This interesting nugget was submitted to me by an interested and informed ELI Forum reader.
It is regarding one of Higbee's photographer clients, Aaron C. Reed. Reportedly, a "reasonable" $1,000 settlement was turned down because the Defendant did not like/agree with the confidentiality clause.
https://oregonintellectualproperty.com/2017/09/01/photographer-files-copyright-lawsuit-after-settlement-negotiations-break-down-over-confidentiality-clause/From the lawsuit complaint itself:Plaintiff attempted to amicably settle the matter with Defendants after informing them of their infringing use. However, after the parties agreed on a settlement amount, Defendants’ counsel rejected a proposed settlement agreement that contained a standard confidentiality clause as a material term because Defendants’ counsel did not wish to be personally bound by confidentiality ostensibly on account of an article that Defendants’ counsel intended to submit to California Lawyer magazine. Defendant’s counsel apparently believed that amicable settlement was not prudent, as these types of cases “need more exposure.”Below is an exhibit of an alleged email that shows that Higbee will settle for far less than the obnoxious $5,000 quoted in letters I often see. Higbee's lawyer, Naomi Sarega, purportedly wrote the email below which seems to indicated she wants to keep the defendant quiet regarding the settlement amount and not complain to anyone about the plaintiff/photographer, Aaron Reed.From: Naomi Sarega <
[email protected]>
To: dwtbrown <
[email protected]>
Cc: Evan McMurtrey <
[email protected]>; Ali Hassanzadeh <
[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, Aug 17, 2017 4:41 pm
Subject: Re: Proposed change to Release Rejected- 504000
Hi David,
My name is Naomi Sarega, I am an attorney with the Copyright Division at the Law Firm of
Higbee & Associates. It is our standard practice to include a confidentiality clause in our release
agreements to protect all parties involved. While Mr. Reed is more than happy for the public to
know that he is serious about enforcing his copyright, the only reason your client would be
opposed to a confidentiality agreement would be if he has plans to discuss the matter (potentially
including negative information about Mr. Reed). At this point, for a $1,000 settlement on a
registered image used on a website that lists multi-million dollar homes, the confidentiality clause
is non-negotiable. If you would like to provide me with a valid reason as to why your client is
concerned about the confidentiality clause, I’d be more than happy to discuss it with my client.
Please let me know if you would like to discuss this further.
Thank you,
Naomi
Naomi Sarega
Supervising Attorney
Copyright Division
Law Firm of Higbee & Associates (
http://www.higbeeassociates.com)
1504 Brookhollow Dr., Suite 112, Santa Ana, CA 92705
Phone: (800) 716-1245
This electronic mail message and any attachment is confidential and may also contain privileged attorney client
information or work product. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible to deliver it to
the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have
received the message in error, please immediately notify us by reply electronic mail or by telephone and delete this original message. Thank you very much.
===================
Defendant lawyer's purported email response. It is a very unusual response.On Aug 18, 2017, at 9:42 AM,
[email protected] wrote:
Hello Naomi,
I am confused. If your client has no concerns regarding publicity, what could be said "negatively"
about him for "enforcing his copyright?"
My client is only moderately interested in publicizing these types of cases and the business model
behind them. Me, much more so, as I believe this matter needs some attention. I am being and
have been completely transparent in all my actions on this and related matters as I know that
actions taken today in this type of matter often end up being scrutinized later, under harsher
lights.
I have settled a few of these cases, and I am familiar with the criteria used by Federal Court
Judges in deciding attorney fees. I also know how the perception of these cases is evolving in
the public mindset, legislatively, and judicially.
I am writing an article for submission to California Lawyer magazine, in collaboration with the my
summer intern (who is also Staff Editor at his law school's law review) , and we have nothing to
hide. I do not know if it will be accepted by any publication, but if you would like to have input, I
would be pleased to hear your thoughts. I have found that few cases need more exposure, but
some do. I believe that these cases are of that type.
You might also look up a couple of the consumer websites I have started. If you are curious I can
give you the website addresses. One was featured on The Today Show a few months ago. I am
proud to have been involved in defending a number of cases in Los Angeles County a few years
ago where some attorneys in Los Angeles County were using the American with Disabilities Act
to pursue small businesses and obtain a number of settlements against intimidated business
owners by over representing their exposure under the ADA, and using the threat of Attorney fees
to leverage an onerous settlement. Every few years a case or cases come up to which I react
strongly.
My client's website which you refer to used the image for a few months, on a scroll of many
photos where it would appear for a few seconds, on a website where the MOST people who ever
visited in one month was 115. Not a typo, 115 visitors was the most in any month. In fact,
because of the timing of the scroll, very few of the people likely even saw the image. It was the
eighth in a number of images which would appear briefly and then fade to another image. The
price of the homes listed, as you know, is not a factor used in determining the Statutory damages
under 17 USC 504. Further, listing expensive homes does not equal a huge income. My client
wishes that were so, as do most real estate brokers and agents.
If you want confidentiality, I am obliged, in my client's interests to offer a mutual release for no
monies. My client is being pursued by other attorneys in similar matters regarding the same
website, and I make this offer in his interests, putting my own and the public interest beneath
his. My client would also give up his rights under California Civil Code Section 17200, and any
other remedies. You are, of course, welcome to simply cash the check for $1000, the agreed
amount.
Thank You,
David Brown
======================
Higbee thinks they are doing a good thing here filing on behalf of client, Aaron Reed. But this lawsuit "outs" the name of a few Higbee lawyers and the exhibit emails support my assessment about Higbee's operations that the $5,000+ settlement amounts are absolute bullshit. It is routine and systematic lying by the Higbee operation in my view. Higbee is willing to settle for a $1,000 and call it a day.
The lawsuit appears to be trying to throw lawyer, David Brown, under the bus by hitting the defendant. It appears that a $1,000 check was sent but that was not good enough for Reed or Higbee. This is a situation where Higbee seems to be a real stickler to keep people quiet. They appear to get a $1,000 check but it seems Reed/Higbee is forcing the issue. I think there will be unintended consequences for both sides.
I suspect I know why Reed/Higbee wants confidentiality. So people won't know that settlement amounts can be very low. But it seems the defendants were willing to pay the $1,000. Are the Higbee team trying to make the Defendant's lawyer, Brown, "look bad" here because Brown wanted to tell a story publicly? That seems to be a swipe at him. Is Reed/Higbee filing the lawsuit in a pre-emptive effort anticipating negative publicity Brown might generate by telling his client's story?
I think there is more to the story that is not being told here.
Show Posts