Comments on: Neil Gaiman Gets a Cease-and-Desist Letter

Neil Gaiman Gets a Cease-and-Desist Letter

WCityMike — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 20:58:41 -0800

In a rather bizarre legal turn of events, Neil Gaiman posted in his journal today that he received a cease-and-desist letter from Mark I. Reichenthal of Branfman & Associates insisting that he remove an "unauthorized" link from tomatoesareevil.com to the official movie website for "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes". (Interestingly enough, Reichenthal evidently has previously been deployed to defend the "... For Dummies" trademark.) Problem is that Neil doesn't own the site; they merely posted a photograph of him with a particularly evil-looking tomato, a tomato which Gaiman is turning into salsa in the hopes of becoming "the Paul Newman of satanic salsas." Neil's reaction: "What an astonishingly small amount of research they must do before firing off these bizarre letters."

By: p3on

p3on — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:17:30 -0800

Oh no! You posted a link to the Killer Tomatoes site! MeFi's gonna get s00d!

By: Jelreyn

Jelreyn — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:32:29 -0800

Is there any recourse for people who get letters like this? can you counter-sue or something?

By: Silki

Silki — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:45:01 -0800

Let's start by taking Napoleon's advice and attributing this to incompetence rather than malice. On the links page of tomatoesareevil.com, the second link is "author neil gaiman finds evil tomato." Could it be that Mark I. Reichenthal read that to mean that Neil was the author of tomatoesareevil.com? Did the matching Neil photos on the sites convince Mark that no further research was needed? I don't think so. I smell the sulfurous influence of the demon tomato, bringing a plague of lawyers down on Neil. You can't carve up demons to make your salsa and get off scot-free. There are consequences.

By: jam_pony

jam_pony — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:48:08 -0800

It looked like a joke at first, but I think the anti-tomato people are serious.

By: jam_pony

jam_pony — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:52:09 -0800

Well, humorous but really anti-tomato.

By: jam_pony

jam_pony — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:54:44 -0800

Threatening to sue over a link: dumbass. Threatening the wrong party: fark.com.

By: Ber

Ber — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:08:53 -0800

Neil's site is great, especially for all us wannabe writers. I have never found a better online journal by a working writer. Endlessly entertaining and informative.

By: jmhodges

jmhodges — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:33:17 -0800

Honestly, I would not have expected Neil Gaiman to do a WHOIS check. There goes the "dark and awesome modern writer" stereotype I had so nicely cultivated since first finding out that Gibson did fuck-all on the net until a few years ago. Well, now I need to take some time out and read the rest of Gaiman's site.

By: taz

taz — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 23:17:53 -0800

Silki is surely right. Funny that the "Killer Tomatoes" people bothered to put up a site but have apparently decided that linking to it is a violation of their copyright. Maybe they really are threatening to sue anyone who links to them; google shows only a handful of linkers, most of them the same japanese blog. Bizarre. I can't imagine the legal morass that might ensue if anyone ever made so bold as to actually watch the film.

By: potsmokinghippieoverlord

potsmokinghippieoverlord — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 23:24:56 -0800

trivia note: Stephen Pearce, "star" and producer of this epic, was the brains behind the deregulation of electricty in California, bless his tiny little heart.

By: TwelveTwo

TwelveTwo — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 01:38:04 -0800

I'm going to publish a website, and everyone who views it gets sued for trespassing. I'll make millions.

By: martinrebas

martinrebas — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 02:42:59 -0800

Wow, that's stupid. Still, Return of the Killer Tomatoes! (the second movie) is brilliant.

By: bap98189

bap98189 — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 03:16:25 -0800

Mr Reichenthal probably put in a bill for $500 for taking the time to write that letter. Even when they screw up the lawyers still get paid.

By: Goofyy

Goofyy — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 04:06:58 -0800

I don't fathom the notion that a link can be a violation. This would, to me, imply that providing a Library of Congress number, to a book, would be a copyright violation.

By: tiamat

tiamat — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 05:25:08 -0800

Goofy, you said book, and I own the copyright to a book. My lawyers will be in touch.

By: thatwhichfalls

thatwhichfalls — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 05:33:16 -0800

I think I should point out that I own a patent on the concept of "copyright" and have copyrighted the word "patent". Incidentally, both words are my trademarks. I think that in order to calculate my potential income I will have to refer to this thread. My lawyers will be in touch ...

By: mecran01

mecran01 — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 05:37:52 -0800

1. get cereal box law degree 2. fire off boilerplate letters to websites 3. ? 4. Profit!

By: jon_kill

jon_kill — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 05:57:48 -0800

Man, I told a friend of mine about a magazine the other day and BAM! Sued.

By: Tuwa

Tuwa — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 05:59:15 -0800

It's hard to pick one thing I like most about Gaiman's journal, but if I did it would probably be the humor, especially in response to something extraordinarily stupid that has been asked of him (exception: most of the writings about McFarlane are not particularly humorous). Second best would probably be Maddy, who's endlessly "cute," and whom Gaiman obviously loves very much.

