Masterfiles 3rd suit for 2012

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Masterfile Corporation v. Intellegent Enterprise Solutions, Inc.

Looks like this one is for 12 images. I will be forwarding the complaint to Matt for inclusion in the scribd library.

[Bekka]

Yeah, they were busy yesterday filing lawsuits.  I just came across this one a few minutes ago.  Their attorney Steven M. Weinberg advertises on his website that he represents Masterfile among others.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Wait until you read the complaint and see the numbers....and yes this is also from a compilation registration..

[Matthew Chan]

Here is the 3rd Masterfile complaint for everyone to read. As Buddhapi said, pay close attention to the exhibits.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/78723976/Masterfile-vs-Intelligent-Enterprise-Solutions-Complaint

[lucia]

On the "why the company should pay something" side: This appears to clearly be a commercial site.  Having looked at some of the images,
(example: One of the images seems to be this:

http://www.masterfile.com/em/search/#session=1326991869382&id=1326991869037&color=&colour_key=0&format=hvsp&keyImage=&keyword=700-00035858&license=ALL&mode=search&sort=hatter

)

 if they did appear on that site, they were being displayed in precisely the form where they have value.  That is: Those aren't images one would use on cards/ calendars/ wall papers. They are images one would use to make your company web site look reputable. 

On the: Why masterfile is unlikely to get the million+ they seek:

It looks like some forms includes names of only 3 or 4 or fewer photographers 'and others' at least two indicate there were a continuation sheets. (These are not provided at SCRIBD).    So, if previous judges see this as a flaw in registration, then masterfile isn't going to get statutory damages.

The artist for the photo I'm using as a example is listed as Rick Fischer.   If he's ever listed as author that will be on a continuation sheet. 


On the removal of copyright information: The complaint doesn't include screenshots of the images at the defendants site, but  based on the numbers one appears to be
http://www.masterfile.com/em/search/#session=1326991869382&id=1326991869037&color=&colour_key=0&format=hvsp&keyImage=&keyword=700-00035858&license=ALL&mode=search&sort=hatter

The large versions clearly have "masterfile logo" splattered across them. The thumbnail doesn't: http://image1.masterfile.com/em_t/00/03/58/700-00035858t.jpg So, if the bit supposedly removed is "masterfile", the fact it's not on some of the images might be evidence no one removed it.

On willful: I searched for a match to http://image1.masterfile.com/em_w/00/03/58/700-00035858w.jpg at google and didn't find one.  So these aren't all over the web and one might not readily run across one with copyright info taken off.. Of course that doesn't mean the defendant (or their web master) didn't get them from someone else who took the copyright info off-- but this isn't like all those Hawaii scenery images.

I can't help but imagine the company will settle. It looks like a real but small business.  http://nitaac.nih.gov/nitaac/intelligent-enterprise-solutions-llc

Would they really want to spend a lot of time on this?

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I'm going to chime in here quickly on the removal of copyright information..

This can be done in 2 ways

1. if there is a water mark, clearly it is visable and also removable with some photoshop skills.

2. There is also a way to embed copyright information into the image file itself, so a watermark is not needed, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

For example all of the images that appear here on one of my blog posts:
http://palmbeachdns.com/wp/?p=2576

have watermarks, but they also have copyright info embedded in the file itself, most people would not know how to remove the embedded information, nor would they do it intentionally.. Once they have the image, if they open it in photoshop and do a simple "save for web" this action all by itself will remove the exif and any copyright information within the file itself. Most likely MF doesn't look at just the watermark or lackthereof, but the look at the exif of the file.

[Bekka]

I doubt you would find many of those pictures, because this isn't a photograph.  If I am not mistaken, this is a still of a modeled image.  I didn't realize that MF sold/licensed 3d models or rather stills of them until today. 

[dieselfish]

1.8 MILLION?!!  Are you kidding me!?  I am definitely in the wrong business!

Line 10 in the complaint is interesting:

10. Plaintiff notified Defendant that Defendant's unauthorized use of the Infringing Images constitutes copyright infringement, and provided Defendant with an opportunity to rectify its infringing conduct, but Defendant refused to so rectify its conduct.

It sounds as if the Defendant never acknowledged MF and continued to use the images.

Usually, MF writes something like, "...gave Defendants an opportunity to enter into a retroactive licensing agreement or make payment for Defendants' past unauthorized use prior to instituting present action..." in cases where the Defendant tried to negotiate with MF.

[lucia]

Not taking them down is both wrong and stupid.  I can't help wondering what the defendant is going to say in defense of not taking them down?  I guess we'll read that eventually.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

well if he completely ignored them and left the images up, making no attempt to rectify the issue, I would guess he'll be saying, "who do I right the check to?"

 

[lucia]

Unless it turns out that he has licenses from the photographer but ignored MF's letters because he didn't like their tone.  That would be odd because going to court is expensive. But people sometimes do odd things.

[SoylentGreen]

Yes, it's important to remove any allegedly infringing content immediately.
Even if there is some question as to whether the content actually infringes, it's best to act quickly and then do the research.

If these images were registered as part of compilation, I don't think that MF would be likely to prevail in court.
I think that the 1.8 million demand is probably intended to make the stakes appear to be very high such that the alleged infringer will be scared into making an out-of-court settlement.

At this point, I feel that 1.8 million is a bit over the top.
It doesn't pay to look desperate, and it's embarrassing to say the least.

S.G.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

It would be hilarious if he had a license for these images, either from the creator or a template company. If he does, he could collect on his court costs once the judge decides in his favor.

[Bekka]

And yet another, filed Jan. 31st....

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/cacdce/2:2012cv00850/523070/

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

And yet another, filed Jan. 31st....

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/cacdce/2:2012cv00850/523070/

If anyone want to read the complaints, I'll get them from Pacer, just let me know... this one is for a mere 6million!

Masterfile Corporation v. Chaga International et al
Assigned to: Judge Manuel L. Real
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick
Demand: $6,000,000
Cause: 17:101 Copyright Infringement