ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: Bekka on January 14, 2012, 05:31:12 PM
-
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/idaho/iddce/1:2012cv00012/29042/
I hope these people fight. It looks like this might be a veternian clinic.
-
I'll go attempt to get the rest of the files from PACER
-
Here is the main complaint, this suit is over 1 image that Masterfile claims to own, I've uploaded it here until we can get it on the scribd account..
http://www.palmbeachdns.com/1-main.pdf
the image in question:
http://image1.masterfile.com/em_w/00/07/25/700-00072503w.jpg
The attorney's presenting the case: http://www.hawleytroxell.com/people/bradlee-r-frazer/
http://www.btlaw.com/felicia-j-boyd/
http://www.hawleytroxell.com/people/ryan-t-mcfarland/
At least they appear to have some experience, unlike the Hawaiian Art Networks stable of lawyers.
-
Thanks for doing that. So much for not suing over 1 image....
-
This may very well be a first for them, possibly sending a message to keep the fear factor in tact. I'd be willing to bet they have every single duck in a row, and are really counting on winning, to lose over 1 image would be hurtful..
-
It looks like either someone from MF is paying attention here OR you cannot link directly to the image. Because I got an error trying to click on the image link. Interesting.
Anyway the full image is on there page at: http://www.masterfile.com/em/search/#keyword=700-00072503w.jpg
-
http://www.iniplaw.org/2010/07/masterfile-sues-stein-dba-ourd.html
I was reading the info from this case and the registration exhibit is identical to the one they sent me. 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. They also sent me their agreement with the photographer, which they left 5 pages out of a 17 page contract. It is a 3 year contract that was dated (typed on first page) not dated by the signatures, that renews thereafter for 1 year increments unless a 90 written day notice is given by either party. I am not sure if this constitutes an "evergreen contract" or not, or if it is legal in some states here in the US.
-
hmmm intersting, I can pull up the link, maybe MF has you blocked mc! :D
someone needs to refresh my memeory, wasn't there an issue with a compilation with MF in the past?
If the contract renews for 1 yr increments, unless a 90 day written is given, who's to say that this photographer didn't submit said written notice, and MF is simply leaving this out of the equation. If I were the defendant I would be getting the artist involved to testify whether or not this contract is still in effect..
I also can't help but wonder why they chose this recipient, among all of the others...was it the luck of the draw, or maybe he said /did something to really piss them off??
-
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
-
well isn't that interesting...I wonder if this guy is going to fight this.. I'm hesitant of even thinking of reaching out to him, as I already tried that with Aloha Plastic surgery, and we see where that went or is going..
-
I also can't help but wonder why they chose this recipient, among all of the others...was it the luck of the draw, or maybe he said /did something to really piss them off??
Funny, I was just thinking about this. It seems to me they from the cases I have studied thanks to Matt, you and some other posts on the internet, that Masterfile looks for cases that they can win by default or they have an inkling into who they believe will settle once court papers are filed. I don't recall seeing any that went to court where the defendant pleaded their case. Maybe they feel since this guy is a vet that he will not want to take time off to deal with this and give them what they want. Frankly I hope he does. I hope he gets a really great attorney and starts to shoot holes in these cases. I believe that the stock photo industry should have to register each image seperately and pay a fee for each one. They certainly charge money for each individual image, they sue for monies for each individual image (although precedent states one infringement if in compilation). They get by with shortcuts, but yet sock it to the "innocent infringer" for big bucks.
-
I have a question for the community here. Masterfile shows on their registration paperwork images 700-00001 thru 700-00033000 to be registered. Now I am in a busines that involves weights and measures, so when someone gives me a whole number figure, I am suspect. So I got to thinking about this and went to Masterfile's site. I started doing random searches via these numbers and lo and behold there are numerous image numbers in the above sequence that have no images attached to them. So, here is my question, what keeps a photostock company from registering a block of images numbers knowing full well that they do not have images matching some of those numbers on the CD or media submitted to the copyright office, and then as new images are acquired, assign one of those numbers that have already been certified thus leading one to believe it was done years ago as opposed to a short time ago? I find it hard to believe in these compilation filings that the copyright clerks verify each and everyone of them....33000 is a lot of images at one time. Sounds like a shortcut or loophole to be exploited in my opinion. I have even read on here, where some tried to find the image in question and could not at the copyright office, or the disk was corrupt. Maybe the disk was corrupt to begin with........just saying!
-
well isn't that interesting...I wonder if this guy is going to fight this.. I'm hesitant of even thinking of reaching out to him, as I already tried that with Aloha Plastic surgery, and we see where that went or is going..
I think this is his contact page. No email:
http://www.ewinganimalhospital.com/page4.html (http://www.ewinganimalhospital.com/page4.html)
Looks like you could phone and ask.
-
well isn't that interesting...I wonder if this guy is going to fight this.. I'm hesitant of even thinking of reaching out to him, as I already tried that with Aloha Plastic surgery, and we see where that went or is going..