By: hwestiii

hwestiii — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 06:01:43 -0800

Aside from the fact that this is one more "stupid lawyer on the Internet" story, and that it happens to involve a person of some noteriety, I don't see why this even rates a mention. It took me all of five seconds to see what the issue was and realize just how stupid the lawyers on the other end of this had been. My 13 year old son could have figured it out. Seems like BoingBoing should have better things to do with its bandwidth, and Metafilter has better things to do than be an unofficial BoingBoing mirror. <sucks>Cory</sucks>

By: taz

taz — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 06:32:24 -0800

To me it rates a mention because it's exactly the sort of thing I might be likely to point out to somebody else ... and why would I choose this one example over so many other silly internet-illiterate lawyers vs. someblogger? Because it's "Killer Tomatoes vs. Neil Gaiman," and that's just funny.

By: Doorstop

Doorstop — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 07:16:06 -0800

can we sue the criminally stupid? i thought our government was trying to limit frivilous law suits? wtf?!

By: majick

majick — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 07:19:10 -0800

"Napoleon's advice?"

By: nebulawindphone

nebulawindphone — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 07:37:45 -0800

"Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence," majick.

By: Marit

Marit — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 07:43:42 -0800

I'm flabbergasted. Is Branfman & Associates at all in touch with the real world? Do they actually use this crazy internet thing, or is it just something they read about? Judging from their website (drop shadows, embedded music, frames -- just needs a few animated smiley faces for the complete 1997 look), I'm thinking... no.

By: Faint of Butt

Faint of Butt — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 08:22:47 -0800

When I want Neil Gaiman to pay attention to me, I just go see him at a book signing. It's a lot easier than sending threatening letters.

By: WCityMike

WCityMike — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 08:27:58 -0800

Aside from the fact that this is one more "stupid lawyer on the Internet" story, and that it happens to involve a person of some noteriety, I don't see why this even rates a mention. I find it incredibly humorous that it now seems to be a MeFi staple that every single post must now contain a "why is this even noteworthy?" comment somewhere in its replies. (I can just see a thread from the future: "World blows up. Yeah, we're all dead." Response: "Yeah, like we didn't know this already? How is this worth a FPP? Now it'd might've been useful if you had included where we could find the harps and angelic choirs.") And, also, for the record, I posted the above with no knowledge whatsoever that Boing Boing had covered it.

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 08:51:48 -0800

Probably just a front for George Clooney to destroy all mentions of the film.

By: Skygazer

Skygazer — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 09:04:06 -0800

Workaday incompetence is so excellent at times and strangely endearing. The idea of an out of control posse of Dada lawyers firing off absurdist cease and desist letters is fun. Lawyer 1: I sue your pet gold fish!! Lawyer 2: No, I sue your pet gold fish!! They lock arms and dance a vigorous can can...

By: Blue Stone

Blue Stone — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 09:12:27 -0800

Viral marketing for the killer tomato site?

By: splitpeasoup

splitpeasoup — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 09:52:52 -0800

I like the idea of surreal lawyers that only exist to amuse us.

By: Silki

Silki — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 15:06:53 -0800

Blue Stone, viral marketing for killer tomato? Look even deeper for an extra level of deception. Follow the money trail to uncover the Gaiman / Branfman / Killer Tomatoes conspiracy. Is it merely coincidence that "Tomatoes Are Evil" is an anagram for "Viral tease; Me too" ?

By: majick

majick — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:30:48 -0800

I've never heard that attributed to Napoleon. Thanks, I guess you learn something new every day!

By: applemeat

applemeat — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 06:35:20 -0800

mecran01, where does one get a "cereal box law degree"? Is there a Sally Struthers infomercial on obtaining a quickie J.D. in one's spare time? I know you are joking here. At least I hope so, because your remark is hogwash. It's a tedious ordeal to obtain a J.D. and be admitted to the bar. The people bitching about how unethical attorneys are and how much money they make, would be in for a shock if they learned the reality of life for most attorneys. (Turn off the TV and the right-wing radio, folks!) Ok, end rant. Thank you. On-topic: Cease and desist letters are NOT lawsuits. These letters are often sent for all kinds of reasons, (some reasons more legally sound than others!) but they are not really news.

By: Skygazer

Skygazer — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 12:55:57 -0800

On-topic: Cease and desist letters are NOT lawsuits. These letters are often sent for all kinds of reasons, (some reasons more legally sound than others!) but they are not really news. Oh let me revise that then: Lawyer 1: I sent a cease and desist letter to your pet goldfish!! Lawyer 2: Well...I sent a cease and desist letter to your pet goldfish!! They proceed to weep and laugh manically and dance a lusty tango.

By: Silki

Silki — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:57:41 -0800

99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name... I know, I know. We only get to see the outrageous shenanigans of the shysters, and form a false impression.