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 31174 times)

scraggy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits
« Reply #30 on: January 15, 2012, 12:53:20 PM »
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.

SoylentGreen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Re: Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits
« Reply #31 on: January 15, 2012, 02:38:43 PM »
Great discussion as usual.

As per scraggys' points above.

Clauses 13 and 15 state that MF is the assignee of copyright.
However, that would mean that the original artist has copyrighted the image, then assigned the copyright to MF under contract.
In addition, MF has apparently copyrighted it AGAIN as part of a collection.
This causes quite a confusion as to legal standing of ownership.

Just another shit-tier lawsuit from MF.

S.G.



scraggy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits
« Reply #32 on: January 16, 2012, 03:26:15 PM »
Is anyone going to contact the defendant and advise him to read this thread? The case is practically over and yet he may not even have received his copy yet!

Soylent Green mentioned Muench Photography Inc. v. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt etc. This is THE case that puts an end to the sham of bulk registration, and offers the defendant his best argument.

Here is an excellent analysis on the site of the "Professional Photographers of America".

http://www.ppa.com/ppa-today-blog/copyright-alert/corbis-responds-to-bulk-regist.php

"For any stock photographer who submitted work to Corbis (or anyone else who took ownership of the copyright "solely for the purpose of copyright registration"), the ruling invalidates the registration made on their behalf in the name of the third party."
« Last Edit: January 16, 2012, 03:34:49 PM by scraggy »

Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)

  • ELI Defense Team Member
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
    • ExtortionLetterInfo
Re: Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits
« Reply #33 on: January 16, 2012, 03:35:50 PM »
The defendant is out of the country until this Thursday, I already have a message into him..
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..

scraggy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits
« Reply #34 on: January 16, 2012, 03:45:01 PM »
How ironic! The whole world ( literally ) is analyzing his case, and he isn't yet aware of its existence! The Internet at its best! Don't you just love it!

lucia

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 767
    • View Profile
Re: Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits
« Reply #35 on: January 16, 2012, 03:48:05 PM »

http://www.ppa.com/ppa-today-blog/copyright-alert/corbis-responds-to-bulk-regist.php

"For any stock photographer who submitted work to Corbis (or anyone else who took ownership of the copyright "solely for the purpose of copyright registration"), the ruling invalidates the registration made on their behalf in the name of the third party."

But I think the image of the cat and dog might still be registered because the creator (i.e. photographer)'s name was included:
Quote
If you have contributed images to any stock agency to be registered on your behalf, please be aware those images are only registered as compiled works if your name as the creator was omitted from the registration application. Therefore, based on the court's ruling, you cannot rely on images registered in this manner to also be registered to you as an individual copyright owner.

Did Corbis not list the names of the photographers? I admit to not knowing the details and not being up on copyright. Is the issue whether or not the creators of the individual images got named important, and does the naming in the attachments Masterfile has count?

Clarification would be welcome.

scraggy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits
« Reply #36 on: January 16, 2012, 04:06:56 PM »
I found a wonderful discussion of the issue here
http://thecopyrightzone.com/?p=362

It seems that the in genuine nature of mass registration will be its downfall.

The law is designed to benefit individual bone fide copyright holders, not cynical stock agencies.

lucia

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 767
    • View Profile
Re: Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits
« Reply #37 on: January 16, 2012, 04:57:50 PM »
The requirements appear to be here:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#409

Quote
(1) the name and address of the copyright claimant;
(2) in the case of a work other than an anonymous or pseudonymous work, the name and nationality or domicile of the author or authors, and, if one or more of the authors is dead, the dates of their deaths;

Exhibit B seems to be the application and lists Masterfile as claimant for the copyright of the collection.  The name and address are under point "4" on the form.  Under 8 they list themselves as "owner of exclusive right".

Then, scrolling down, we get to B which is a list of authors. Names are given; a check mark indicating whether the work is for hire was given, but nationality and addresses are not given.  No dates of death are listed, but that might not matter as George Contorakes appears to be alive and kicking.

Reading the list of authors, I imagine there is a good reason for copyright law requiring name, and nationality and domicile. Without these things if two "Bob Anderson"s appeared, how would you decide which was the copyright claimant? What about "Steve Fitzpatrick" or "Bob Foster". Those are very common names.