I think this is his contact page. No email:
http://www.ewinganimalhospital.com/page4.html (http://www.ewinganimalhospital.com/page4.html)
Looks like you could phone and ask.
buddhapi, Aloha Plastic Surgery had a choice and the fact that you reached out is wonderful. The Vet should at least be as best informed as possible and the rest is up to him.
-
Thanks for doing that. So much for not suing over 1 image....
This may very well be a first for them, possibly sending a message to keep the fear factor in tact. I'd be willing to bet they have every single duck in a row, and are really counting on winning, to lose over 1 image would be hurtful..
Actually, though this is technically only one image, the same image was displaid on two (2) different websites: www.northwestanimal.com and www.ewinganimalhospital.com. Probably helps to explain why MF chose this one. Bet the original demand letter was for a hefty sum.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
FWIW, VisualPhotos.com is registered in Tel Aviv, Israel.
-
...
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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? [email protected]
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
The defendant is out of the country until this Thursday, I already have a message into him..
-
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!
-
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:
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.
-
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.
-
The requirements appear to be here:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#409 (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#409)
(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?
-
Yes he is alive and kicking..
http://www.georgecontorakes.com/
http://blog.georgecontorakes.com/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/miamicorporatephotography
-
He does take splendid photos!
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#409
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
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.
-
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.
-
Masterfile is wasting no time this year. They just filed another lawsuit yesterday against Global Services Worldwide. However, it doesn't show up as IP, it shows "other" under type of suit.
http://dockets.justia.com/search?q=Masterfile+Corporation
-
There is a very good chance that it is a copyright case regardless of what justia may label. The reason why I say this is simply because I went bug-eyed downloading and eye-balling every Masterfile complaint and answer a week ago. They were all copyright infringement cases even though justia lists them as "blank".
Masterfile is wasting no time this year. They just filed another lawsuit yesterday against Global Services Worldwide. However, it doesn't show up as IP, it shows "other" under type of suit.
http://dockets.justia.com/search?q=Masterfile+Corporation
-
This thread is taking a life of its own which is nice. The information discovered in this thread of discussion will be incorporated into the Masterfile Analysis project I announced in this thread:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/analyzing-masterfile%27s-lawsuit-history/msg4605/#msg4605
So, keep going in your research, digging, and reporting. As you guys focus on current Masterfile lawsuits, feel free to incorporate any other Masterfile news you happen to find along the way.
-
I attempted to pull up the complaint with Pacer for this latest suit, I could find the actual complaint, but did learn it is a copyright case and it appears to be over 1 image...will get back in there later and see if I do a better job, without racking up my invoice...
-
The defendant is out of the country until this Thursday, I already have a message into him..
Just a quick update to this:
I have spoken to Dr. Wetherman from the animal hospital, at this point as far as he knows the case has been dropped, however he was out of the country on the date the suit was filed. Perhaps he hasn't yet been served the papers.
He purchased a template thru Template Monster, and basically dropped it back in their lap. he did state that he had not heard from TM since. He is aware of the forum and that we have this thread going on, and he will be contacting TM's legal dept to get an update.
I know TM settled with Getty Images, but I can't say for sure if they had a suit with MF. I have also heard several times that TM will not step up to the plate, even tho they settled with Getty. I'm curious as if to whether TM just completely blew this off leaving the end user hanging, and also if this was indeed dropped. Hopefully the Dr. will visit us and bring us up to speed..as he was a little taken aback when I told him the date that the suit was filed..he was completely under the impression, that this was a done deal and no longer an issue.
-
I find it rather surprising that MF would file suit against Dr. Wetherman considering he can prove "innocent infringement" based on his purchase from TM. What are they thinking here? Default judgement? Pressuring him into paying because they filed a lawsuit? It seems to me that this case could blow up in MF's face if Dr. Wetherman decides to see this through or am I missing something here?
-
The missing item, is if TM ever addresses the issue to begin with. The Dr. left it in their hands. As we already know these stock company's like to go after the end user/domain owner. So if TM ignored it, masterfile will still persue it...and yes if he has proof from TM as in a reciept and emails this could be problematic..
-
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/idaho/iddce/1:2012cv00012/29042/
I hope these people fight. It looks like this might be a veternian clinic.
Sorry to report..another has fallen victim to Masterfile as this case was dismissed with prejudice...
-
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/idaho/iddce/1:2012cv00012/29042/
I hope these people fight. It looks like this might be a veternian clinic.
Sorry to report..another has fallen victim to Masterfile as this case was dismissed with prejudice...
Lucy please splain? lol What does this mean?
"If the case ends with prejudice, the effect on the defendant (for the purpose of punishment) is the equivalent to a finding of not guilty and they cannot be retried."
Does this mean the Vetrinarian was found "not guilty and cannot be retried"? I clicked on the link budd but I could not see any info without having a Pacer account.
