Have you seen this letter sent to local blogger Random Pixels by GT attorney Ian Ballon on behalf of his client the Miami Herald?

I guess the Herald is upset over whether or not photos from their website are reproduced on blogs in thumbnail or "full-size"?

As if that determines whether or not the photos fall within the protections of the fair use doctrine?

Here is Ian's contention:

"Because fair use looks to the amount and substantiality of the portion taken (both in terms of quality and quantity), reproducing entire articles, large excerpts of articles or large-size photos is not permitted."

This sweeping generalization -- with no context and zero case citation -- is almost certainly wrong.

This is one of those examples where, as a lawyer, you have to talk to your client. Is it in your best interests to go after some local blogger for posting a picture? Is that really what you want your resources and attention focused on? Even if you had a colorable argument, is it a fight that is in your best interests to pursue?

(Though I appreciate that Ian's letter is somewhat restrained and not as dickwaddy as it could have been, I still would have advised against it).

My advice here would be, for the most part, to ignore Ian's letter. If there are "copies of entire articles" on his blog (which I understand are simply historical in nature and not lifted from the Herald online archives), I would edit them slightly so you are in compliance with Ian's demand.

The balance of the letter is wishy-washy and doesn't really require any further action, so I wouldn't take any.

Ian, I just gotta know something -- did Glenn Garvin put you up to this?

Several in-the-know readers have passed along an incendiary anonymous memo making the rounds among administrators and trustees regarding financial mismanagement at the University of Miami.

Thanks folks, but I'm not touching it -- it's even too hot for your humble crappy (lawsuit-averse) blogger.

Instead, let's regale over Greenberg's request for an incentive award of $4 million on top of their $20 million in fees for handling the Southeast Bank bankruptcy. Those greedy plaintiffs' lawyers!

(Young ones, Southeast Bank was something big and powerful that existed a long, long time ago, like dinosaurs and David Paul).

And get a load of this hilarous column by Virginia Heffernan in which she finds that online commenters to Anne Applebaum's NYT column are pretty much uninformed, mean-spirited, anti-semitic, sexist pigs.

In other words, dog bites man:

Commenters, in short, rarely really sock it to a columnist. They also too often go automatic, churning out 100-word synopses of one stock ideological position after another. But most disappointing of all, for readers, is that commenters don’t, as literary critics say, read an article against itself to show how, for example, an argument framed as incendiary is in fact banal, or one that’s meant to be feminist is retrogressive, or one that touts its originality is a knockoff.

Instead, paradoxically, commenters frequently reiterate Applebaum’s own arguments in the service of their would-be critiques. Last year, for instance, when Applebaum described her newfound disillusionment with John McCain, whom she supported for president in 2000, many commenters criticized her bygone support for McCain by doing little more than rehashing her new case against him, which she had just presented.

This echo-chamber effect is unpleasant, and it makes it hard to keep listening for the clearer, brighter, rarer voices nearly drowned out in the online din.

I immediately thought of the comments posted on the Miami Herald website. Can you imagine if someone took the time to break those down? Oy, oy, and triple-oy.

I meant to put this up Friday, but it's a slow news day so enjoy this silver lining from our friend, Mr. Deepening Recession.

Other tips always welcome!

Well, consider me stunned.

I am shocked -- shocked mind you -- that in this excellent Herald article on Carlos Loumiet and his disgraced client R. Allen Stanford, there is nary a single mention of The World's Finest Legal Anecdote.

Bowman, you broke my heart.

Still, it's a blockbuster article, and certainly leads one to think there may be some potential liability down the road somewhere.

It's funny how the world can turn in a minute. Here you have Carlos, leaving GT to go to Hunton, and undoubtedly part of that is an evaluation of his book of business. So at that moment having R. Allen Stanford as a major client is a big deal, and attractive to any firm that would want to hire Carlos away from GT.

Now, that client doesn't look so hot:

Though not under criminal investigation, Greenberg Traurig is facing a legal review of its actions on this tiny island that was the center of his banking kingdom.

The court-appointed receiver trying to recover money for victims is demanding records of the legal work provided to the disgraced banker -- including that of Greenberg. The effort is the latest by the receiver to untangle the complex deals spun by Stanford as well as the conduct of his lawyers.

The demand for the records has put a rare spotlight on Greenberg Traurig and another firm, Hunton & Williams, which now holds the records.

``I'm sure one of the things they will look at is what did Greenberg Traurig know, and when did they know it, and did they have any liability?'' said Ross Gaffney, a former FBI agent who investigated Stanford.

Greenberg Traurig's effort to help Stanford in 1998 was one in a string of instances in which the Florida law firm propelled Stanford's business interests and helped rescue him from crisis.

The Miami Herald sought interviews with five lawyers who represented Stanford while working for the law firm, but only two responded.

Those lawyers, citing confidentiality concerns, declined comment, saying they were simply giving legal support and were unaware of any illegal schemes by Stanford.

Cesar Alvarez, the firm's chief executive officer, also declined to be interviewed.

Taking it a step further, The Business Insider wonders whether this all sounds vaguely familiar:

Judge David Godbey in Houston is expected to decide whether the firm must comply.

Regardless, we wonder if John Grisham is taking note. With a few embellishments -- an extortion here, a murder there -- he could have a another big book.

Come on. I don't think this comparison is remotely fair.

For example, there is no one at GT that looks anything like Tom Cruise.

(Gene Hackman, maybe.)

It does, however, raise an interesting question -- who would you cast as Cesar?