This was my email response to Julie Stewart. The letter speaks for itself to all concerned.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: URGENT - defamatory content on your website
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 16:54:57 -0500
From: * Matthew Chan *
To:
[email protected]CC: Oscar Michelen
Hello Julie,
I am surprised that our small posts have caught your attention and that
you have taken the time to send us an email on a Sunday morning. Here in
the U.S., it is a 3-day holiday weekend. You appear to be very diligent
working for yourself or your client, Hawaiian Art, during the weekend.
In any case, I will respond to your concerns of your email.
As you know by now, ExtortionLetterInfo.com was created to report and
serve as a communication outlet and educational resource for those
people who wish to discuss and share their experiences and be informed
about Stock Photo Industry Settlement Demand Letters. We colloquially
call those letters, "extortion letters". While you may disagree with it,
you will find we equally apply this term to everyone issuing settlement
demand letters. You and Hawaiian Art are not being singled out. In fact,
thus far, we consider you and your client relatively minor players thus
far as Getty Images is, by far, the "biggest elephant" in the business.
The reason settlement demand letters are colloquially called "extortion
letters" is because it because it illustrates an ongoing campaign by the
stock photo industry to take advantage of end-user ignorance of
copyright law and legal process to "compel", "motivate", "incentivize"
letter recipients into making payments. As much as we find these letters
distasteful, we do recognize it as being legal. We regard the whole
letter campaign as "legalized extortion" because it is very much an
uneven playing field.
Just as your client (Hawaiian Art) has a legal right (through your
assistance) to pursue alleged infringers with settlement demand letters,
those alleged infringers have a right to be assisted and openly
communicate with any entities that would assist them. Settlement Demand
Letter recipients are free to share their information with us either
privately or in an open forum. We, in turn, can accurately share
information with or without permission. As a general rule, we work with
our community members and have their full support and consent to share
information we do have. As much as you and Hawaiian Art may prefer to
communicate quietly behind the scenes, we have a right to report the
information as long as it is accurate.
As you requested, I have gone back to re-evaluate specific posts
regarding you and Hawaiian Art:
1. Regarding Scribd, there is/was no reference to the copy of your
letter as "extortion letter". It is being called the "Blackline
Settlement Demand Letter" in which Hawaiian Art is being referred to
within the letter. It is a legal document which feel is totally
appropriate to the sharing forum Scribd provides. You, of course, have a
right to contest this with Scribd.
2. The Twitter post in question cannot be edited. As such, I deleted it
altogether because you objected to the phrase "extortion letter" as it
relates to your name. While we feel it is EVERYONE's right to openly use
that term, we will in the future endeavor to refer to such letters as
"settlement demand letters" simply out of professional courtesy.
However, you should know through the DMCA, we cannot be held responsible
for language used by our community members who may still refer to
Settlement Demand Letters as "Extortion Letters".
3. The Facebook post in question could not be edited and was deleted for
the same reasons as Point #2.
4. Last, but not least, the original forum post announcing your letter
has been amended to "Settlement Demand Letter" replacing the previous
term "extortion letter". Again, this was done as a professional courtesy
but the thread of discussion will remain.
Regarding your accusations of slander, defamation, libel, and copyright
infringement, I question whether you truly are a knowledgeable lawyer in
the areas you are accusing or if this is just a heavy-handed tactic in
attempt to test our legal sensibilities. Quite frankly, I believe the
latter is the case. I cannot honestly believe you know so little about
slander, defamation, and libel. I cannot speak for Oscar but here are my
replies:
A. Regarding defamation, you have to prove what is being said is false.
It is quite questionable whether the minimum level of qualification for
defamation even exists. In the context of the entire existence and
premise of ExtortionLetterInfo.com, which we colloquially use the term
"extortion letter" in exchange and in lieu of "settlement demand
letter", you may find that term distasteful but it is not false. There
was no attack on you or your personal character. In fact, we know very
little about you aside from the bio on your website and your letter.
Even our community members have not had much to say about you or your
practice as you are still a relatively unknown entity.
B. Regarding slander, that generally refers to oral / spoken statements.
Quite frankly, there have been ZERO oral/spoken statements about you of
any kind. So the accusation of slander is outright ridiculous. Until
this email, you barely registered in our consciousness much less being
spoken about in ANY capacity much less in a way that is damaging to your
or your character.
C. Regard libel, that refers to written form. Again, does the minimum
level of qualification for libel even exist? Does 3 small posts
(consisting of at most two sentences) referring to your settlement
demand letter even remotely qualify or meet the minimum threshold of
falsehood and damaging? It's a blip. Refer to Point #A in whether the
term "extortion letter" even qualifies as false. I do not think it is
any worse than the statement you made in your email
"It is theft, plain and simple. Yes, it is upsetting to be on the wrong side of the law."
If you ask me, that is pretty inflammatory for a person in your
profession. I wonder how letter recipients would react to you calling
them "thieves" and being "on the wrong side of the law". I suppose it
might be similar to the way you seem to be offended as being thought of
as an "extortionist". (Incidentally, that word almost never is used on a
personal level to anyone.) Let us also remember this is a civil matter,
not a criminal matter. I don't think you are a judge qualified to say
who is on "wrong side"? There are simply opposing sides of the argument.
D. Regarding copyright infringement, what are you referring to? They
copy of your demand letter? Your letter is being used as a method of
direct communication to an alleged infringer. Are you going to sue
everyone who made a photocopy of the letter for the purpose of
information sharing or defending the case? If you wanted copyright
protection for that letter, maybe you should print it in some
publication and not actually use it as an instrument of legal communication.
Before I close this letter, you may want to advise future clients that
trying to squash Internet communications is a futile effort and only
makes them look bad. If they are too embarrassed or dislike the negative
attention associated with the demand letters, maybe they should revisit
how they approach the matter. People are going to talk and fight back,
not willingly roll over and succumb to outrageous settlement amounts.
In closing, I have acknowledged your concerns and made minor corrective
changes as mentioned above as a matter of professional courtesy. We have
made no factual errors that we can find. As far as I am concerned this
matter is now resolved and closed.
Respectfully,
Matthew Chan
Topic: ELI Contacted by Canadian Attorney Julie Stewart of Blackline Law (Read 20917 times)