I can see where a judge who takes the wording of the law literally would decide that the individual works are not registered by this action.

Has the judge's ruling in Corbis been appealed? If yes, what happened?

Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)

  • ELI Defense Team Member
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
    • ExtortionLetterInfo
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..

lucia

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 767
    • View Profile
Re: Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits
« Reply #39 on: January 16, 2012, 07:29:05 PM »
He does take splendid photos! 

Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)

  • ELI Defense Team Member
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
    • ExtortionLetterInfo
Re: Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits
« Reply #40 on: January 16, 2012, 07:47:54 PM »
He does take splendid photos!

And I find it hard to believe that a photographer of this caliber would release any copyrights to the likes of Masterfile, Getty Images, or any other stock agency. It's well known that the % one makes with these companies is mere pennies, and hardly worth the hassle.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2012, 08:32:36 PM by buddhapi »
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..

Bekka

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 88
    • View Profile
Re: Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits
« Reply #41 on: January 16, 2012, 08:26:15 PM »
I have a copy of Masterfile's contract with a photographer that I requested when I got my letter.  The contract is type dated June 1, 1999, but is not dated beside the written signatures.  They have witnesses, but no date by the witness names as well.  I will give Masterfile credit for at least having signatures on their contracts.  The contract states that the copyright stays with the photographer.  However, the contract states that under certain conditions that copyright assignment to Masterfile will take place.  Those conditions are for the purpose of registering the images and the pursuit of collecting damages.

On the subject of compilation filing with the US Copyright office, you would think that whoever is in charge would step in and correct this problem.  Just look at the table of fees per title, up to 450 is around $1305.00 in fees.  One receipt I saw while perusing the Masterfile lawsuits showed they paid only $350.00 for several compilation CD's.  One way to raise money for the Federal Government would be to start enforcing the copyright registration laws!

SoylentGreen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Re: Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits
« Reply #42 on: January 16, 2012, 11:07:08 PM »
Just a comment on Bekka's info (which is interesting, BTW).
I haven't seen the documents that she spoke of, however, I don't think that a contractual agreement wherein the assignment kicks in only under certain conditions would be valid.
In addition, I believe that a court would be most interested in who owned the content at the actual time of infringement, not who it was assigned to after an infringement was detected.

S.G.


scraggy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits
« Reply #43 on: January 17, 2012, 01:30:59 AM »
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#409

Quote
The application for copyright registration shall be made on a form prescribed by the Register of Copyrights and shall include —

(6) the title of the work, together with any previous or alternative titles under which the work can be identified;

In the mass registration, there are no titles. If a photographer has 10,000 images, some of which are registered, some of which are not, or some are registered to different owners, how can anyone know which specific images belong to whom, and which images are registered and which are not?

and

http://www.asmp.org/pdfs/guides/primer.pdf

Quote
B. Can you submit the work of other photographers on your registration, if you own the
copyright to their images? No, you cannot. All the photographs registered in the group must be the
work of one photographer.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2012, 01:36:28 AM by scraggy »

SoylentGreen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Re: Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits
« Reply #44 on: January 17, 2012, 11:27:11 AM »

Has the judge's ruling in Corbis been appealed? If yes, what happened?

---

Did Corbis not list the names of the photographers? I admit to not knowing the details and not being up on copyright. Is the issue whether or not the creators of the individual images got named important, and does the naming in the attachments Masterfile has count?

Clarification would be welcome.


A big flaw in the Corbis case was that the names of the authors weren't listed.

Some amicus briefs (maybe its briefs amicus?) were filed in an attempt to overturn the decision, however these were unsuccessful.

Mr Michelen had mentioned that if an appeal was filed, it would be in the Second Circuit.
I couldn't find any references to an appeal of this case.

Apparently, there have been two other cases dismissed on a similar basis (bulk registrations).
I also think that in Bernina vs Imageline/Riddick, the images being registered in bulk also contributed to Riddick's lack of standing.

There was some fairly good commentary on the Corbis/Muench/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt just over a year ago.
It's worth visiting.

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.