New Getty Images Law Firm: Lee & Hayes Settlement Demand Letter

[Matthew Chan]

This is fairly major news. After a long string of nasty, outrageous, and bullying extortion letters from Attorney Timothy B. McCormack on behalf of Getty Images, I introduce to you the polar opposite: The civil and gentle Lee & Hayes Settlement Demand Letter written by Attorney Daniel M. Wadkins.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/93069242/Lee-Hayes-Settlement-Demand-Letter-by-Attorney-Daniel-M-Wadkins

I confess that I am amazed by this letter. It is simple, "reasonable", sanitized, and so different in tone, approach, and content than Timothy B. McCormack's extortion letter.

* There are no outrageous demand numbers, statutory damages or references to criminal penalties.

* There is no direct and exaggerated threat to file a lawsuit.

* There is no outrageous lying, exaggeration, or personal accusations.

* There is no artificially inflated amount being demanded to pay beyond the reference to the stated amount on the original Getty Images Extortion Letter.

* There is no outrageous blustering or peacocking.

* There is no use of the word "settlement".

* There is only one specific term usage of "copyright infringement".

Lee & Hayes is a large law firm with many attorneys. In this case, this settlement demand letter was written by young pup lawyer and babyface, Daniel M. Wadkins.

http://leehayes.com/pros/dan-wadkins.php

Daniel isn't going to embarrass himself, subject himself to state bar complaints, attorney general complaints, or otherwise damage his professional reputation and career by sending these letters.

I think it's safe to say that ELI had some strong influence in this "new and gentle" settlement letter. Quite frankly, I don't even think I can call Daniel's letter an "extortion letter". It doesn't feel or read like an extortion letter. It feels like a civil business letter.

However, time will tell whether the actual settlement amount is actually reasonable. I suspect it will not be but who knows?  The interesting thing is this letter lays the entire responsibility of the settlement amount on Getty Images and doesn't appear to come from the lawyer.

My opinion is that this is an experimental approach in response to the the brutal and public retaliation on Timothy B. McCormack and his letter.

Someone on the Getty front is watching, reading, and paying attention to make sure the collection lawyers are being "protected".

I have a suspicion this new letter on behalf of Getty Images will generate some interesting discussions and comments. I am interested in what others have to say with this new letter.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

I'm curious what the demand amount is and for what images. It's interesting and telling that Daniel M. Wadkins can't bring the sum up and only references Getty's prior letters.

[Matthew Chan]

I don't think it is a matter of "can't" vs. a "choice not to" anymore. I think it is actually pretty smart because up to this point, the collection lawyers dreamt up a number thinking the higher the number, the scarier it might be and allowed more room for downward negotiation of settlement amount.

But they never counted on the eventual vocal outrage and retaliation on the collection lawyers for the terms and inflated amounts like young Brandon Sand with his $9K extortion letter for 1 image.

This new letter is entirely about shielding the collection attorney of the numerous criticisms and accusations we have publicly leveled against them.

I'm curios what the demand amount is and for what images. It's interesting and telling that Daniel M. Wadkins can't bring the sum up and only references Getty's prior letters.

[Moe Hacken]

I totally agree with Matthew that there is a deliberate attempt to sugarcoat the poison letter. However, I also think mcfilms is right about the amount. If this very polite letter is attached to a $10,000 invoice for one image, it really amounts to a sarcastically diplomatic extortion letter with plausible deniability built-in for the image conscious attorney. They are most certainly refining the model as they go along.

[Peeved]

First let me say that although there is no threat of a "lawsuit", there is the threat of "formal legal action".

"Accordingly, in a good faith effort to resolve this matter without formal legal action, we ask that you please take the following actions, and provide written confirmation of such actions, within ten (10) business days from the date of this letter."

As for not seeing the images in question and the demand amount, the letter states that they are "attached" which is not shown here.

"Our client is the exclusive licensor of the copyrighted photograph(s) described in the attached documents"

"Submit payment in the amount described on the attached invoice"

Personally speaking, sugar coated crap is no better than the original. It stinks either way.

