First, let's be honest, you set yourself up for this by referring to Shankman and HARO. That was a mistake.
This is typical in a marketplace where people run out of innovative ideas (or never had them in the first place.) I've been around the "sender" side of this type of thing before. Honest truth, you might get outgunned by legal tactics and that sucks.
You have a more innovative, more focused product. If you're bankrolled then fight it. If not, tread lightly. Once you used his name you set this up. Either way, they will keep sending ridiculous letters.
My advice:
-Call an attorney, get some advice.
-Setup a backup host and confirm your DNS is separate from your hosting account. (Next up is a C&D to your host)
-Send an urgent appeal to everyone on your list, even journalists. You might lose a few followers in the process but if people value your service they will fight for you (particularly nice because your service helps journalists.)
Let's be honest, this is one of the most meritless C&D's ever.
Unless Shankman's lawyers are totally incompetent, there's no way they would ever seriously pursue this, since it's obvious to anyone they have no case.
Personally, I would just drop all references to Shankman and HARO from the website and politely send back an email letting them know you did so, and politely point out that there's no legal basis for any of their other absurd requests.
I agree with this approach. You don't need a lawyer for most things of this nature. They're expensive and finding a good one can be a real crapshoot.
I don't think there's anything wrong with researching the legal side of things a little bit, then firing off a letter that politely but firmly disagrees with their position.
If they're really serious about coming after you, you'll find out soon enough, and you can get a lawyer then.
If you want to build business out of this, send back said response, but respond to the ridiculous points in a snarky way and post the response. Whatever you pay in legal fees, you can justify as PR expense.
Perhaps I'm cynical, but I think that whether the lawyers pursue this has less to do with competency and more to do with their client's willingness to pay for their time. The client may take it personally and be willing to pay good money to tilt at windmills.
Most of the time, a claim must be really egregious for a judge to actually penalize the lawyer for bringing it. Legal ethics rules vary from state to state, but they generally say, in effect, that a lawyer owes every client a duty of zealous advocacy.
First, let's be honest, you set yourself up for this by referring to Shankman and HARO. That was a mistake.
Yeah, I know that now. I can't believe how shitty this move is on his part. When I built PRManna, HARO was literally just an AWeber mailing list. I was inspired by the idea of connecting journalists with sources (which is hardly Shankman's original idea) and thought I could do a better job, but I wanted to give him a shout-out and some credit. No good deed goes unpunished.
I don't know anything about the websites here, but I wouldn't necessarily assume that you have "stepped in it" by using his name.
Yes, using his name in any way that implies he endorsed your site or is somehow affiliated with it will get you in trouble because such use essentially would seek to capitalize on someone's reputation for your own commercial exploitation (with actors, etc., this is called a "right of publicity" and you get into big trouble if you run afoul of that particular doctrine).
That said, if your use of his name did not state or imply that he approved or endorsed your site, or imply affiliation between him and the site, you may not have quite the problem you assume you have from use of the name. Check with a good lawyer to discuss in detail.
Though the details you give are sketchy, what I read between the lines is this: this guy has a nice little cash stream going from this; you might threaten it with a superior offering; he can't possibly beat you competitively; ergo, he will try to position things to try force you to let him grab your superior site for his own benefit or else face the alternative of having to pay many thousands in legal fees to defend against his claims. That is what I mainly infer from the claim that you supposedly violated his rights by allegedly misappropriating his "idea" (this sounds frivolous on its face, as most ideas that are out in public are not protectable unless they are connected with an enforceable patent). Why do I infer this? Because, if he succeeds in causing you to cave, the normal remedy for resolving the theft of an idea is for you to assign over to him the fruit of your work embodying that idea (that is, your site).
I know this sounds awful and it may not be true (again, I don't know any details). But all the surface indicators would seem to point that way. If this is the true picture, then your strategy will likely be to figure out a way to persevere in spite of the legal harassment until you gain commercial viability as an enterprise. You need to explore such issues in detail with your lawyer. The good news is that there probably is a workable path for you on this if the claims lack merit - it is one thing to be hit with a legal claim that exposes you to true substantial liabilities but quite another to have to fend off one that is lacking in merit (usually much, much easier to deal with the latter because the big threat lies solely in its nuisance value).
I posted a comment at the OP's site: If you talk to a lawyer, ask him/her whether you might be able to assert "nominative fair use" in response (see generally the Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use).
"... I was originally inspired by Peter Shankman’s HelpAReporterOut (HARO) service, and I mentioned that on the about page ..."
When honesty gets you into trouble.
I look at this and think for a journalist, reporter or PR hack this could be a defining point in how your company can make it. So tread carefully. Having said that, what you have done is validate the idea by identifying a competitor who wants what you have have - but paying as little as possible, using the lawyers as bullies. This is where YC as opposed to NYC might be able to give advice. Would it be any good to shoot pg a very short email with attached url?
I don't understand why it's a 'shitty move on his part'. You started a fight and called the guy out by name. Why wouldn't you expect him to react?
