Masterfile $12K per Image Extortion Letter

[Matthew Chan]

Masterfail appears to have set a new cost per image record with a recent extortion letter we have attained.

They are seeking $12,000 per image for 4 images and $8,000 for the 5th image.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/104529865/Masterfile-12K-per-image-Settlement-Demand-Letter

Let the flaming begin!

[Mulligan]

Honest to God, you just have to sit and shake your head in wonder every time one of these new letters rises to the surface of the septic sank.

I hope the person who received this letter takes advantage of Oscar's letter program or Matthew's phone call.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

They have to do something to make up for the losses after their "win" in the Chaga case. 

[SoylentGreen]

lol.



S.G.

[Bekka]

These people really aren't playing with a full deck.  They ask for such unreasonable amounts that they force their victims to research, find this site, and thus join the fight agaisnt this type of business model.  I personally believe that if they would ask for a reasonable amount, most people would pay.  It is better to get several hundred smaller payments, then ask for these huge sums that will never get paid.

The amounts listed on the above posted letter are actually "laughable," especially since Masterfile did not come out smelling like a rose agains Chaga. Frankly, I believe Masterfile had some great amunition against Chaga, since this was there second time around using photos from them without permission.  But they sued for such outrageous amounts, that they lost all credibility.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

These people really aren't playing with a full deck.  They ask for such unreasonable amounts that they force their victims to research, find this site, and thus join the fight agaisnt this type of business model.  I personally believe that if they would ask for a reasonable amount, most people would pay.  It is better to get several hundred smaller payments, then ask for these huge sums that will never get paid.

The amounts listed on the above posted letter are actually "laughable," especially since Masterfile did not come out smelling like a rose agains Chaga. Frankly, I believe Masterfile had some great amunition against Chaga, since this was there second time around using photos from them without permission.  But they sued for such outrageous amounts, that they lost all credibility.

well we never accused the trolls of being smart!! Nice to see you back Bekka!

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Also worth noting and discussing with this new letter is the "Artist Agreement" that comes with it..

http://copyright-trolls.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Redacted-Artist-Agreement-David-Muir.pdf

a couple of quick observations in regards to both the demand letter, the "agreement" and one of the images in the letter:

1. You may verify Masterfile's ownership by visiting www.masterfile.com - yup thats solid proof that they own the image, and the image has been registered PROPERLY

In case anyone is interested I OWN THE MOON!!,  YES I do!! I have a picture of it on my website, anybody that looks at the moon should give me money, better yet, they should give me all of their money! NOW!

2. second image in question "Hand Holding Compass" just happens to be listed on this site as well http://www.visualphotos.com/image/1x7463474/hand_holding_compass

The above site does mention masterfile, and that the image is Rights Managed, but is it not "odd" that the image is watermarked with "visualphotos.com???


Artists Agreement  Dated April 1, 2003 -

section 16.1 states the agreement will remain in force for a term of 3 years, and be automatically renewed for 1 year terms, until such time as Masterfile ot Artist gives written notice of termination...

It's awfully nice of MF to supply these agreements, however it seems to me that they should also supply solid proof that the contract was never terminated by themselves or the artist. So once again providing this document means nothing, nada, zilch!

[Moe Hacken]

These "retroactive licensing fees" are totally absurd. You could hire a professional photographer, all the models, rent all the costumes, props, and sets and shoot this group of images for half the money.

I'd like to see BasterdFile explain exactly how they reach these astronomical figures for their "licensing fees."

[SoylentGreen]

Good postings.

I've noticed that Visualphotos has over 10,000 rights-managed photos owned by Masterfile:
http://www.visualphotos.com/artist/1x126/masterfile
Interestingly, there are a lot of bare-asses on there, and a woman slathered in chocolate...

