Licensing Fee

[Gileon7]

I'm new to being threatened by MF. I guess I'm not a virgin anymore.   Anyway my story is too much like everyone else's to bother everyone with it. Except that the image wasn't even accessible from the links in the site, the page it was on had no links to it. 

But I do have a question. How can the MFers try to charge $3,880 for "retroactive use" of 1 image, when according to their website the going rate for a single image is $10 to $40 depending on size?

[stinger]

Welcome to the world of the trolls?

[jbigfoot]

It is, how you say in your language, 'shock value'.

They charged me $1065 for one image. I sent them a fire & ice e-mail with a counter-proposal of $75 and said 'this is my best offer', just like we used to see on union contract proposals. Now I'm just waiting for a call from their attorney or their collection agency.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I'm new to being threatened by MF. I guess I'm not a virgin anymore.   Anyway my story is too much like everyone else's to bother everyone with it. Except that the image wasn't even accessible from the links in the site, the page it was on had no links to it. 

But I do have a question. How can the MFers try to charge $3,880 for "retroactive use" of 1 image, when according to their website the going rate for a single image is $10 to $40 depending on size?

Heres my best guess....the images ranging from 10 - 40 are "royalty free" and the image they are accusing you of using is "rights managed" which is more expensive.. in their eyes anyway

[Gileon7]

Ah "rights managed".

I'm going to reply to their email (second threat), but I'm a little hesitant as to how to tell them to go F themselves. I've been reading the information on this site (great site by the way) and I'm figuring I'll get back to them next week with a "fair" ($40) offer and a caveat of not admitting anything.

Thanks for your help!

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Ah "rights managed".

I'm going to reply to their email (second threat), but I'm a little hesitant as to how to tell them to go F themselves. I've been reading the information on this site (great site by the way) and I'm figuring I'll get back to them next week with a "fair" ($40) offer and a caveat of not admitting anything.

Thanks for your help!

Personally I would not reply to any emails from them, let those cheap bastards spend a few cents on a stamp...as for the nice way to tell the to go F themselves perhaps something like this would work..

Dear Copyright trolling Asshat Douglas Beiker,

Please go fuck yourself...

Regards...

see nice and polite 

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

While I agree with Robert remember that MF is not the same as Getty and tends to have their duck more in a row.  I would read and continue to educate yourself before any further communication with them.  I also agree this should be done via snail mail as opposed to email.

[Gileon7]

Doesn't this "Masterfile's Copyright Registration Method Held Invalid by California Court" throw a monkey wrench into their thieving practices?

[stinger]

If they can get 10 - 25% of the people they contact to pay them 100 times what they would make by licensing the photo, without ever going to court (just threatening to), why would anyone want to stop that gravy train?

I am just guessing at the percentages who pay, but if I am anywhere close to correct, trolling is a far more profitable business than licensing images.  And, of course, they can say they are protecting their copyrights.

Prior court rulings only matter to those taken to court, or those who are willing to fight the trolling practice.  The percentage who pay on the threat likely never know about prior court rulings.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

It was held invalid for that particular case. That doesn't mean that the image(s) they are sending you a letter over are not registered properly.  The only thing I am saying is of all the stock photo companies MF tends to have their stuff together more than the others and I would still fight but would approach it a little differently then when  fighting Getty.

Doesn't this "Masterfile's Copyright Registration Method Held Invalid by California Court" throw a monkey wrench into their thieving practices?

[Gileon7]

Thanks Greg.

You say you would approach it a little differently. How would you approach it? I've been reading and learning for the last two weeks or so and I'm not sure which way I want to take this.

At the moment I'm leaning towards a snail mail letter stating that at no time was this picture viewable through my website (which is the truth, it was on my server but you couldn't get to it through the pages). Then making them a good faith offer of $50.

From what I've read, I'd guess they would turn down the $50, but then at least if they do take me to court I can claim I tried to settle this.

Any opinions?

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

every situation is different and without knowing yours I can't offer any opinions.  How did you acquire the pic, was it on your server or hotlinked etc.

I would do all exchanges by snail mail.

Thanks Greg.

You say you would approach it a little differently. How would you approach it? I've been reading and learning for the last two weeks or so and I'm not sure which way I want to take this.

At the moment I'm leaning towards a snail mail letter stating that at no time was this picture viewable through my website (which is the truth, it was on my server but you couldn't get to it through the pages). Then making them a good faith offer of $50.

From what I've read, I'd guess they would turn down the $50, but then at least if they do take me to court I can claim I tried to settle this.

Any opinions?

[Oscar Michelen]

Also other courts have upheld the method of registration so we need to see how this will ultimately shake out in appellate courts and maybe even the Supreme Court.