How would you feel if instead of offering to partner, I borrowed the concept of your business (after you had spent a few years proving the model) and started a competitor while only crediting you for the inspiration?
The point is that HARO was hardly an original idea (connecting sources with reporters). This is like saying that Burger King inspired my idea for a restaurant, then Burger King sues me for stealing their idea of 'a restaurant that mainly serves burgers.'
And WTF is the part about, "oh, by the way we demand that you hand your site over to us?" A C&D letter is to get him to CEASE and DESIST, you can't use it to perform a hostile takeover of a competitor.
A letter full of hot air, even when written by a lawyer, is just a letter full of hot air. There was no legal action taken.
C&D letters have no teeth. Court actions have teeth, and that hasn't happened.
Nothing to see here, really. Except laughable claims and example of poor business strategy.
What was funny to me is that Ryan set a trap and the guy (Shankman) bit the bait. It was Jason Calacanis style PR strategy at its best and clever if intentional. Why Ryan called getting a C&D a 'shitty move' is the non-congruent part. Ryan asked for it and Shankman delivered a delightfully poor response in spades. Total PR coup for Ryan.
Side note: If you run a half decent business you'll have your fair share of C&D letters and meritless lawsuits. Not worth wasting any emotion over. Just factor the legal cost into your cash projections and out-execute the heck out of everyone.
If HARO wasn't an original idea, why did he credit them with giving him the idea? Getting lawyers involved is a dick move, but he really set himself up for it to happen.
It doesn't matter where he got the idea. Ideas aren't protected unless they're patented. If it's not patented, or if it's not even patentable, then it's fair game.
I mentioned him for just the general idea of connecting reporters and sources. That's all. Before HARO, I had never thought about the problem at all. But HARO is hardly a new idea at all, it's just that's where I first encountered it.
This is a really bad thing to post publicly by the way. If I was HARO's lawyer, I'd frame your comment for later use. Seriously. Actually I will use your comment in my next slides as an example of what not to do.
That being said, I'm working on blog post about your situation. You'll see...
What portion of the law limits the use of 'ideas?' HARO can't copyright the 'idea' of connecting sources with reporters, nor can they trademark it. The only thing they might have is an overly broad patent, but seeing as that wasn't in the C&D letter then I have to assume not.
It's understandable that Shankman would get annoyed, but that doesn't justify sending a ridiculous C&D letter. Do you call your lawyers every time your feelings get hurt?
Comments
First, let's be honest, you set yourself up for this by referring to Shankman and HARO. That was a mistake.
This is typical in a marketplace where people run out of innovative ideas (or never had them in the first place.) I've been around the "sender" side of this type of thing before. Honest truth, you might get outgunned by legal tactics and that sucks.
You have a more innovative, more focused product. If you're bankrolled then fight it. If not, tread lightly. Once you used his name you set this up. Either way, they will keep sending ridiculous letters.
My advice: -Call an attorney, get some advice. -Setup a backup host and confirm your DNS is separate from your hosting account. (Next up is a C&D to your host) -Send an urgent appeal to everyone on your list, even journalists. You might lose a few followers in the process but if people value your service they will fight for you (particularly nice because your service helps journalists.)
Let's be honest, this is one of the most meritless C&D's ever.
Unless Shankman's lawyers are totally incompetent, there's no way they would ever seriously pursue this, since it's obvious to anyone they have no case.
Personally, I would just drop all references to Shankman and HARO from the website and politely send back an email letting them know you did so, and politely point out that there's no legal basis for any of their other absurd requests.
I agree with this approach. You don't need a lawyer for most things of this nature. They're expensive and finding a good one can be a real crapshoot.
I don't think there's anything wrong with researching the legal side of things a little bit, then firing off a letter that politely but firmly disagrees with their position.
If they're really serious about coming after you, you'll find out soon enough, and you can get a lawyer then.
If you want to build business out of this, send back said response, but respond to the ridiculous points in a snarky way and post the response. Whatever you pay in legal fees, you can justify as PR expense.
Perhaps I'm cynical, but I think that whether the lawyers pursue this has less to do with competency and more to do with their client's willingness to pay for their time. The client may take it personally and be willing to pay good money to tilt at windmills.
I thought lawyers faced fairly serious penalties for knowingly pursuing obviously meritless cases.
Most of the time, a claim must be really egregious for a judge to actually penalize the lawyer for bringing it. Legal ethics rules vary from state to state, but they generally say, in effect, that a lawyer owes every client a duty of zealous advocacy.
First, let's be honest, you set yourself up for this by referring to Shankman and HARO. That was a mistake.
Yeah, I know that now. I can't believe how shitty this move is on his part. When I built PRManna, HARO was literally just an AWeber mailing list. I was inspired by the idea of connecting journalists with sources (which is hardly Shankman's original idea) and thought I could do a better job, but I wanted to give him a shout-out and some credit. No good deed goes unpunished.
I don't know anything about the websites here, but I wouldn't necessarily assume that you have "stepped in it" by using his name.
