Masterfile certainly claims to own the copyright outright
Clause 15 - "Masterfile is the assignee of copyright in the one Image identified in Exhibit A.
and in general:
Clause 13 "Masterfile is the assignee of copyright in the images it acquires
for its collection from photographers."
If they own the copyright, they do not need to add the photographer as a plaintiff.
However, I presume they would need extremely clear contracts showing that the photographer transferred his entire copyright to them!
It doesn't look like they have presented any such evidence.
Furthermore, the copyright registration of the image in question, doesn't in fact mention the image in question! It only refers to the photographer.
I think someone should contact the copyright office, and ask them what contracts were provided to them, allowing them to accept Masterfile's claim that the photographer has foregone his copyrights.
Even Getty doesn't ask photographers to give up their copyright. For Masterfile, the advantage is that they dont have to add the photographer as a plaintiff, but they still have to show that the transfer of copyright was valid. I think the defendant should try and invalidate the copyright registration.
On the other hand, if Masterfile specifically chose this photograph and photographer, maybe they have all the paperwork in order.
Clause 15 - "Masterfile is the assignee of copyright in the one Image identified in Exhibit A.
and in general:
Clause 13 "Masterfile is the assignee of copyright in the images it acquires
for its collection from photographers."
If they own the copyright, they do not need to add the photographer as a plaintiff.
However, I presume they would need extremely clear contracts showing that the photographer transferred his entire copyright to them!
It doesn't look like they have presented any such evidence.
Furthermore, the copyright registration of the image in question, doesn't in fact mention the image in question! It only refers to the photographer.
I think someone should contact the copyright office, and ask them what contracts were provided to them, allowing them to accept Masterfile's claim that the photographer has foregone his copyrights.
Even Getty doesn't ask photographers to give up their copyright. For Masterfile, the advantage is that they dont have to add the photographer as a plaintiff, but they still have to show that the transfer of copyright was valid. I think the defendant should try and invalidate the copyright registration.
On the other hand, if Masterfile specifically chose this photograph and photographer, maybe they have all the paperwork in order.