It appears that Visualphotos are an official distribution channel for rights-managed content held by major stock image companies in other parts of the world.
Including, "Masterfile, Photolibrary, age fotostock, Digital Vision and Image Source" and "Corbis".
http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/visual-photos-expands-to-russia


---

I've had some opportunity to quickly look over one of the Masterfile agreements that Matt has kindly posted in another thread.
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/masterfile-artist-agreements/
I found the following passage in the Masterfile/SIE SRL contract to be of interest:

4.1 During the term of this Agreement, Company grants Masterfile an exclusive license of all rights (including copyright) in and to the Accepted Images, with the right to license on such terms as Masterfile may determine, such license to be effective throughout the Territory.

4.1.1 Masterfile recognizes that Company and/or Artist will continue to market and license Accepted Images in the International Licensee Territory and any income derived from such licenses or sales will be the sole property of Artist and Company.

It appears that "Territory" refers to the United States and Canada.  "International Licensee Territory" refers to the rest of the world.

In this case, it seems that MF controls exclusive rights in the US and Canada, while SIE is free to do as it pleases in the rest of the world.
This illustrates how complex such contracts can be, and how it's difficult to tell who owns what and where.

S.G.

[scraggy]

S.G. I agree that that the above passages are more than interesting! I believe they raise the question as to whether MasterFile has the right to sue for copyright infringement AT ALL!

4.1 During the term of this Agreement, Company grants Masterfile an exclusive license of all rights (including copyright) in and to the Accepted Images, with the right to license on such terms as Masterfile may determine, such license to be effective throughout the Territory.

4.1.1 Masterfile recognizes that Company and/or Artist will continue to market and license Accepted Images in the International Licensee Territory and any income derived from such licenses or sales will be the sole property of Artist and Company.

I am not a lawyer, so the following is only my non-legal opinion.

An exclusive license must be precisely that – EXCLUSIVE! There cannot be any overlap between various “exclusive” licenses. If there were, the license would no longer be exclusive.

For example, the rights to broadcast soccer games from England’s premier league are divided territorially. FOX has the exclusive broadcast rights in USA. The holders of the broadcast rights in the UK (SKY, I believe) cannot broadcast the games in the USA. The territorial division of rights can be created, monitored and enforced. If you violate copyright in the USA, FOX will sue you!

Regarding the display of images on the Internet, I cannot see how any territorial exclusivity could be created or enforced. Once an image appears on the Internet (from whatever country or server), it is simultaneously viewed all around the globe. The Internet is one territory.

For arguments sake, let’s say that SIE SRL signed similar agreements with Masterfile type companies in Russia, France and Australia. I then upload an image from the SIE SRL collection to my web site, and violate someone’s copyright. I live in Israel. Which of the above companies has the exclusive right to sue me? The Russian, French or Australian company?  My image “appears” in all the above countries. Let’s say that my site is also in Russian, French and English. Can they all sue me?

I can see how territorial exclusivity could apply to the display of images outside of the Internet. If you for example licensed the use of an image for use on trains on the Russian Metro , then clearly the images wont be seen in London.

But I believe that only one company worldwide could have exclusive rights regarding the display of images on the World Wide Web, in the territory of cyberspace. My opinion is that no theoretical contract could create territorial exclusivity on the Internet. How therefore could Masterfile own an exclusive territorial license in the USA?

Ian

[SoylentGreen]

I've been expecting you, Mr Scraggy.
I thought as you did when I first read it.

However, disparate entities can have "exclusivity" in differing territories.
The concept of "exclusivity" in contractual agreements often differs from what we'd logically expect from the dictionary definition of "exclusivity".

When one thinks about it, "copyright" is quite territorial in its very nature.
One might register an image with the Copyright Office in the US, for example.
But, that wouldn't necessarily give one legal standing in another territory, such as Canada.

S.G.

[stinger]

@ SoylentGreen.  I am not sure if I understand what you are saying Soylent.  Are you approaching copyright from the territory of where the server is, that displays the image? 

To use your example, if you are the copyright holder registered in the U.S., but I am serving the image from Canada where no copyright is registered, and you are viewing it in the U.S., did I do anything wrong?

What if it is registered in 3 different countries, but not Canada from where I am serving it.  Is this legal or not?  If not, who sues me in Canada?

Or are we saying that the internet demands trans-national copyright laws?

