Friday, May 4, 2007
Brian Bolland, the blogosphere, and real estate lawyers that go too far
The last couple of days I’ve had my hands full dealing with a blog post I wrote over two months ago. It was about super-star comic book artist Brian Bolland and a sketch he did for someone at the 2007 New York Comicon. I found an image of the sketch posted online while looking for pictures from the con. I wasn’t looking for sketches. I was looking for images from the con. Pictures of overweight middle aged men dressed up like the Flash. If you have ever been to a con, you know exactly what I mean.
Google being the way it is, I pulled up an image of a sketch someone commissioned Brian Bolland to do at the 2007 New York Comicon. It was a Silver Age Batwoman and it wasn’t very good. When I say that it wasn’t very good, I mean to say that it wasn’t of the quality that Brian Bolland is famous for. The man is truly a fantastic artist.
I decided to blog about it. Why I chose to I’m not precisely sure. It was over two months ago. I think it was because the sketch didn’t look anything like what Brian Bolland is capable of doing. Not to say that he is known for doing Silver Age Batwoman drawings. Because the fan that commissioned the sketch paid $150 for it, I entitled the blog post, “Brian Bolland rips off one of his fans for $150 dollars”.
That turned out to be a huge mistake on my part.
I should have phrased it differently. It seems far too many people read the phrase “rips off” and argued that I was implying that Brian Bolland was some sort of criminal. Nothing could be further from the truth. I thought I was fairly clear with the context of the phrase “rips off”. Some still wanted to argue that I was calling Brian Bolland a thief.
I think some people took exception to the fact that I was criticizing Brian Bolland’s artwork and they were using my use of the phrase “rips off” as an excuse to criticize me. Which is fine. I can take criticism as long as it’s for something I actually did. Since I didn’t refer to Brian Bolland as a thief or a criminal, I didn’t appreciate being told that I did.
Enter the Chicago real estate lawyer. Because Brian Bolland is a mega star comic book artist, he has more then his fair share of rabid fans. One of those fans happens to be a real estate lawyer from Chicago. Evidently he took great exception to my criticism of Brian Bolland’s Batwoman sketch and decided to take swift action. Swift legal action.
He claimed to be Brian Bolland’s United States lawyer and accused me of both libel and slander. He sent me a Cease and Desist letter from his Chicago law firm’s email account demanding that I remove the post from my site along with any and all mention of Brian Bolland’s name. He claimed that as his attorney, he had the duty to “protect” Brian Bolland.
I can say with all certainy that this Chicago real estate lawyer made things exponentially worse. Far worse then things needed to be. If Brian Bolland was truly bothered by the title of my post, all he had to do was tell me and I would have changed it. Brian Bolland left two comments before the Chicago real estate lawyer got involved and he didn’t seem bothered with my usage of the phrase. If anything, he seemed more bothered by the actual quality of the sketch.
To be honest, the sketch really isn’t that bad. If I were able to draw something as good as the Batwoman sketch, I would be ecstatic. I would make copies and send them to all my friends. In the years following, I would constantly remind people of the time I drew the awesome Batwoman sketch. Hey, remember that time I drew that really cool looking Batwoman sketch? Yeah, that was awesome. It’s just that when it comes to the art of Brian Bolland, the bar is rather high. Higher then most comic book artists.
I’ve personally been assured by Brian Bolland that the Chicago real estate lawyer does not represent him. That the Chicago real estate lawyer is not his lawyer. That he did not authorize him to send me a Cease and Desist letter. That he did not authorize him to take steps to take down my website.
As stated earlier, it was a mistake on my part to use the phrase “rips off”. I’m sorry I did it.
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
If nothing else, this sordid mess has made me feel a lot better about sitting at Lou Ferrigno’s autograph table every time he comes to town.
Lou Ferrigno rocks!
Geez! What an amazing-yet-disturbing story. I’m surprised it hasn’t gotten more play on the comic newssites and blogs. The “freelance harrassment” some lawyers feel they’re entitled to is astonishing….as if they were given a badge to just randomly hassle private citizens with an opinion without the permission of the allegedly “wronged” party.
A truly, truly bizarre case…and you have my sympathies for having to put up with Chicago Lawyer’s harrassment.
Mark, it was mentioned on Rich Johnson’s Lying in the Gutters when Bolland first found my post and commented that it appeared he had “shafted” the person that commissioned him to draw the sketch. I think that is how Chicago real estate lawyer found out about what I wrote. It all went kind of downhill from there.
