Sthitch Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 As has been pointed out, the letter not only got the name of the restaurant incorrect, but had a pretty ugly typo. Is it at all possible that the email is a hoax? Those two mistakes are pretty unlawyerly. Just a theory. Jason, what do you think?K Also it was signed:Very truly yoursIn previous jobs I dealt with plenty of lawyers, and none, zero, nip, nada, ever signed a piece of correspondence so casually. These were always friendly correspondences never a cease and desist threat, so it raises a few flags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 (edited) According to Emily Post: The close of a business letter should be “Yours truly,” or “Yours very truly.” Edited January 3, 2006 by Heather Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monavano Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 The mispelling of proprietary was strange. Perhaps he dictated it and his assistant executed the deed without using spell check? Anyway, the C&D letter, posting and replies has been taking off of Jason's site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcfoodie Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 The mispelling of proprietary was strange. Perhaps he dictated it and his assistant executed the deed without using spell check?Anyway, the C&D letter, posting and replies has been taking off of Jason's site. Just double checked and called the lawyer. It's for real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLK Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 Both of my bosses (attorneys each) use "Very truly yours." I don't think that's a great gauge. Alas, nor is spelling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monavano Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 Just double checked and called the lawyer. It's for real. I thought as much. So much for the conspiracy theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brr Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 oh dear, what was Carole thinking? I'd be interested in hearing their rationale for such an excessive response.......oh well, I still like her cooking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Dente Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 Sorry if it's already been mentioned, but this episode was mentioned in the Post's Express paper today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Principia Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 (edited) The mispelling of proprietary was strange. Perhaps he dictated it and his assistant executed the deed without using spell check?Anyway, the C&D letter, posting and replies has been taking off of Jason's site. No, the letter (et al) are still up on the site, although he's commented that folks' time would be better spent reading about the positive happenings at Komi than picking over the bones of this particular incident. For what it's worth, I've yet to partake of BF&C precisely because of the oft-repeated tales of this ilk. If I'm signing up for that kind of abuse, I can get it at the Vienna Inn. Edited January 3, 2006 by Principia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demetrius Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 DCist has also taken note of the bad service DCFoodies and his family received and posted on their site. http://www.dcist.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monavano Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 No, the letter (et al) are still up on the site, although he's commented that folks' time would be better spent reading about the positive happenings at Komi than picking over the bones of this particular incident.For what it's worth, I've yet to partake of BF&C precisely because of the oft-repeated tales of this ilk. If I'm signing up for that kind of abuse, I can get it at the Vienna Inn. The letter dissappeared for awhile and it got me a bit worried. And yes, I'd tolerate a side of abuse with my chili mac! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mame11 Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 (edited) First, I sign all of my letters truly yours or very truly yours. I was actually instructed by my Big Law partners to do so. Seems to be the norm. Second, typos are such a part of life in the practice of law it is scary. As long as the typo is of no legal significance we lawyers are grateful. It does not matter how many people proofread a document there will always be typos because documents are drafted and disposed of pretty quickly (relatively speaking). Third, I believe strongly in the proprietary rights of people in the works they create. Whether or not the works are those patent or copyright protect. Intellectual Property refers to ALL intangible rights, not just copyright, trademark and patent. Somehow, the availability for all of us to be published authors and critics seems to change the way we view privacy and the right of publicity. Last Spring I remember a ruckus where some bloggers were removed from a Democratic Party meeting that was closed press. The Bloggers argued that they were not press, just individuals who happen to report what they see/observe/do to people over the Internet (I still like to capitalize Internet). The Party still removed them from the meeting and an uproar on the Blog-O-Sphere erupted. Yet, other bloggers in the same realm as those that were removed from the Democratic Party meeting have claimed that they are journalists entitled to the rights our society bestows upon journalists. BUT, the reason we bestow rights on journalists is because they (a) are supposed to be objective and ( are supposed to live by a code of ethics. I think bloggers are a great modern rendition of the town criers of old. But even town criers were liable for their words and actions. You should get permission prior to taking pictures of anything that you intend to post on the internet, publish in a magazine, sell at an art show, et al. The owner of the subject of your photograph has rights that should be respected. Out. Edited January 4, 2006 by NCPinDC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Troutman Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 ...I just expect to be treated with respect when I'm paying $140 for dinner at a place. What it boils down to is respect. I've been looking forward to giving Buck's Fishing and Camping a try, but it's unlikely that I will ever set foot inside this restaurant. I'd rather pass up what might be wonderful food than risk having