While perusing my spam folder this evening for any non-spam e-mails that for whatever reason didn’t make it through the Gremlin-infested filter, we found a letter from Evan Spiegel of the Los Angeles firm of Lavely & Singer.

The letter asserts that on behalf of Arizona Cardinals quarterback Matt Leinart that a photo posted last week on other sites (but never posted here) is protected by U.S. copyright laws.  Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, we were given eight hours to remove any links to the photo in question, or else.

Specifically, here’s the or else — failure to comply would have resulted in an effort to hold ProFootballTalk.com “and its DNS providers . . . liable and accountable for . . . copyright infringement.”

“Accordingly,” Spiegel wrote, “on behalf of our client we demand that you immediately cease and desist and refrain from exploiting, publishing, posting, displaying, distributing, or otherwise using or disseminating any of the Copyright Protected Photos, through any venue or medium, including on any Internet site.

“Please govern yourself accordingly.  You act at your own peril.”

Gulp.

Since we pride ourselves on knowing where the lines of legal liability are (and on usually staying on the right side of them), we promptly went through and removed links to Deadspin.com and FOXSports.com of stories containing the photos that surfaced last week of Leinart.  The first wave involved Leinart actually partying with young girls; the second photo that came out later in the week showed Leinart pretending to “party” with young men.

And then I called Spiegel, primarily to confirm that the letter is legit.  Unless it was a really intricate ruse, I had my answer when the receptionist identified the name of the firm upon picking up the call. 

Still, I thought I’d try to talk to Spiegel.  And I talk to him I did.  The conversation went well, until he attempted retroactively to convert the entire discussion to an “off the record” communication.

We’re still not clear on these journalism rules, but we’ve followed the approach that all conversations are on the record unless and until someone says the magic words.  We don’t live our lives “off the record.”  The things we say openly to other people in a public place or on the phone should be fair game for attribution.  If Spiegel doesn’t realize that, then he shouldn’t be taking calls from media companies to which he has sent letters threatening legal action.

As it turns out, the assertion of copyright protection applies only to the photo of Leinart pretending to perform a certain action on a bottle of champagne held by another man at crotch level.  Leinart isn’t asserting any protection as to the photos that initially were posted on TheDirty.com of Leinart cavorting with females, and providing alcohol to at least one of them who might or might not be over the age of 21.

Spiegel said that the champagne photo is at least two years old, and was taken as part of a Halloween party.  He wouldn’t comment on the specifics relating to the taking of the photos displaying behaviors in which heterosexual males commonly engage.

Spiegel also said that the DMCA notices have been sent to ProFootballTalk.com, TheDirty.com, and Deadspin.com.  When I asked Spiegel if he realized that PFT didn’t actually post the photos, he didn’t really provide me with an answer.

Spiegel explained that the “Korbel Stewart” photo (my term, not Spiegel’s) was allegedly obtained from Leinart without authorization, and then posted on the Internet.  So I asked Speigel whether he’s taking the position that any photo obtained without permission from a person’s private collection of images and then posted on the Internet is subject to copyright protection.

Spiegel refused to answer, stating that he would not provide me with “legal advice.”  I told him that I was not requesting “legal advice,” but that I only wanted to get more information about his client’s position.  So I asked again, and Spiegel again declined to answer.

Spiegel also declined to answer the broader question of whether it made sense for Leinart and his lawyers to direct more attention to a dead story at a time when the flow of NFL news is slower than usual.  Maybe the goal was to prevent folks from pasting the picture onto a T-shirt or a mousepad and selling the products outside the stadiums that Leinart’s team will be visiting this year.  Regardless, the action unnecessarily pushes the champagne incident back onto the front burner, and (in our opinion) makes Leinart look like a baby.

As of this posting, the picture in question still appears on Deadspin.  TheDirty.com, however, apparently has taken the image down. 

We’re kind of hoping that Deadspin.com will use some of that Gawker money to fight this thing, under the approach best known among practicing lawyers as “my guts, your blood.”  We still can’t believe that every photo that gets out of the hands of the person who took it is suddenly subject to federal copyright protections in the absence of any effort to sell the images.

We figure that, on this point, we’ll hear from a few of the many lawyers who read this site.  But, please, be careful not to give us “legal advice.”