Andy Fletcher » X31

A company I don’t recommend you deal with (Update 1)

Andy — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 19:26:36 +0000

True to form I got another email from Suzanne Martin in which she reasserted her previous claims.

From: suzanne@suzannemartin.biz
Date: 16/07/09 11:05
To: andy@x31.com

Dear Andy

I am really sorry to put you in this position. But as the copyright holder I expressly request that you take down the site. XXXXX admit via their lawyer that they are using our material. I have never agreed that they can use it in this way and unless they provide you with a licence that states they are allowed to use our material as they have done signed by my company then I respectfully ask you pull down the site until this matter is resolved. We have not been paid since October 2008 and this also puts me in an impossible position. By keeping this site live you are committing a criminal offence by publishing this material without my permission and you are also stopping from publishing this material elsewhere.

—snip—

The thing which amused me was she had attached an email from the solicitors of xxxxx Limited. This wasn’t a good idea considering she was trying to bully me into taking down the site.

“Dear Ms Martin

This firm has today received instructions from xxxxxxx Limited to deal with your allegations concerning breach of copyright by xxxxx Limited on its website.

The only materials appearing on the xxxxxx website that were authored by employees of Suzanne Martin and Associates were authored and supplied by on the express understanding that they would be amended, copied and disseminated by our client.

Consequently, our client has enjoyed and continues to enjoy a licence to copy the materials. This licence will provide a complete defence to any claim of copyright infringement.

On that basis, our client intends to retain the materials complained of on its website.

Yours sincerely

xxxxx xxxx
xxxxxx xxxxxxx
DDI: 01223 xxxxxx
Fax: 01223 xxxxxx
E-mail: xxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxx.com

So by this point I was getting fed up with her and composed the following reply…

From: andy@x31.com
Date: 16/07/09 12:07
To: suzanne@suzannemartin.biz

I only have your word for all this, a person I’ve never met.

I also have an opposite statement from xxxxx.

I suggest you expedite your case with xxxxxx and once there is a court
ruling then the appropriate actions can be speedily taken.

To do otherwise is to prefer one side over the other and to prejudge the
final outcome – I am not in a position to evaluate the competing claims.
That is a job for others and I assume it is the substance of your
discussions with xxxxx.

The damage to xxxxxx resulting from a shutdown appears to be
disproportionate to the ongoing damage to you by keeping the server up.
My doing nothing in this case is appropriate as it minimises the overall
harm to both companies involved and it isn’t my fight anyway.

BTW I am not doing anything illegal and I do not expect you to repeat
your statement. I just run the UNIX servers in various countries outside
the UK.

I suggest you deal with the content managers for the websites in
question (If you need the contact details for xxxxxxx I suggest you look
at one of the websites). xxxxxxxx have assured me that they have full
rights to use the material – I cannot judge your competing claims.

I remind you that I am not resident in the UK and you should send
anything you want to me at Villa xx, xxxxxxxxx Compound, xxxxx xxxxxl,
Doha Qatar. Note that simply receiving correspondence from you does not
of itself incur any obligations upon me. Note also there is no postal
delivery service out here. Feel free to apply to the local Sharia court
in Doha if you wish. The address you cited for me in your previous email
is incorrect and I will not receive any mail even assuming that you can
find someone to sign for it.

Any problems you have with xxxxxxx is between the two of you, I have
little interest in your financial arrangements with them. I’m also
doubtful of your statement regarding your wish to republish elsewhere as
I expect the material contains xxxxxxxx proprietary information. However
I’m sure you kept a copy of the stuff you delivered to them so I cannot
see how you are prevented from republishing.

Please don’t continue to waste my time in this matter. Sort out your
problems with xxxxxxxx in a professional manner, once this is done things
can be resolved out.

All email to the X31.com domain is subject to the EMAIL policy as
defined in http://www.x31.com/email-disclaimer.html This webpage has
been on a prominent position on the website since 2000 and sending mail
to the domain constitutes acceptance of these conditions.

Andy

Its now 10 hours later and I’ve not had any more emails. Maybe she has finally given up on harassing me.

A company I don’t recommend you deal with

Andy — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 23:20:44 +0000

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
behalf of XXXXXXX Limited including

XXXXX.com
XXXXX.com
XXXXXX.com
XXXXXX.co.uk/

These websites carry material which belongs to my company and I am asking
that your remove this material as this is a breach of my copyright. I have
not given this company permission to use this material they have admitted it
is my material but they refuse to remove it. I ask that you do so on our
behalf.

Many thanks in advance

Suzanne Martin
Suzanne Martin and Associates
Office +44 (0) 207 524 7600
Mobile+44 (0) 7950 051911
Studio 001
Westbourne Studios,
242 Acklam Road,
London W10 5JJ

This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee and may contain
information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please delete all copies of the message and its
attachments and notify us immediately. Thank you.

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
notice seeking an injunction on that address.

co XXXXXXXXXXX
zipcode: XXXXXXXX
city: Skipton
country: United Kingdom

On the basis that we have been non-specific regarding the exact copy ad you
have instantly denied and refused this we will have no alternative other
than to take legal action. We have the backing of trading standards on this
issue and we will proceed without further contact unless you seek further
clarification and assist us with this matter.

You are technically the publisher and we are be legally entitled to invoice
you for this work or alternatively sue you for copyright theft. This is a
criminal offence.

In the UK as the internet service provider – the hosting company – Section
27 of “Statutory Instrument 2003 No. 2498 – The Copyright and Related Rights
Regulations 2003″ allows me to seek an injunction against you to remove my
work. Section 26 of the same Instrument specifies that you are committing a
criminal offence

Please remove remove all illegal copy immediately to avoid legal action.
….snip…

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