[Matthew Chan]

@Peeved and @Moe

Please do not confuse my "high" opinion of the sugar-coated letter that I approve of the underlying mission. I simply call it as I see it as a dramatic and unexpected contrast to the McCormack sledgehammer approach.

Lee-Hayes are using a more refined and polished approach because if they didn't, the lawyer signing the letters for Lee-Hayes would suffer the same bruising from the public as McCormack has.

I want everyone to notice and pay attention that there appears to be movement by both HAN and Getty Images to move to using a larger law firm vs. the smaller practitioner. There is a reason for this. It lessens the public and legal exposure of the lawyer signing the letter and it lessens the possible reputation-damaging effects of ELI calling them out.

One thing everyone has to remember, Getty Images Corporate Counsel team are full of lawyers that run the Copyright Compliance team.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/getty-images-corporate-counsel-staff-found-on-linkedin/

With the exception of Lisa Willmer, most of the them have stayed very low key and don't say much publicly. As high-paying corporate drones, they are even more restricted and regulated than their independent, self-employed counterparts. They have to watch their steps very carefully or they risk losing their high-paying jobs not to mention hurting their own professional reputations.

Even Lisa Willmer has been very guarded in her public words and careful to not say anything outrageous unlike her Chief Executive Hypocrite, Jonathan Klein.

The Corporate Counsel team know they potentially have a figurative target on their backs being part of the extremely-hated and extremely-despised Getty extortion Copyright Compliance team.

Because the Corporate Counsel has a dependency of using outside counsel to do their dirty-work, it does not behoove them to have their outside lawyers get taken out of the game the same way so many of the HAN collection lawyers have been.

This dramatic shift in demand letter by Lee-Hayes is no coincidence. Ever since the ongoing ELI write-ups and public onslaught on collection lawyers, word has quickly traveled back to Getty that angry people are fighting back using many of the unconventional (but devastating) retaliation ideas I have popularized. (I obviously didn't invent those complaint methods but I did my part to bring them to light.)

Let me reassure everyone that no matter what the stock photo agencies do, they are mostly on the losing end of the fight because they create new haters by the thousands.  That is a lot of negative karma going against them.  Let us not even discuss how copyright troll lawsuits against private individuals and small business are suffering devastating losses setting even more legal precedents against large media.  Make no mistake, Getty Images is large media and their friends in sister media industries are taking some serious body blows in the legal boxing ring.

They may wonder how a small website like ELI create so many challenges and problems for them. The answer is, they are clueless and they intentionally make more enemies every day thanks to the leadership of Jonathan Klein. You can hear the disgust in his voice when he hisses about people using images without payment yet on the other side he wants people to get baited into that visual medium.

It is really the craziest thing I have ever seen a business model.  Sure you might get a few bucks short-term but the ever-lasting hatred by tens and perhaps hundred thousand people is a lifetime.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I may have some nuggets to add, I'd like to see the attached "documents & invoice"..I also noticed the date and he has been flying under the radar for some time..

I can understand the shift, they must be tiring of us throwing them under the bus, so I think we need to change accordingly as well.. I will no longer throw these extortion letter collection attorney's ( TROLLS) under the bus...from here on forward they will be tossed onto the train tracks, it will be up to them to escape the approaching train while not touching the dreaded third rail... sanitized letter or not a troll is troll no matter how you slice it..


::EDIT::I'll just add this for now, but there will be more.. admitted in 2009

http://www.mywsba.org/default.aspx?tabid=178&RedirectTabId=177&Usr_ID=41943

[stinger]

I agree with Mathew and Buddhapi - a troll is a troll, no matter what color it's lipstick.

In terms of changing our tactics to meet their changing tactics, I am wondering  if ELI has ever tried to organize a Public Relations campaign to make the world aware of these tactics before people are caught.

I am thinking things like making available:

• lists of publications where people can tell their story - of how they were baited into a mistake
• sample letters, editorial pieces, etc. to help people tell their story
• ways to lobby politicians to change DMCA to put an end to Trolls behavior
• a blue print for what each Troll victim can do to make the world aware and help change it.

The publications or the process may be slightly different in Canada or Europe than it is in the U.S., but PR is PR everywhere.  The first step in solving our problem is making the world aware that it is going on and ANGRY about it.

