applicable law and binding precedent confirmed my legal authority to create a new character that relied on newly emerging computerized motion capture animation technology, to enable it, as the first virtual actress, to have an ongoing virtual "life" in cyberspace while promoting her acting career in all media. Her fictional adaptation of the Monroe persona to a "living" 21st century virtual actress sufficiently distinguished "herself" from the actress who passed away in 1962, and her Estate, to satisfy requirements of copyright law and the Lanham Act. (Applicable cases in support, as of 1996, included Hicks v Casablanca records, 464 F.Supp 426 (SDNY 1978); Rogers v Grimaldi et al, 875 F2d 994 (2d CA 1989); Yankee Publishing v News America 809 F Supp 267 (SDNY 1992); New Kids on the Block v New American Publishing, 971 F2d 302,309 (9th CA 1992) among others). After my response to the Estate in 1996, because I did not receive any further correspondence, because no action was taken whatsoever to legally challenge my copyright and trademark claims, because no action was taken to interfere in any way with my quiet enjoyment of my character rights as I licensed them to SONY and others openly and notoriously, and especially after more than three years elapsed with the Estate's acquiescence to my rights, I reasonably assumed the issue was resolved. Since VM2 has been published and performed in various media, including the internet, continuously since 1996, and a simple Google search of videos of "VM2-The Virtual Marilyn" brings up various animation productions of VM2-The Virtual Marilyn, along with copyright notices and explanations of the origin and use of the Virtual Marilyn character, it is especially hard to reconcile your statement that the Estate has a history of vigorously policing the Estate's IP rights with the sudden assertion of a claim 15 years after my last objection to that same claim and my consistent open and notorious actions adverse to that claim. What I find extremely perplexing is the contradiction implicit in your statement of vigilance in protection of rights. The logical conclusion from your assertion is that, having policed my open and notorious actions for 15 years, your failure to take any action against me confirmed by conduct your agreement that I was not infringing on your rights and that you would not interfere with mine. Now, suddenly, after this position was queried by Mr Salter, who has publicly stated that he believed that his $50 million acquisition of rights from the Estate included exclusive rights to create a virtual Marilyn for TV and movies, you have decided to take a new legal position contrary the Estate's historical position over the last 15 years. This new assertion by the Estate of ownership of copyright and trademark rights that I perfected since 1996 through the unchallenged publishing of VM2- the Virtual Marilyn, is interfering with my present efforts to exploit the copyright and trademark perfected over the last 15 years. This begs the question of your good faith in dealing with all parties involved.

The three year statute of limitations for any allegations of copyright and trademark infringement has long since elapsed, precluding any good faith legal challenge by the Estate of my copyright and trademarks in and to VM2 now. I am now forced to reiterate my demand made in 1996- that the Estate refrain from interfering in any way with the quiet enjoyment of my perfected copyright and trademark in VM2- the Virtual Marilyn, and I request an immediate clarification of your position on the acquiesced agreement to my asserted IP rights made between 1996 and 2011. Thank you for your prompt attention. Very Truly,