-------- Original Message -------Subject: Re: URGENT - defamatory content on your website Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 16:54:57

-0500 From: * Matthew Chan * To: julie@blacklinelaw.ca CC: Oscar Michelen Hello Julie, I am surprised that our small posts have caught your attention and that you have taken the time to send us an email on a Sunday morning. Here in the U.S., it is a 3-day holiday weekend. You appear to be very diligent working for yourself or your client, Hawaiian Art, during the weekend. In any case, I will respond to your concerns of your email. As you know by now, ExtortionLetterInfo.com was created to report and serve as a communication outlet and educational resource for those people who wish to discuss and share their experiences and be informed about Stock Photo Industry Settlement Demand Letters. We colloquially call those letters, "extortion letters". While you may disagree with it, you will find we equally apply this term to everyone issuing settlement demand letters. You and Hawaiian Art are not being singled out. In fact, thus far, we consider you and your client relatively minor players thus far as Getty Images is, by far, the "biggest elephant" in the business. The reason settlement demand letters are colloquially called "extortion letters" is because it because it illustrates an ongoing campaign by the stock photo industry to take advantage of end-user ignorance of copyright law and legal process to "compel", "motivate", "incentivize" letter recipients into making payments. As much as we find these letters distasteful, we do recognize it as being legal. We regard the whole letter campaign as "legalized extortion" because it is very much an uneven playing field. Just as your client (Hawaiian Art) has a legal right (through your assistance) to pursue alleged infringers with settlement demand letters, those alleged infringers have a right to be assisted and openly communicate with any entities that would assist them. Settlement Demand Letter recipients are free to share their information with us either privately or in an open forum. We, in turn, can accurately share

information with or without permission. As a general rule, we work with our community members and have their full support and consent to share information we do have. As much as you and Hawaiian Art may prefer to communicate quietly behind the scenes, we have a right to report the information as long as it is accurate. As you requested, I have gone back to re-evaluate specific posts regarding you and Hawaiian Art: 1. Regarding Scribd, there is/was no reference to the copy of your letter as "extortion letter". It is being called the "Blackline Settlement Demand Letter" in which Hawaiian Art is being referred to within the letter. It is a legal document which feel is totally appropriate to the sharing forum Scribd provides. You, of course, have a right to contest this with Scribd. 2. The Twitter post in question cannot be edited. As such, I deleted it altogether because you objected to the phrase "extortion letter" as it relates to your name. While we feel it is EVERYONE's right to openly use that term, we will in the future endeavor to refer to such letters as "settlement demand letters" simply out of professional courtesy. However, you should know through the DMCA, we cannot be held responsible for language used by our community members who may still refer to Settlement Demand Letters as "Extortion Letters". 3. The Facebook post in question could not be edited and was deleted for the same reasons as Point #2. 4. Last, but not least, the original forum post announcing your letter has been amended to "Settlement Demand Letter" replacing the previous term "extortion letter". Again, this was done as a professional courtesy but the thread of discussion will remain. Regarding your accusations of slander, defamation, libel, and copyright infringement, I question whether you truly are a knowledgeable lawyer in the areas you are accusing or if this is just a heavy-handed tactic in attempt to test our legal sensibilities. Quite frankly, I believe the latter is the case. I cannot honestly believe you know so little about slander, defamation, and libel. I cannot speak for Oscar but here are my replies:

A. Regarding defamation, you have to prove what is being said is false. It is quite questionable whether the minimum level of qualification for defamation even exists. In the context of the entire existence and premise of ExtortionLetterInfo.com, which we colloquially use the term "extortion letter" in exchange and in lieu of "settlement demand letter", you may find that term distasteful but it is not false. There was no attack on you or your personal character. In fact, we know very little about you aside from the bio on your website and your letter. Even our community members have not had much to say about you or your practice as you are still a relatively unknown entity. B. Regarding slander, that generally refers to oral / spoken statements. Quite frankly, there have been ZERO oral/spoken statements about you of any kind. So the accusation of slander is outright ridiculous. Until this email, you barely registered in our consciousness much less being spoken about in ANY capacity much less in a way that is damaging to your or your character. C. Regard libel, that refers to written form. Again, does the minimum level of qualification for libel even exist? Does 3 small posts (consisting of at most two sentences) referring to your settlement demand letter even remotely qualify or meet the minimum threshold of falsehood and damaging? It's a blip. Refer to Point #A in whether the term "extortion letter" even qualifies as false. I do not think it is any worse than the statement you made in your email "It is theft, plain and simple. Yes, it is upsetting to be on the wrong side of the law." If you ask me, that is pretty inflammatory for a person in your profession. I wonder how letter recipients would react to you calling them "thieves" and being "on the wrong side of the law". I suppose it might be similar to the way you seem to be offended as being thought of as an "extortionist". (Incidentally, that word almost never is used on a personal level to anyone.) Let us also remember this is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. I don't think you are a judge qualified to say who is on "wrong side"? There are simply opposing sides of the argument. D. Regarding copyright infringement, what are you referring to? They copy of your demand letter? Your letter is being used as a method of

direct communication to an alleged infringer. Are you going to sue everyone who made a photocopy of the letter for the purpose of information sharing or defending the case? If you wanted copyright protection for that letter, maybe you should print it in some publication and not actually use it as an instrument of legal communication. Before I close this letter, you may want to advise future clients that trying to squash Internet communications is a futile effort and only makes them look bad. If they are too embarrassed or dislike the negative attention associated with the demand letters, maybe they should revisit how they approach the matter. People are going to talk and fight back, not willingly roll over and succumb to outrageous settlement amounts. In closing, I have acknowledged your concerns and made minor corrective changes as mentioned above as a matter of professional courtesy. We have made no factual errors that we can find. As far as I am concerned this matter is now resolved and closed. Respectfully, Matthew Chan