President’s Attorney Allegedly Threatens Cartoonist for Using His “Rights-Protected Visage” [Updated]
NOTE: It now appears that the letter below may be fake, or at least Marc Kasowitz is reportedly denying that he wrote or sent it. Other letters by Kasowitz that people have posted on Twitter appear to have different signatures, and while those letters are similarly bombastic and make possibly unfounded threats, they're at least grammatically correct. Since I've already critiqued the damn thing, I'm leaving the post up at least for now, but am not attributing it to Kasowitz.
Whoever wrote it, this letter is appalling.
This letter is appalling.
First, the salutation has to end with a punctuation mark. Could be a comma, could be a colon, but there has to be something there. This is high-school stuff, [Author].
Second, the re: line needs to be completely redone. I guess "non-permitted" is a word, but how about something less clunky like "unauthorized"? Or just leave it out, since it assumes a conclusion you haven't established yet, namely that Breathed needs permission or authorization in the first place. Also, you're accusing Breathed of using the Trumps' images, not the Trumps themselves, right? That'd be a little weird. Needs a rewrite.
Third, I wouldn't use the term "flagrantly altered" in the first paragraph, just because it calls attention to the fact that it'd be obvious to a viewer that the photos have been altered by a third party. Also, you've already referred to "images" in this sentence, so it's confusing to then mention "photos." How about "you published images that had been altered to depict" Trump in the apparel? And the final sentence of that paragraph-"Please note that permission or release of trademark represented by Donald Trump " have not been granted, nor will they be"? What?
Fourth, the next paragraph begins "We would have you also note that"." None of those words are necessary. Just get to the point. More fundamentally, since the point you make here seems very debatable, a citation supporting the point would be a good idea. Assuming there is one. There is one, isn't there?
Fifth, why is "photoshopped" in quotes? Is it to indicate that you realize "Photoshop" is a registered trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated (and one you presumably have permission to use)? If so, there's a symbol for that, and the word should be capitalized. But better to avoid the whole problem by just cutting everything after the word "imagery." That also has the benefit of getting rid of the phrase "rights-protected visages," which with any luck will never be used again by anyone in the English-speaking world. [Author,] the last thing you need is to be using a phrase that will instantly show up on social media for the purpose of entertaining many thousands of people just by virtue of its sheer awfulness. "Rights-protected visages"?! I mean, Jesus Christ.
Sixth, where do I start with this next sentence? "Media" (not "mediums"-is somebody having a si(C)ance?) shouldn't be in the same list with "aspects, forms, and derivations." I'm guessing you mean something like "remove these images in any aspect, form, or derivation from all media promoting or advertising your products," but why should the reader have to guess? And this sentence should end "we will seek an injunction." The rest of it is unnecessary information, unless maybe you are trying to scare him by noting that you will sue him on the other side of the country. But since that's not likely to be much of a burden in his case, who cares?
If you insist on leaving the sentence as is, at least add the definite articles missing from the last two clauses. That just makes it look like you weren't paying attention.
"Ass in a sling by lunch." Isn't the client trying to distance himself at least a little bit from this kind of thing? If you insist on saying something like this, you should take out the "per my client's wishes" so that he can blame it on you if anybody objects. Plausible deniability-have you heard of it? (Also, there shouldn't be any spaces after or before a parenthesis.)
The last sentence is just legalese and should be cut. Adds nothing.
Please revise. Thanks.
Kevin
Related Stories