This evening I received an unwelcome email from a Suzanne Martin. She runs a company called “Suzanne Martin and Associates” based out of London. The organisation offers PR services for businesses.
I show the letter below. I’m reproducing it in accordance with the X31 policy on Email which has been on the website since 2000. I’ve not agreed to any confidentiality in regard to correspondence with her so anything goes.
|
From: suzanne@suzannemartin.biz Date: 15/07/09 18:29 To: andy@x31.com We understand that you are responsible for hosting a number of Websites on XXXXX.com These websites carry material which belongs to my company and I am asking Many thanks in advance Suzanne Martin This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee and may contain |
My understanding is as follows:
Company X arranged for Suzanne Martin to develop promotional materials for their website, this was done and paid for. When company X decided that there wasn’t any need for further work they advised Suzanne Martin accordingly. At that point Suzanne Martin objected and a dispute arose about the duration of ongoing work. As far as I know this is proceeding towards a court hearing. Now Suzanne Martin has decided that work previously done and paid for is no longer to be used by X and she is trying to drag me into the fray by sending me a takedown notice without specifying what is to be taken down!
Of course company X is of a different opinion to Suzanne Martin and maintain that they have the right to the materials etc. This leaves me in the impossible position of being told to take down unspecified materials by one party and to keep them up by the other. As I am unable to determine the validity of either argument as I don’t have access to the contracts etc I have to make a decision based on “Least Harm”.
If I take down the website company X will lose a lot of revenue and it will damage their image. If I leave it up then Suzanne Martin may have her materials used for a bit longer but I cannot see what the lasting damage to her would be. I’m sure whatever settlement they eventually arrive at (probably through a court hearing) will take account of the duration of the materials on the site.
I have therefore taken the decision to leave the website up as requested by company X.
It all seems bizarre to me that I as a uninvolved party is being dragged into this mess and I feel that Suzanne Martin is trying to frighten me into doing what she wants even though I am not in a position to determine the rights and wrongs of the case.
It seems even stranger to me that she could produce publicity materials for a company and then attempt to prevent them using the materials they have already paid for. Thank God I am an engineer and not in the publicity industry. I guess this all serves as a warning to anyone commissioning documents – make sure the contract is clearly worded (I don’t know if it is or not in this case).
When I conveyed my response to Suzanne Martin I just received another threatening email below:
|
From: suzanne@suzannemartin.biz Date: 15/07/09 21:22 To: andy@x31.com Dear Andy Your address is registered in the uk and we will serve the appropriate co XXXXXXXXXXX On the basis that we have been non-specific regarding the exact copy ad you You are technically the publisher and we are be legally entitled to invoice In the UK as the internet service provider – the hosting company – Section Please remove remove all illegal copy immediately to avoid legal action. |
The address she refers to is my X31 NIC Handle and used for domain issues. I don’t live in the UK and haven’t done so for quite a while. She is welcome to send anything she likes there but it probably wont get to me for many months if at all.
Again she didn’t identify the “Offending Materials”
I’ll post an update on this as things happen.
First update: Update 1
/me Just my 2 cents….
I believe that XXXXX.com already paid Suzanne Martin for the work she done… As a web developer once your work is done for the client all finished materials will go to the client unless you state or define (both parties) that all source code / art works will have a copyright in a written contract and attested by the government.
‘committing a criminal offence’ <— it’s ‘offense’ on ‘offence’ did X31 killed somebody?
Haha,
If she keeps suing previous clients she won’t have any clients left. Its always better to leave customers on good terms when they want to stop taking your services. That way you have a good chance of getting more work in the future from them.
Not a wise course for her
I think you will find several people leaving messages about this
company, that’s if they are still registered with companies house!
What goes around comes around is the perfect analogy for this person and good will prevail!
Pingback: Andy Fletcher | A company I don’t recommend you deal with (Update 1)
Suzanne Martin & Associates is still trading, but is in litigation with many ex-clients and suppliers, including me. Her view of the law is distorted, and this type of threat is typical of her methods to extort money with threats of court action. She only wins when people are frightened enough to settle. She has lost all cases which have got to a court hearing. Be prepared for the expense of court action if you deal with her, but don’t expect to get your money back. She has county court judgements against her, and even sues barristers etc.
Meat Pie says:
23/07/2009 at 15:25
Suzanne Martin is the Sweeney Todd of PR.
She lures clients into her lair and after promising the world and making lots of reassuring noises, she goes for the jugular. I have no doubt that if she could make them into meat pies she would! Instead, she systematically fails to deliver, produces made up invoices and contracts and subsequently bullies and manipulates her “clients” with threats of legal action coupled with outrageous counter claims should anyone dare to challenge her.
Many have settled out of court due to the simple fact that they incur such high legal fees (let alone the time spent in trying to defend outrageous lies, threats and allegations) that they just want rid of her. Her recent trend is to use an “incident” in India as a defense mechanism to gain time and sympathy from the courts.
She must be stopped.
Meat Pie “victim”