Click Official ELI Links
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support | ELI Legal Representation Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.

Author Topic: Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits  (Read 31175 times)

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Admin-on-Hiatus"
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2763
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
Re: Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits
« Reply #15 on: January 14, 2012, 10:18:39 PM »
Here you go Boys & Girls. Let the dissection begin.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/78285545/Masterfile-vs-Walter-Wethered-Complaint-Exhibits

It is over 1 image but it appears to be against a successful business practice, not a non-profit, startup, or hobbyist. Also, the image in question is part of a collection which mitigates any possible awards.  Masterfile has an extensive history of eventually forcing settlements once the complaint is filed.

On a different note, the name "Masterfile" itself does not convey stock images. It conveys expertise in "filing" presumably filing copyrights and filing lawsuits. I am beginning to think Masterfile did not start out as a stock photo company. In fact, it has been speculated that the majority of Masterfile's revenues does not come from image sales at all. It might be a "front" to the extortion letter / shakedown letter business.
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, or epithets. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

Jerry Witt (mcfilms)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
    • Motion City
Re: Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits
« Reply #16 on: January 14, 2012, 10:43:55 PM »
Wait, it's over one image and it was registered in a collection? And they are asking for $30,000? They'll be lucky to get $300. And if the defendant has already offered them that, the judge can then have MF pay the defendant's legal fees.

MF appears to be on the crazytown express. I predict this will get settled.
Although I may be a super-genius, I am not a lawyer. So take my scribblings for what they are worth and get a real lawyer for real legal advice. But if you want media and design advice, please visit Motion City at http://motioncity.com.

dieselfish

  • Guest
Re: Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits
« Reply #17 on: January 14, 2012, 10:48:06 PM »
Here is the same image offered by another company. In fact this second company claims copyright over the image.

http://www.visualphotos.com/image/1x4185767/portrait_of_cat_and_dog

It's interesting though that this company uses the same catalog number as MF and one can't directly purchase the image without contacting them. I wonder if this site "visualphotos" acts as a broker for, or has an agreement to sell MF images.

Jerry Witt (mcfilms)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
    • Motion City
Re: Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits
« Reply #18 on: January 14, 2012, 10:50:13 PM »
I was thinking the same DF. I also see it is "rights managed." I do wonder what it would cost to license from them for a couple of years.
Although I may be a super-genius, I am not a lawyer. So take my scribblings for what they are worth and get a real lawyer for real legal advice. But if you want media and design advice, please visit Motion City at http://motioncity.com.

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Admin-on-Hiatus"
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2763
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
Re: Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits
« Reply #19 on: January 14, 2012, 10:58:12 PM »
I don't think they are crazy. It is a calculated risk which will likely net them a few bucks. If nothing else, it will send a message to everyone that they will file suit on a single image.  Also, most defendants don't have to stomach to see it through. Hence, defendants will either settle or default.

MF appears to be on the crazytown express. I predict this will get settled.
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, or epithets. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

Bekka

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 88
    • View Profile
Re: Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits
« Reply #20 on: January 14, 2012, 10:59:00 PM »
Here they have a span of 3417 numbers for images registered.  The artists list is almost identical to the 1999 registration list I have.  I wonder how many of those image numbers have no image attached to them either.  Maybe I am missing something here....or just don't understand the registration process.

Jerry Witt (mcfilms)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
    • Motion City
Re: Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits
« Reply #21 on: January 14, 2012, 11:00:02 PM »
FWIW, VisualPhotos.com is registered in Tel Aviv, Israel.
Although I may be a super-genius, I am not a lawyer. So take my scribblings for what they are worth and get a real lawyer for real legal advice. But if you want media and design advice, please visit Motion City at http://motioncity.com.

Jerry Witt (mcfilms)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
    • Motion City
Re: Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits
« Reply #22 on: January 14, 2012, 11:08:01 PM »
...
So, they must send this as proof of registration for all their cases.  It is a compilation and if I am reading it right, contains 33,000 images registered at one time. 
...

Here they have a span of 3417 numbers for images registered.  The artists list is almost identical to the 1999 registration list I have.  I wonder how many of those image numbers have no image attached to them either.  Maybe I am missing something here....or just don't understand the registration process.

Maybe they don't use consecutive numbers? So number starting with "3" are animals and "4" are vehicles?


Oh I see what you are saying Bekka. Did they just HAPPEN to register exactly 33000 images, or do they register slots for 33000 images and send in a corrupt CD and fill in the images as needed?

Wow. That's an awfully big conspiracy. But like you said, How is it that they registered such a nice even number of images.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2012, 11:12:11 PM by mcfilms »
Although I may be a super-genius, I am not a lawyer. So take my scribblings for what they are worth and get a real lawyer for real legal advice. But if you want media and design advice, please visit Motion City at http://motioncity.com.

SoylentGreen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Re: Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits
« Reply #23 on: January 14, 2012, 11:29:19 PM »
I thought that MF had already sued over one or two images in the past?
Lawsuits haven't been profitable in my opinion; MF got a few big wins in the past but I don't think that they could ever collect anything.
However, a lawsuit over one image is certainly a great scare tactic, and they know that it will be discussed here at length.

