The idea of using attorneys less is still my goal but I think we can (and will) play a more active role in what they send out on our behalf based on these points. When HAN hires an attorney using current tracking systems, they are provided with a retail price based on the use and told to do the best they can. We don't have access to what is a more appropriate letter and what is extreme under the law.
I think that retaining control over what is being presented in your behalf is an extraordinarily good idea. Allow me to frame this up a little differently for you. Suppose I rent you a room for $100 a night. After you check out, I go into the room and discover that you have spilled red wine on the carpet. About a week after you arrive home, you get a letter from an attorney that you have never heard of demanding that you pay me $5000, or WE WILL SUE.
Wouldn't it be better if I sent you an e-mail saying "Hey Glen, I had to get a professional carpet cleaner in to get rid of the red wine stain for $200, and I couldn't rent the room for 2 nights because of it, please send me a check for $400." That's reasonable, that is defensible.
My issue with this whole mess is the unreasonableness of the demands. The burdens being placed on people far exceed the damages. And in this case, at least you knew you had spilled the wine, in my Getty case I was not only unaware, but also unaware of the actions of the design firm.
I don't think people should be using licensed images without compensating the artist. I also don't think licensing companies should use unreasonable extortion methods and commission based lawyers as the initial point of contact.
Don't start the discussion by pointing a gun at me.