The Copyright Of Cease-And-Desist Letters
from the ain't-much-there dept
It's quite popular for some bullying lawyers to put a notice on their cease-and-desist letters, declaring that they are confidential and covered by copyright, and that any attempt to publish it or share it with the world will be viewed as copyright infringement. In many ways, this is an incredibly weak attempt by lawyers to avoid the old "Streisand Effect," whereby their cease-and-desist letter becomes the news and draws a lot more attention to what they wanted ceased and desisted. But does that claim mean anything? Typically, not at all. There's typically nothing in a cease-and-desist that would qualify as new and unique enough expression to be covered by copyright (there could be exceptions), and posting a cease-and-desist publicly would most likely be seen as fair use in almost every situation imaginable.There was, of course, some buzz a year and a half back when a lawyer claimed to have won a copyright ruling over a cease-and-desist letter, but the details showed that was a gross exaggeration. The court had merely noted that the original had in fact been registered by the copyright office (a basic formality).
Still, this doesn't stop law firms from continuing to use this practice. Michael Scott points us to quite the story by the Citizen Media Law folks, concerning a massive cease-and-desist letter from the owners of one newspaper to another. The C&D was questionable enough in the first place. Basically, someone from the San Diego Reader asked for some info from Platinum Equity, a buyout firm that had purchased the competing San Diego Union-Tribune. It involved a sexual harassment lawsuit that Platinum had been involved in, which seems like a perfectly reasonable news story on which to request some information. Platinum did not see it that way and had its lawyers send an amazingly long C&D (the original was six single-spaced pages, which sure beats the typical one-pager found in most C&Ds).
The whole story seems bizarre, as the original request seemed perfectly normal for a news publication, and the company could have come back with a simple no comment. Sending a six page C&D practically screams out for attention -- and it's attention they're getting, despite the claim that publishing the letter would be see as copyright infringement. There's almost no chance that would actually get anywhere in court of course -- especially when it's newsworthy and the information was published by a news publication. Still, it does make you wonder why lawyers still think they can get away with such bullying tactics.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cease and desist, copyright
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Interestingly, I am less concerned about the attempt to place the letter under the umbrella of copyright law, and more concerned about the implications of a law firm trying to unilaterally impose an obligation of confidence on the recipient without the recipient's permission.
Pesonally, I would return it to the sender with a clear statement that the attempted imposition of an obligation of confidence is without merit, that the letter has not been read, and that the letter has been turned over to counsel for appropriate disposition.
As for copyright implications, fair use is an obvious defense, but I would not mention that in a rejoinder.
One final consideration...SLAPP threats are not readily embraced by the judicial system, and particularly in the context of news reporting. This too I would not mention until such time as a letter is sent that does not seek the unilateral imposition of a confidentiality obligation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Simple bluffing?
One possible reason I can think of is, they're betting their opponents won't find the issue worth the cost in time and dollars needed to fight their legal challenge and will just go away. I would guess it works often enough, though, to justify it as a viable option.
IANAL; I don't know if it's illegal or unethical or just annoying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Simple bluffing?
I'm confused. If you're unsure if it's illegal, unethical, or just annoying, then why do you anal?
More importantly, is see people saying "IANAL" all the time. Why should we care if you're taking it up the pooper?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Do the opposite
"By initiating correspondence with(Company name)implicit consent has been given to reproduce and distribute any and all information contained in said correspondence. This rule will not apply if a Nondisclosure Agreement was signed prior to the date correspondence was sent."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Also, by sending an unsolicited letter, they cannot create a contract of confidentiality unilaterally without providing some benefit to you which you then choose to accept. Merely accepting the letter does not obligate you.
As a side note, if you receive something of value by unsolicited mail, it is yours to keep without payment. They can't just send you something and then require you to pay or return it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Simple bluffing?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Simple bluffing?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Simple bluffing?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Simple bluffing?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shepard Fairey Irony
Here's the quote from the C&D letter (from the AP's filing):
The AP filing can be found here. The quote comes from paragraph 121 on page 35.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Shepard Fairey Irony
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Shepard Fairey Irony
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cease and Desist Letter
Inscription a cease and desist letter is one of the most common effects I get probed to do as an attorney. On the word of UK essay help, for most persons, they consider that by sending out a cease and desist letter to every single person or corporate that impends your corporate will mechanically solve all your difficulties.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cease and Desist Letter
In the counter-complaint AP filed in the Shepard Fairey lawsuit, there is this allegation that Fairey (through his attorney) did the exact same thing when he sent a C&D letter to a Texas artist who used one of Fairey's images (transformed).
[ link to this | view in thread ]