my meal ruined by the proprietor's alleged eccentricities. I can understand having restrictions on photography in one's place of business, but I feel that the situation could have been handled in a much more tactful manner. Maybe Chef Greenwood is not aware that nasty letters from lawyers often have the unintended side effect of pissing off potential customers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell's dad Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 What it boils down to is respect. I've been looking forward to giving Buck's Fishing and Camping a try, but it's unlikely that I will ever set foot inside this restaurant. I'd rather pass up what might be wonderful food than risk having my meal ruined by the proprietor's alleged eccentricities. I can understand having restrictions on photography in one's place of business, but I feel that the situation could have been handled in a much more tactful manner. Maybe Chef Greenwood is not aware that nasty letters from lawyers often have the unintended side effect of pissing off potential customers. As someone with a history with Greenwood and her antics, I agree that she has a right to be rude and we have a right to stay away in droves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cook&Bottlewasher Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Does anyone recall the diatribe that Carole sent to Tom Seitsema's online chat about two years ago on the topic of special orders? It raised quite a conversation in the restaurant world.It's not that she wasn't right,it's that the arrogance was almost comical. I need to try to find that again.There were many references to "her food" which jibes with the incident now . She acts like she invented food. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mame11 Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Maybe Chef Greenwood is not aware that nasty letters from lawyers often have the unintended side effect of pissing off potential customers. Truer words could not be spoken and this situation will be one to which I refer for years to come. It is important to advise clients of the risks involved in sending cease & desist letters. Your client has to be prepared for (1) the letter making its way around the globe via the internet (2) unattended consequences of the letter a la bad press and (3) standing behind the letter if further action is required.nuff said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tenunda Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 The owner of the subject of your photograph has rights that should be respected. He purchased the food; he didn't rent the privelege of enjoying it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mame11 Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 He purchased the food; he didn't rent the privelege of enjoying it. Yes, that is true BUT he took the pictures in her establishment. It is a very complicated issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Gastreaux Posted January 4, 2006 Author Share Posted January 4, 2006 The owner of the subject of your photograph has rights that should be respected. And precisely what rights might those be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannah Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Just to throw another legal wrinkle into the argument, couldn't you consider dishes served at a restaurant as works made for hire? That would make the assignment of any intellectual property rights a lot less clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crackers Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 This topic is getting real traction - eGullet has picked it up and run with it here (see post 51 in which the attorney was contacted) and also on DCFoodie's wife's blog here - her amusing rendition of the events and lots of follow up comments. Start counting the number of potential patrons Carole Greenwood has lost in a single day because of this one blogged incident - amazingly powerful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeMc Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 (edited) I so sympathize with Jason and am queasy at Carol's response. It's like watching an autistic person in a challenging social scenario. I want to ignore it, but it's the three car foodie accident that stops traffic. Edited January 4, 2006 by MeMc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cook&Bottlewasher Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 I so sympathize with Jason and am queasy at Carol's response. It's like watching an autistic person in a challenging social scenario. I want to ignore it, but it's the three car foodie accident that stops traffic. \That is both compassionate and astute ...mmm...and also funny..I feel alot of sympathy for those who make interpersonal mistakes. Don't we all? The difference is the aggression born from her insecurity. It's ok to make mistakes. Not ok to be threatening to other folk. I worked with her MANY years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjsadler Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 You should get permission prior to taking pictures of anything that you intend to post on the internet, publish in a magazine, sell at an art show, et al. The owner of the subject of your photograph has rights that should be respected. Out. What about the "fair use" doctrine, though? Doesn't that provide for cases where an image ("reproduction") is used for the purpose of commentary, such as Jason's review? I was also under the impression that rights to images generally lie with the photographer, not the subject. (If the proprietor wants to forbid certain behaviors in their establishment, such as picture taking, that's a different issue). Ok, now we're way off the topic of food. Sorry, Don. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiral Stairs Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 A timely piece from the Post: Can a Recipe Be Stolen? (More about recipes than property rights inhering in the appearance of the finished product.