Masterfile Lawsuits Filed

[laveerne]

Here is a link to Justia.com showing 85 lawsuits that have been filed October 24, 2004 through June 20, 2011.  It looks as if they are starting to file quite frequently.  I would love to know how these suits turned out.  Maybe Oscar can find out about a couple if he has access to Pacer.

http://dockets.justia.com/search?q=Masterfile+Corporation

Interestingly, if you search Getty Images, they seem to be the defendant in a few cases.

[Helpi]

Why not look on Pacer yourself ? It's not expensive.

And like Bono I don't think you'll find what you're looking for. Almost all cases are settled and the terms of settlement are generally not made public.

[SoylentGreen]

It's easy to check on Canadian info (where masterfile's from).
Most of the cases are dropped and nothing happens.

S.G.

[SoylentGreen]

I've been in the business for a while, and I dislike the "demand letter" activity of MF and Getty equally.

It's just a lot easier to follow the Canadian lawsuits because much more is freely available.
MF's quite active in Canada, however Getty hasn't filed anything since '08.

My impression is that MF is pursuing both the US and Canadian markets rather equally.
That's just my opinion.

S.G.

[DontMessWithTexas]

Don't pay a penny. Even if they take you to court, so what. Instead of sending them $1500, you will pay $3000 with lawyer fees etc.. They send thousands of letters per year. Make them fight for it. Don't just let some Canadian greedy opportunist mob bully you! Remember to complain to the Attorney General in your State. If most Americans weren't wimps they would not be in business for much longer. The world wont end if you get sued either, you will just pay a bit more. The most they got was $5000 including legal fees from the Bicycle company. They had 4-5 images.

You should never pay them anything! Make $200-$300 offer per image.

[Katerina]

DontMessWith Texas,
what was your situation? Did you offer them $200-300?

[Oscar Michelen]

Without saying which ones, I have represented several of the individuals on that list. So atty-client privilege prevents me from talking about their individual cases. Generally most MF cases filed end up with a default judgment against the defendant who has decided not to fight the case in court and just let a judgment be entered against them. 

[Katerina]

Then, how to avoid the default judgement? let's  say, if a person is not able to hire an attorney, and he/she have no any idea how to fight the case, if he/she doesn't know anything about court procedures? There are so many factors that courts would consider, and it is really hard to build the defense without an attorney.
This question is interesting for me, I am new here in the country, and I am not ashamed to ask if I don't know smth. I say - hope for the best, but be ready for the worst.

[SoylentGreen]

Generally speaking, a default judgment can occur at the request of a plaintiff if a defendant has been sued, the defendant has been served, and the defendant doesn't file a defence within the specified period.
In addition, default judgment can occur at the request of a plaintiff in the event that the defendant has been served a court summons, but doesn't appear for a scheduled court date.

A default judgment isn't "automatically" granted.  This is decided by a judge.  But, it's usually granted when a defendant doesn't comply.

Yes, many plaintiffs such as MF know that the average person isn't knowledgeable in legal matters and/or doesn't have the resources to hire an attorney.
This is part of their tactics; it's often easier for some to just pay to make the whole mess go away.

Some people represent themselves in these cases.  I'm not sure how effective it is.

It's not really a good idea for defendants to risk a default judgment. 

Again, I'm not an attorney.  But, this is how I've seen things go in cases that I've followed online.

S.G.

[Katerina]

Thanks, SG! You are helpful, as usual

[Matthew Chan]

Regarding Getty Images not filing any cases since 2008, there were at least two big events that might have something to do with it.

1. Getty Images ceased being a public company and went private.  The were bought out by a private investment group. The private management group might have had some influence on that.

2.  ELI came into existence and Oscar singularly became the "de facto" lead attorney on all things related to stock photo extortion letters. Further, Oscar is not operating traditionally as most law firms do in the representation of his clients with the extortion letters. Additionally, he has the tremendous advantage of community leverage behind him.  If Getty Images were to directly face-off against Oscar and Oscar managed to score even one victory, it would be devastating for Getty Images from a PR point of view and set a dangerous precedent against GI.

Without giving anything specific away, let's just say if Oscar was forced or dragged into a legal fight on behalf of one of his clients, Oscar would not be a one-man show.  There is something very unpleasant going up against a lawyer who has non-traditional resources at his disposal.  It is even more risky going up against an attorney who "isn't just in it for the money".

Oscar is very respectful and professional but I would hate to go against him on a matter he is truly passionate about. For Getty Images and its employees, they fight only for the money. But push comes to shove, none of them would lay their name, reputation, or money over the fight whereas their opponents would.

Right now, we can all gripe and complain about Getty Images, but they have not yet crossed the line as Righthaven has with their crazy lawsuits.  You can be sure if Getty Images ever pulls the trigger and files a lawsuit against a small-time blogger, hobbyist, mom-and-pop, or some other smaller interest, this forum and its social network will light up like an exploding Christmas tree.

Matthew