Meltzer-Grant Initial Contact Letter & Settlement Offer Letter

[Matthew Chan]

I have a two-part post on letters by the Meltzer-Grant law firm by Attorneys John E. Grant III and Eric S. Meltzer.

John E. Grant III was last associated with IMUA Legal Advisors and attempted to have our copy of his old extortion letter taken down with a DMCA complaint letter. ELI fought back with a DMCA counter-notification letter. We won that little dispute because they chose not to contest it.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/another-letter-from-imua-legal-advisors/


The IMUA Legal Advisors Settlement Demand Letter remains available for comparison.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/74361657/IMUA-Legal-Advisors-Settlement-Demand-Letter-for-Alaska-Stock-Images


1. The Meltzer-Grant Initial Contact Letter on behalf of Corbis. I was told that Corbis did NOT issue their own extortion letter with this case. I am not sure I believe this but that is all I have right now. This initial contact letter is quite simple and short with no demand except to establish communication. An interesting approach which "eases" into the conversation without necessarily giving the letter recipient a heart attack.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/93836535/Meltzer-Grant-Initial-Contact-Letter-for-Corbis

2. The follow-up letter is the Meltzer-Grant Settlement Offer Letter. I call it a Settlement Offer Letter instead of a Settlement Demand Letter because it is fairly gentle in its approach. Again, no big speeches, no misquoted $150,000 damages nonsense. Very straight-forward without a lot of bluster.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/93836842/Meltzer-Grant-Settlement-Offer-Letter-for-Corbis


This is the document associated with this thread where they ask $18,000 for 4 images.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/corbis-image-$18-000-fine/

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I thought that name sounded familiar....So instead of an over the top threatening letter, they've decided to play Mr Nice Guy, thereby replacing the lawsuit threats with an amount that is so absurd it's almost laughable...yup that image of windmills is certainly worth $4500.00. These lawyers really know how to shine. Something tells me, I'll be adding more to this thread..

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I know you all like to put a face to the trolls behind the letters, so here's John Grant

[infoseeker]

Matt,

I had checked with my client again and they confirmed that there was "no" letter directly from corbis. The letter with the screen shots were the very first letter which came directly from Meltzer and Grant.

[Mulligan]

Perhaps the corporate attorneys associated with these copyright extortion schemes and settlement demand letters have been smart enough all along to realize that people might start filing complaints against them with the offices of the state Attorney General as well as the state bar associations regarding their attempts to extract payments from easily frightened mom and pop website owners.

Going through my file of correspondence with Getty Images over my one little image, I see that none of the letters were ever signed by anyone other than "Copyright Compliance Specialist."

How telling it is that the honcho attorneys at Getty are smart enough to retain the services of quick buck copyright trolling attorneys like Seattle's Timothy B. McCormack who are apparently now whining about taking heat when pissed off people file complaints with the Washington State bar association to throw light on their lies and misrepresentations?

By "retaining" not too bright local lawyers who are happy to do or say just about anything to scare big money out of people who are easily frightened by a letterhead and a batch of bullshit from an attorney, the big boys at Getty keep their hands clean and their legal careers and reputations intact. Brilliant!

With the above in mind as well as the theory that what goes around comes around, would it be a bad idea to file complaints against the head compliance office lawyer(s) at Getty?

If it's a good idea, which lawyer(s) should be targeted?

[Matthew Chan]

AS I have long known since the beginning, corporate employees are chicken-shit outside of the protection of the corporate environment. They draw strength from being within the company. Most couldn't survive a real fire-fight outside.

That is why I don't care if they are "just doing their jobs". I made it an early strategy to fight against my extortion letter to personally attack and name whoever came after me. I am quite gratified that people are listening to some of my suggestions to punch back where it hurts and not simply bitch about it.

Corporate employees will try to hide.  Notice how you don't hear anything from any of the Getty staff attorneys.  They are very quiet and stay behind the scenes. 

I believe in using power responsibly, not recklessly. I would be uncomfortable filing any complaint on any staff lawyer (at this time) not because I am afraid of retaliation. I don't think the complaint will hold up very well unless you have personally been attacked or harassed by it. At the very least, you would have to make a compelling argument to connect the dots.

McCormack and many other collection lawyers are an easy mark for a state bar or attorney general complaint.  But a few of them like Meltzer-Grant have wised up by toning it down.  In those cases, it falls upon the letter recipient to get a brain and backbone. If you have no brain or backbone, it will be hard regardless of what the letter says or does not say.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Matt, you and the ELI team have given those who are willing to read, learn and ask occasional questions on what we can’t find or fully understand the tools we need to carry the fight to Getty, HAN and the like.  I think you will see more and more people fighting back, especially when you release you strategy guide. Hint, hint.    Looking forward to it's release.

I am quite gratified that people are listening to some of my suggestions to punch back where it hurts and not simply bitch about it.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

"Grant and Meltzer knew each other while attending Lewis & Clark, but it was only after they returned to Seattle—Grant to work as in-house counsel with media giant Getty Images and Meltzer to become an international business analyst at Microsoft—"

http://law.lclark.edu/live/news/11748-bringing-innovation-to-the-practice-of-law

The Lewis and Clark law school are surely proud to be putting out such excellent examples of ethical lawyers trolls

[Oscar Michelen]

If you take out the extortionate amount of money they are asking for as damages for a single image ($7,500) and reduce it by 90% ($750) the IMUA letter becomes a valid enforcement tool as opposed to an "extortion letter." 

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

Perhaps. But I question how many images are actually being sold at these "rights managed" prices. When you see claims close to $1000 for a shot of a sprinkler head, you really have to wonder where is that market coming from. Now if I remember correctly the original Meltzer-Grant issue was over a picture of Sarah Palin. That photo may have had a little more value than a sprinkler head (insert your own political joke here). But on some of these "rights managed" images I would push back for sales data to establish the market rate.