When Chicago real estate lawyer threaten to get all litigious over this, the link on Lying in the Gutters mysteriously disappeared. Like it was never there.
You have a cool website BTW!
I wonder what the Illinois State Bar Association would make of this whole situation? Isn’t it fraudulent to represent yourself as someone’s legal counsel when you really are not?
Schooly, you once again bring up a really good point. I would think that’s right. Then again, I never knew that when a lawyer sent you a Cease and Desist letter, you had to keep it secret and not show anyone.
To be honest, my knowledge of our fine legal system is based on watching old LA Law episodes. That Arnie Becker was a cad!
Good point, Schooly. Plus, I’m sure in whatever version of the Hippocratic Oath lawyers might take (yeah, right), I don’t think the random harrassment of people who say something that annoys you is in there.
Rick- I should have known Rich Johnston would post a reference to the story….and I’m equally unsurprised he skulked away from it. Hardly the behavior you’d expect from from a “V for Vendetta” cheerleader like Johnston.
I’m with SchoolyG on this one. If anyone is guilty of anything here it seems to me that Mr. Lawyer is the one who was wrong here. Misrepresenting yourself, sending unauthorized C&D letters, etc. seems to me to be fraudulent.
I have read all the other comments and I’m not looking to get into another freedom of speech conversation here, but the way you composed your original post and the subsequent posts were well within your rights. You are of the opinion that a certain sketch done by the artist was rather small and not of the highest quality that particular artist is known for and thus paying $150 for it was indeed a rip-off. You are allowed to have an opinion and you are allowed to blog about it (which is probably why the artist never got a lawyer to look into this).
What Mr. Lawyer did, though, reeks of all sorts of wrongness. The way I see it, he committed fraud by misrepresenting himself and he is also guilty of harassment. Sending official (it was on their letterhead, so, authorized or not, it is official) C&D letters to you and your service provider is harassment. That is probably the reason he told you to take down his “official” letter. Once that letter is in your hands it is YOUR property and you have every right, should you so choose, to post it here. You have no standing agreement with this law firm not to do so and just opening your mail isn’t a sign acceptance of an agreement.
Personally, I think you should contact the partners or CEO (or whoever) of this lawfirm and at least complain, if not take further action (but that’s just me).
Then again, I never knew that when a lawyer sent you a Cease and Desist letter, you had to keep it secret and not show anyone.
I spoke to a lawyer friend of mine, and she tells me that as far as she knows, you are under no obligation to keep such a letter a secret.
Sorry about all the mess.
But, I agree. That letter belongs to you and you did not sign a contract, so, you can do whatever you want with it.
I would also think that you and Mr. Bolland would both have a case, against the lawyer, as he miss represented himself with Bolland and harrased you. But, I don’t know. I don’t know how those things work. But, hey, if a woman can sue McDonalds for spilling hot coffee on herself and win, anything is possible I guess. But, it also might be best just to let it go and move on.
That’s my 2 cents.
And again, I apologize.
I totally agree with Cayusa. This really is harassment. If this happened to me, I would seriously consider lodging a formal complaint with the Illinois State Bar Association. I would certainly send letters to the managing partners of the law firm to make them aware that the name of their firm is being used in a dishonest and harassing way.
I didn’t see Bruce’s post (#10) when I put up my last post. I do agree with Bruce about letting it go. I wouldn’t want to sue, but, if it were me, I think his firm and his state bar should know about this in case he tries to do this to anyone else.
Regarding the woman who spilled coffee on herself at McDonald’s, it’s not as cut and dried as everyone seems to think. I read an in-depth account of her plight years ago, and she was actually in the right. The details escape me at the moment, but from what I recall McDonald’s actually was at fault, and she only sued after several attempts to placate her distress were ignored. I think they didn’t put the lid on properly, and served the coffee at something like 140 degrees. All of which could be argued either way, but she started off just asking for a dry cleaning bill or something similar, and they basically said “Fuck You” until she was forced to sue them. Don’t take my word for it, but it is an interesting story and one which is often misconstrued.
I’ve been lurking here for a while, but this is making me want to scream! Give me an f’ing break, people. Are we so trigger-happy with oppressing people that we have to oppress each other too! It’s called the first amendment, after all. Argh! $150 for that sketch was a rip off. Repeat after me, R-I-P O-F-F!
I knew! There was a lurker! Have you been watching me? I need to close my damn curtains… perverted lurkers…
Bruce, you should really read up on the McDonalds hot coffee trial. I thought it was an example of stupid trials as well, but if you research, you will find that the case was not frivolous.