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Gastreaux Posted January 4, 2006 Author Share Posted January 4, 2006 Just to throw another legal wrinkle into the argument, couldn't you consider dishes served at a restaurant as works made for hire? That would make the assignment of any intellectual property rights a lot less clear. I doubt it: A “work made for hire” is— (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. For the purpose of the foregoing sentence, a “supplementary work” is a work prepared for publication as a secondary adjunct to a work by another author for the purpose of introducing, concluding, illustrating, explaining, revising, commenting upon, or assisting in the use of the other work, such as forewords, afterwords, pictorial illustrations, maps, charts, tables, editorial notes, musical arrangements, answer material for tests, bibliographies, appendixes, and indexes, and an “instructional text” is a literary, pictorial, or graphic work prepared for publication and with the purpose of use in systematic instructional activities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jparrott Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 This topic is getting real traction - eGullet has picked it up and run with it here Is it just me, or is there a lot of triple-spacing on that thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokey Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 <snip>I want to ignore it, but it's the three car foodie accident that stops traffic. Or, in the words of Milhouse van Houten, "I fear to look, yet I cannot turn away." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mame11 Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 (edited) Just to throw another legal wrinkle into the argument, couldn't you consider dishes served at a restaurant as works made for hire? That would make the assignment of any intellectual property rights a lot less clear. No, the "work made for hire" concept applies specifically to works an employee creates in the course of employment and certain specified situations where a third party is commissioned to create a work (cooking a meal is not one of those situations) PLUS the assignment has to be in writing. (See Jacques' posting where he quotes the Copyright Act...)However, this is not a copyright issue. It is a right of publicity issue. I am not versed on DC right of publicity but considering most states are on the same page, it is well within the right of publicity for a shop owner to limit the ability of someone to take pictures and post them on the internet. No matter what the wares. Edited January 4, 2006 by NCPinDC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mame11 Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 (edited) What about the "fair use" doctrine, though? Doesn't that provide for cases where an image ("reproduction") is used for the purpose of commentary, such as Jason's review? I was also under the impression that rights to images generally lie with the photographer, not the subject.(If the proprietor wants to forbid certain behaviors in their establishment, such as picture taking, that's a different issue). Ok, now we're way off the topic of food. Sorry, Don. Fair use applies to copyright not the right of publicity.The right to the image lies with the photographer but the photographer can only use them to the extent that he has the rights to do so from the subject of the photographer. Edited January 4, 2006 by NCPinDC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crackers Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 (edited) However, this is not a copyright issue. It is a right of publicity issue. I am not versed on DC right of publicity but considering most states are on the same page, it is well within the right of publicity for a shop owner to limit the ability of someone to take pictures and post them on the internet. No matter what the wares. Only 28 states have "right of publicity" laws on the books. They apply only to an individual's right (and then often just "celebrity" types) to prevent others from exploiting for commercial gain, that individual's identity or image (face, voice, signature, etc.). It has nothing to do with excluding others from photgraphing a plate of mashed potatoes served at a restaurant. Edited January 4, 2006 by crackers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Gastreaux Posted January 4, 2006 Author Share Posted January 4, 2006 Crackers beat me to the punch: The Right of Publicity prevents the unauthorized commercial use of an individual's name, likeness, or other recognizable aspects of one's persona. It gives an individual the exclusive right to license the use of their identity for commercial promotion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mame11 Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 (edited) Only 28 states have "right of publicity" laws on the books. They apply only to an individual's right (and then often just "celebrity" types) to prevent others from exploiting for commercial gain, that individual's identity or image (face, voice, signature, etc.). It has nothing to do with excluding others from photgraphing a plate of mashed potatoes served at a restaurant. First, the right is not only for celebrities. Some states have much better (depending on how you look at it) rights of publicity statutes because of celebrities (TN, CA and NY come to mind) but the right is not exclusive to celebrities. I particularly like Tennessee's because it was drafted with Elvis Presley in mind after he had already passed! Second, the "right of publicity" does not have to be statutorily defined to be law. That is, there are common law rights that are enforceable even when one can not rely on statutes. Third, I should not have used "right of publicity" which can be a specifically defined term. Considering what a stickler for copyright/trademark language, I fell into the same trap relying on a term of art to paint a broad stroke. There are a variety of common law rights and statutes on which a business may rely to control how it is identified, portrayed or otherwise represented. edited for spacing and grammer... probably spelling too at some point Edited January 4, 2006 by NCPinDC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Gastreaux Posted January 4, 2006 Author Share Posted January 4, 2006 There are a variety of common law rights and statutes on which a business may rely to control how it is identified, portrayed or otherwise represented. Which of these might be applicable on the facts presented here? There is no indication that the pictures were going to be used for some sort of competitive purpose, nor are there any elements of disparagement present. This would make a great law school final exam question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mame11 Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Which of these might be applicable on the facts presented here? There is no indication that the pictures