Are the Trolls so large that they will quash publication of our stories at the national, state, and local level?  Or, might we gain a foothold somewhere and turn this into a Right/Wrong issue that people can get behind?

[SoylentGreen]

I think that a professionally-written demand letter can be very intimidating to many.
It exudes confidence in their position, as it gives the impression that they don't "need" to make over the top threats.
Additionally, to some, very threatening letters look like "scams" and certain people may be less likely to respond.

Interesting tactic.  It could simply be the "style" of this particular firm, though.

S.G.

[Mulligan]

I wonder how many have received this softer letter from softer copyright troll Attorney Daniel M. Wadkins of the Lee & Hayes law firm?

It's dated 2 August 2011, but I've received letters this year from the copyright troll Timothy B. McCormack law firm, so McCormack's relationship with Getty isn't history by any means.

Perhaps Getty tried the softer approach and found it didn't work and then stopped using young Daniel Wadkins? That wouldn't surprise me since the trolls I've dealt with seem to enjoy swaggering around with their lies, misrepresentations, and absurd demands.

I'll be curious to see if anyone says they've had a letter from Lee & Hayes this year.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I'd like to take this opportunity ( 45seconds worth) to thank Matthew for such a well written post...so many goodies all wrapped into one package!

[Matthew Chan]

It's possible my assumptions were wrong given the letter date but even before the "official" McCormack write-up, we were going after the HAN lawyers.

The letter is simply too sanitized to be a coincidence. It feels like a modified response to outside feedback they may have gotten.

I wonder how many have received this softer letter from softer copyright troll Attorney Daniel M. Wadkins of the Lee & Hayes law firm?

It's dated 2 August 2011, but I've received letters this year from the copyright troll Timothy B. McCormack law firm, so McCormack's relationship with Getty isn't history by any means.

Perhaps Getty tried the softer approach and found it didn't work and then stopped using young Daniel Wadkins? That wouldn't surprise me since the trolls I've dealt with seem to enjoy swaggering around with their lies, misrepresentations, and absurd demands.

I'll be curious to see if anyone says they've had a letter from Lee & Hayes this year.

[Peeved]

I wonder how many have received this softer letter from softer copyright troll Attorney Daniel M. Wadkins of the Lee & Hayes law firm?

It's dated 2 August 2011, but I've received letters this year from the copyright troll Timothy B. McCormack law firm, so McCormack's relationship with Getty isn't history by any means.

@Mulligan....Just curious....How did your McCormack letter compare to the letter posted here on scribd?
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/attorney-timothy-b-mccormack-settlement-demand-letter-posted!/

After Matt shredded McCormack's Letter, did you receive a much tamer version? Did your demand amount increase?

[Mulligan]

Peeved, my first letter was two pages, basically repeating the same BS from Getty's letters. The second letter was four pages but toned down compared to the long one in the Scribd file. Letter No. 2 basically told me how stupid and ignorant I was regarding copyright law. The demand increased about three times in the first letter and stayed the same in the second letter. I can hardly wait for them to increase the demand in future letters since they keep telling me this issue "isn't going to go away."

They're right. It's not going to go away because I'm writing a detailed expose of the whole experience and when that work is finished and published the stink will make the fish gut tanks outside Seattle smell like Grandma's sweetest hanky.

I agree 100% with Matt that in dealing with copyright trolls the best defense is a strong offense.

[Peeved]

@Peeved and @Moe

Please do not confuse my "high" opinion of the sugar-coated letter that I approve of the underlying mission. I simply call it as I see it as a dramatic and unexpected contrast to the McCormack sledgehammer approach.

Lee-Hayes are using a more refined and polished approach because if they didn't, the lawyer signing the letters for Lee-Hayes would suffer the same bruising from the public as McCormack has.

Not to worry Matt, I am not confused. I do get what you are saying. I understand the psychology behind this "softer approach" with regard to letter recipients as well as the need to protect "reputations".  My personal opinion however is that the "sugar-coated crap" should suffer the same amount of bruising from the public regardless of its "coating".

@Mulligan....thanks for the response and for the continued FIGHT! Oh and look forward to the expose.