When Letters from Lawyers Backfire
Here an interesting situation: photographer A is informed that some of his work has been posted on Flickr by photographer B who claims credit for it. Photographer B’s account is soon removed from Flickr, photographer A has no evidence showing the offense. Six months pass. Photographer B retains legal counsel who demands that A remove the post recounting all this.
In the old world, it seems like this might help improve an ugly situation of your own making (maybe; better not to have gotten yourself into it; too late). But in the new, online world, it’s sure to backfire. Why? Links.
Most users identify with the photographer whose images were plagerized. People are sure to link to the story and the image of the letter which will do nothing but make the problem worse.
Better to let sleeping dogs lie. If you screw up and do something stupid and rude, admit it quickly, apologize just as quickly and move on. Come up with some hairbrained excuse if you must. Whatever. Fess up. Deliver the inevitable mea culpa.
Even as a last resort, having a lawyer fire off a letter does nothing but prolong the issue. Even if you get the original content removed, the links to the content and 3rd party reports will persist. You (probably) won’t have enough money to litigate your way entirely out of the problem.