were going to be used for some sort of competitive purpose, nor are there any elements of disparagement present. This would make a great law school final exam question. does someone have to wait to be injured? hmmm... injunctive relief anyone... and yes this would make a great law school question... I am not applying law to the situation that has been presented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwertyy Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Although the powers-that-be at Buck's have trouble making smart decisions at time (clearly), I still think Buck's is worth a trip. In my meals there, the food has been uniformly great and I love the atmosphere. We went in almost expecting service issues, but had none. I suppose it could be a result of the resounding echo I hear when I try to beckon bucks from my wallet, but I can't comprehend going somewhere that I expect service issues. Except, of course, dollar beer night. And Restaurant Week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Gastreaux Posted January 4, 2006 Author Share Posted January 4, 2006 does someone have to wait to be injured? hmmm... injunctive relief anyone... and yes this would make a great law school question... I am not applying law to the situation that has been presented. Let's seee, in order to obtain an injunction ording DCFoodie to remove the pictures from his website, Greenwood would have to show some sort of irreparable harm that would befall her if the pictures remained. I think she would have a hard time showing any harm, let alone, irreparable. And it you are not applying law to the situation that has been presented, to what are you applying law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mame11 Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 (edited) Let's seee, in order to obtain an injunction ording DCFoodie to remove the pictures from his website, Greenwood would have to show some sort of irreparable harm that would befall her if the pictures remained. I think she would have a hard time showing any harm, let alone, irreparable.And it you are not applying law to the situation that has been presented, to what are you applying law? true enough about the irreparable harm... see my statements regarding sending cease & desist letters. to what am I applying the law...as I have mentioned a few times I am not addressing the exact situation that has presented itself, I have just been addressing issues/concepts that have been raised (hypotheticals)... also I have stated that I am not familiar with the local laws and how they would apply, merely throwing stuff out for education and conversation purposes... Edited January 4, 2006 by NCPinDC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crackers Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 (edited) hmmm... injunctive relief anyone... I'll bet a DC Superior Court judge would get a good chuckle out of a request to issue a preliminary injunction over blog-publishing photos of a plate of mashed potatoes. Or not. ...frivolous lawsuit anyone? Edited January 4, 2006 by crackers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bilrus Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 See what happens when the lawyers take over? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mame11 Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 I'll bet a DC Superior Court judge would get a good chuckle out of a request to issue a preliminary injunction over blog-publishing photos of a plate of mashed potatoes. Or not. ...frivolous lawsuit anyone? see my earlier comments about cease & desist letters... a risky business, I tell you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mame11 Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 See what happens when the lawyers take over? lawyer.. who you calling lawyer? them there are fightin' words Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPW Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Q - When has a thread jumped the shark? A - When only the lawyers are posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonRocks Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 [No kidding this thread has jumped the shark. I'll split all this into a separate topic but I don't have time to do it right now. Cheers, Rocks] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giant shrimp Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 when nobody is looking, and they are usually too busy, take a shot of the creamless vegetarian squash soup. then send your waiter back to the kitchen to ask the cook how she gets the smoky flavor. keep asking him every time he returns to the table. at the end of the meal, poke your head in the kitchen and ask the cook if she is taking questions. if she tells you to get out, tell her you got lost on the way to the bathroom. you're not really going to run into any trouble you can't deal with, unless you've been tying hangman's nooses or mishandling axes. after all, you're at camp! the worst they can do is send you back home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Troutman Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 (edited) I would love to hear what "Buck" Greenwood thinks about all of this publicity. I'll bet she loves it. Edited January 4, 2006 by Roger Troutman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Gastreaux Posted January 5, 2006 Author Share Posted January 5, 2006 lawyer.. who you calling lawyer? them there are fightin' words I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonRocks Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Oh, oh dear... mischief Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdt Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Oh, oh dear... mischief That is just so wrong. I have to think that they (Buck's) figured something was up and just bit the bullet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TedE Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Oh, oh dear... mischief That was great! I have a tad bit of sympathy for Greenwood's situation here, but she was the grave digger with shovel in hand to start this whole thing. Still, we have to wonder: Has the restaurant truly learned to master its impulses, or is it merely practicing an excessive form of damage control until l'Affaire Storch fades from view? Stay tuned. Unfortunately, methinks the latter. Is this destined to become the next D.C. bloodsport? Taunt the finicky restauranteur until they snap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now