Yes, using his name in any way that implies he endorsed your site or is somehow affiliated with it will get you in trouble because such use essentially would seek to capitalize on someone's reputation for your own commercial exploitation (with actors, etc., this is called a "right of publicity" and you get into big trouble if you run afoul of that particular doctrine).
That said, if your use of his name did not state or imply that he approved or endorsed your site, or imply affiliation between him and the site, you may not have quite the problem you assume you have from use of the name. Check with a good lawyer to discuss in detail.
Though the details you give are sketchy, what I read between the lines is this: this guy has a nice little cash stream going from this; you might threaten it with a superior offering; he can't possibly beat you competitively; ergo, he will try to position things to try force you to let him grab your superior site for his own benefit or else face the alternative of having to pay many thousands in legal fees to defend against his claims. That is what I mainly infer from the claim that you supposedly violated his rights by allegedly misappropriating his "idea" (this sounds frivolous on its face, as most ideas that are out in public are not protectable unless they are connected with an enforceable patent). Why do I infer this? Because, if he succeeds in causing you to cave, the normal remedy for resolving the theft of an idea is for you to assign over to him the fruit of your work embodying that idea (that is, your site).
I know this sounds awful and it may not be true (again, I don't know any details). But all the surface indicators would seem to point that way. If this is the true picture, then your strategy will likely be to figure out a way to persevere in spite of the legal harassment until you gain commercial viability as an enterprise. You need to explore such issues in detail with your lawyer. The good news is that there probably is a workable path for you on this if the claims lack merit - it is one thing to be hit with a legal claim that exposes you to true substantial liabilities but quite another to have to fend off one that is lacking in merit (usually much, much easier to deal with the latter because the big threat lies solely in its nuisance value).
I posted a comment at the OP's site: If you talk to a lawyer, ask him/her whether you might be able to assert "nominative fair use" in response (see generally the Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use).
"... I was originally inspired by Peter Shankman’s HelpAReporterOut (HARO) service, and I mentioned that on the about page ..."
When honesty gets you into trouble.
I look at this and think for a journalist, reporter or PR hack this could be a defining point in how your company can make it. So tread carefully. Having said that, what you have done is validate the idea by identifying a competitor who wants what you have have - but paying as little as possible, using the lawyers as bullies. This is where YC as opposed to NYC might be able to give advice. Would it be any good to shoot pg a very short email with attached url?
Get legal advice.
I don't understand why it's a 'shitty move on his part'. You started a fight and called the guy out by name. Why wouldn't you expect him to react?
How would you feel if instead of offering to partner, I borrowed the concept of your business (after you had spent a few years proving the model) and started a competitor while only crediting you for the inspiration?
I bet you'd be wee bit annoyed, no?
The point is that HARO was hardly an original idea (connecting sources with reporters). This is like saying that Burger King inspired my idea for a restaurant, then Burger King sues me for stealing their idea of 'a restaurant that mainly serves burgers.'
And WTF is the part about, "oh, by the way we demand that you hand your site over to us?" A C&D letter is to get him to CEASE and DESIST, you can't use it to perform a hostile takeover of a competitor.
A letter full of hot air, even when written by a lawyer, is just a letter full of hot air. There was no legal action taken.
C&D letters have no teeth. Court actions have teeth, and that hasn't happened.
Nothing to see here, really. Except laughable claims and example of poor business strategy.
What was funny to me is that Ryan set a trap and the guy (Shankman) bit the bait. It was Jason Calacanis style PR strategy at its best and clever if intentional. Why Ryan called getting a C&D a 'shitty move' is the non-congruent part. Ryan asked for it and Shankman delivered a delightfully poor response in spades. Total PR coup for Ryan.
Side note: If you run a half decent business you'll have your fair share of C&D letters and meritless lawsuits. Not worth wasting any emotion over. Just factor the legal cost into your cash projections and out-execute the heck out of everyone.
If HARO wasn't an original idea, why did he credit them with giving him the idea? Getting lawyers involved is a dick move, but he really set himself up for it to happen.
If Michael Jordan inspired me to play basketball, does that mean that Michael Jordan invented basketball?
It doesn't matter where he got the idea. Ideas aren't protected unless they're patented. If it's not patented, or if it's not even patentable, then it's fair game.
I mentioned him for just the general idea of connecting reporters and sources. That's all. Before HARO, I had never thought about the problem at all. But HARO is hardly a new idea at all, it's just that's where I first encountered it.
This is a really bad thing to post publicly by the way. If I was HARO's lawyer, I'd frame your comment for later use. Seriously. Actually I will use your comment in my next slides as an example of what not to do.
That being said, I'm working on blog post about your situation. You'll see...
What portion of the law limits the use of 'ideas?' HARO can't copyright the 'idea' of connecting sources with reporters, nor can they trademark it. The only thing they might have is an overly broad patent, but seeing as that wasn't in the C&D letter then I have to assume not.
On what legal grounds does HARO even have a case?
It's understandable that Shankman would get annoyed, but that doesn't justify sending a ridiculous C&D letter. Do you call your lawyers every time your feelings get hurt?