[SoylentGreen]

These are very good questions.  Also, get ready for copyright trolling using these methods.  The uneducated will pay.

As to your question, the answer is "no, you've done nothing wrong".
The image is may well be copyrighted in the US as in your example.
But, it's not a "copyright infringement" to host the image in Canada, as US copyrights don't have jurisdiction in Canada.

I know what you're thinking...
...what if Masterfile has the right to license the image in Canada, but Getty has the right to license it in the US?
...and you've bought the image from Getty in the US, but now you're hosting it in Canada... what then?
I haven’t read any passages in law or seen any actual court cases that address this (please chime in if you have).
But, I’m of the opinion that a copyright troll/extortionist (Masterfile in this hypothetical situation) would call this an “infringement” on the basis that they “cannot find a valid license for the image in the name of the end user in question”.
I’m also of the opinion that nothing would ever come of this; so long as the end user possesses a valid license (from the artist or a retailer) to use the image, then that should be sufficient.
After all, the “world-wide web” IS world-wide, after all.

Having said all that, people are stupid to use rights-managed images.  They should choose royalty-free whenever possible.
The only time that rights-managed products are useful is when one needs an image to use as an exclusive trademark, or for exclusive branding.

Television and radio adhere to much stricter conventions in this regard, but it’s expected and understood to be the convention.
Additionally, “file-sharing” infringements appear to have taken on a world-wide scope, regardless of copyright, country, or local statutes.
People aren’t normally extradited from foreign lands to face trial in the US over major drug charges, or even murder.
But, when big money is involved, it’s an entirely different matter.
Don't expect this to happen in the case of stock images; the industry is shrinking.

S.G.

[scraggy]

Let me put it this way.

Let’s suppose that SIE S.R.L grants Masterfile an exclusive license ONLY in the USA (as seems to be the case in the above contract). Let’s then suppose that they grant 200 additional such licenses to 200 similar companies in additional territories/countries.

An American citizen then uploads one image from the above collection to the Internet, and it instantly appears on the screens of citizens in all 200 territories.

How many of the 200 worldwide companies has the right to sue ?

( Maybe Picscout could help them all retain local counsel at reduced rates! )

The answer is either 200, or none.

If it’s 200, then the display of images on Internet has to be divided territorially, and I don’t see any evidence of this.

If it’s zero ( because the Internet is not divided into exclusive territories ) , then Masterfile does not own the right to sue, even in the USA, regarding images in the above collection.

My opinion is that the answer is zero because the Internet is one indivisible territory, and only one company (such as Getty Images) can own a worldwide exclusive license to display an image.

Getty’s contract with contributors gives it such a license. See clause 1.1

http://www.aphotoeditor.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/2011-contributor-agreement-v.4.0-d-sample-english.pdf

You grant Getty Images a worldwide, exclusive right to market and sublicense the right to copy, reproduce, display, transmit, broadcast, modify, alter, create derivative works of and publish the whole or part of any Content (as defined below) that you submit to Getty Images

Incidentally, I just took a look at the four Masterfile contracts listed above. The above quoted sentences regarding territorial exclusivity only appeared in the SIE S.R.L – photo contract.

In the other 3 contracts, the wording was completely different, and gave Masterfile a worldwide exclusive license!

See for example clause 3.1 of the David Muir agreement

During the term of this agreement, Artist grants Masterfile an exclusive license of all rights (including copyright) in and to the Accepted Images, with the right to sublicense on such terms as Masterfile may determine, such license to be effective throughout the world

Ian

[SoylentGreen]

I think that part of the problem is the semantics.  Anyone can sue for anything at any time.  That's a fact.
The concept of "no right to sue" is kind of an impractical concept.  We might say that Getty has "no right to sue", for example.
But, if Getty disagrees with us, they can file a lawsuit and have a go at it in the court anyway.  So much for "no right to sue".

Additionally, while Getty can claim a "worldwide license", actual "lawsuits" always come down to "copyright registrations", which are only country-wide.
But, I do agree that the chances are close to zero.  Not because they "have no right to sue", but rather, that they cannot win.

S.G.