If the image was registered in a collection with many other images, and this is a US case, then perhaps the precedent set by Muench v. Houghton Mifflin would help the defendant here.
Here it is as described by Oscar Michelen in Sept 2010:
 
"Last July, Judge Preska of the Eastern District of New York issued a decision in a case called Muench v. Houghton Mifflin that rocked the warehouses that sell digital images. In a nutshell, she basically stated that the way these companies register images, by compilation and as automated and updated databases does not provide registration over the individual images.  She also held that an opinion letter sent by the Copyright Office to a digital image trade association that authorized this mechanism of registration was wrong and in violation of the Copyright Act."

"Both of these positions, by the way, have been expiunded [sic], defended and explained, on this site and forum long before Judge Preska's decision.  So the decision was a huge vindication and a massive blow to Getty, Corbis and Masterfile."

I have no reason to believe that anything has changed.
This is certainly a solid defense, and I would look into using this defence as part of a summary dismissal to avoid a court hearing.
At the very least, this could be used as leverage in negotiations.
A court loss because of bulk registration of images (again) would be a huge blow to the industry.

S.G.


Bekka

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 88
    • View Profile
Re: Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits
« Reply #24 on: January 14, 2012, 11:47:20 PM »
Quote
Wow. That's an awfully big conspiracy. But like you said, How is it that they registered such a nice even number of images.

What I am saying is that they registered these numbers that supposedly had an image with them.  However, if you go to Masterfile's website and search for some of these numbers, there is nothing there.  It says your search did not find etc... try another search.  So what did they register?

SoylentGreen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Re: Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits
« Reply #25 on: January 14, 2012, 11:53:23 PM »
Bekka's made some good points here.
MF could claim that any one of these seemingly "empty" registrations could represent ANY IMAGE that they might have an infringement dispute over.
There's no way for anyone to determine otherwise unless they do some digging.  The average person would be fooled.
Mind you, this may not be happening.  It is something to consider, however.

S.G.


scraggy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits
« Reply #26 on: January 15, 2012, 08:20:46 AM »
In my non-legal opinion.......let’s start at the beginning! The moment Mr. George Contorakes took the photo in this case -  “Portrait of Cat and Dog”, he automatically became the legal copyright owner.

In order for Masterfile to register themselves as the copyright owners ( as they seem to have done), they would have to possess a written and signed agreement in which Mr. Contorakes transfers his entire copyright ownership in this specific image to them (not just an exclusive license as is the case with most Getty Images).

Where is this agreement? The lawsuit does not include it!

Yet in clause 4 of the “Certificate of Registration”, where it says TRANSFER, the explanation “copyright assigned contractually” appears. Would the copyright office not have to see this contract? It’s like granting me the ownership of a car simply because I claim that I have a contract with the previous owner at home!

If there is no written agreement between the photographer and Masterfile, the photographer remains the only person on earth who has the right for sue for copyright infringement.

Why not write to him and ask him what agreements he has with Masterfile? georgec@georgecontorakes.com

I was under the impression that photographers tended not give up their copyright ownership.

One additional point - Surely any registration of copyright ownership has to include the title of the work. After all, they are not copyright owners of ALL of Mr Contorakes's photos.

The attached copyright registration looks like a sham! Why did the copyright office accept it?

and what about the attached letter that starts with " DEAR REMITTER" ? Who is the remitter?
« Last Edit: January 15, 2012, 10:42:17 AM by scraggy »

lucia

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 767
    • View Profile
Re: Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits
« Reply #27 on: January 15, 2012, 11:36:50 AM »
I was under the impression that photographers tended not give up their copyright ownership.
Am I mistaken on this: If Masterfile rather than Conteras owns the copyright, then after they get ownership they would no longer have to pay Conteras any fee. In contrast, if Masterfile has an license (or otherwise), they would pay Conteras, who  owns the copyright. 

Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)

  • ELI Defense Team Member
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
    • ExtortionLetterInfo
Re: Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits
« Reply #28 on: January 15, 2012, 12:23:29 PM »
You're both correct, when a photographer sells and releases the copyright, they can no longer profit from it, that's why they hardly ever release copyright as a whole. Rather they sell licenses allowing the buyer to only use the images in a way that is stated in the contract. If I were to completely sell/release an image to MF, then yes they would not have to pay me anymore.
Most questions have already been addressed in the forums, get yourself educated before making decisions.

Any advice is strictly that, and anything I may state is based on my opinions, and observations.
Robert Krausankas

I have a few friends around here..

SoylentGreen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Re: Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits
« Reply #29 on: January 15, 2012, 12:39:52 PM »
A personal opinion here.
I would imagine that they (Getty for example) could pay the artist a large one-time payment for outright "ownership".
For example, that photo of the starving baby with the vulture apparently lying in wait has been purchased by Getty outright.
Additionally, I see no reason that practically any arrangement couldn't be drafted between the artist and company.
For example, "artist signs over ownership for ten years, and we pay x monthly fees plus y percentage on monthly sales".
S.G.


 

Official ELI Help Options
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support Call | ELI Defense Letter Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.