-
Means one of 2 things...
Template monster took care of it and MF dropped it, or the vet settled out of court and MF dropped it, unfortunately the paperwork does not state which. I had assumed ( which is bad on my part) that they just settled, I had to go back and refresh my memory, as I forgot template monster was involved..
you should get the recap add on for firefox, it will allow you to see items from pacer that have been downloaded already, and you won't have to pay...I'm dangerous when I get into pacer! :o
-
Hi Buddahpi,
Earlier in this thread you mentioned you had spoken with Dr. Wetherman from the animal hospital. Is there any chance you can contact him again. He may be limited in what he can tell due to any settlement. But I would consider Template Monster stepping in on his behalf a "win" whereas him having to pay anything to the MF-er team a "loss."
-
I would consider that a win as well< I'll try to contact him this coming week...
-
I left a message, no word back as of yet, I'm not holding my breathe..
-
Another case of someone rolling over to masterfile's demands.
5/16/2012:
NOTICE OF DISMISSAL filed by Plaintiff Masterfile Corporation pursuant to FRCP 41a(1) Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice as to Pindar Enterprises Import and Export LLC. (Weinberg, Steven) (Entered: 05/16/2012)
Masterfile is wasting no time this year. They just filed another lawsuit yesterday against Global Services Worldwide. However, it doesn't show up as IP, it shows "other" under type of suit.
http://dockets.justia.com/search?q=Masterfile+Corporation
-
Thanks for doing that. So much for not suing over 1 image....
This is true, this is no longer the best rule of thumb. I think it's more about the amount of the claim than the number of images or infringements. Like Matthew commented on another thread, it's all about risk analysis. They're shooting for $30,000 in this case, so the fact that it's one image doesn't change the economics outlook for Masterfile's legal henchmen.
I don't think they'd go to court for less than a certain amount to make it "worth their while". There are also non-monetary considerations, such as the possibilities of loss of face, damage to their brand, financial blowback and setting bad precedents for their "business models". They probably go in knowing fully well it's likely to end up in a settlement that pays them enough to keep their current posturing and continue with the letter program.
They are definitely sending a statement about the former "never-for-one-image" rule. Like Matthew says, they can take people to court anytime they want and they want us to know that. However, as Matthew also says, the question is whether they can make it stick.
-
I think it is clear that MF is responding to our position over the years and is filing case (even for one image) to prove a point. A company of that size takes a global approach to their litigation; we may lose money on this suit over one image, but we more than make up for it with the multiple image cases and with the increase in settlements we will get when people see that we do sue over one image. Also, since almost all federal settlements in IP cases are kept confidential by the parties, we will never know if MF accepted $300 or $3,000 or $30,000 to settle.
-
The trouble people get into is that people are looking for "guarantees" and "absolutes" on the cheap. I never said they would NEVER get sued. I said it is very unlikely to get sued over 1 image.
They don't want to pay the settlement, they don't want to pay for Oscar's Defense Program, and they don't want to pay in effort and time to get educated.
I don't have a lot of sympathy for the lazy, cheap, and spineless letter recipients. They want someone to save them without them putting out anything. No matter what you say to them, they are irrational. It shows me how naive they are.
I made the mistake of interacting with a Masterfile letter recipient last year. I reached out because I was interested in seeing the newer Masterfile letter. I remembered how the letter recipient was trying to barter with me for "services". He would "let" me share a copy of his letter if I could give him some suggestions to talking to him.
I thought I would invest a little bit of time because I had never directly dealt with a Masterfile case. It was one of the dumbest moves I made dealing with the guy. Here he thought he was doing me a favor when I was really trying to test out some of my combat theories. He had very little to lose and everything to gain.
Well, despite what he said to me, he was a squirrel and kept worrying about retaliation, what his wife thought, and what Masterfile would do next. Ultimately, I stopped talking to him because it was pathetic and I didn't care anymore.
He never got the concept that out of several hundreds if not thousands of letters, even if Masterfile filed a couple of lawsuits, statistically, it is less than 1%! This assumes you do nothing. If you handle it properly, you can reduce the odds even further!
To people who want a "guarantee", be prepared to pay MF directly or hire Oscar to negotiate for you. Even then, you will pay his fee plus the negotiated settlement amount.
Now, no newbies gets a "few minutes" of my time. If you don't make an ELI Contribution, then you are stuck with reading the forums and blog posts.
If you have no stomach or backbone for this and are too cheap to pay for professional assistance, don't even try to pretend to have the backbone to represent yourself. People like me (as well as Masterfile) can see you are bluffing and it would make more MORE want to target you, not less.
The rule of thumb where 1-2 images is not likely to get a lawsuit (even if 10 lawsuits were filed this year) still stands as far as I am concerned. I know statistically, it is still less than 1%. If that isn't good enough and you think you are that "special" to win that lawsuit lottery, then pay up and stop your suffering. The rest of us can find some middle ground using the information we have provided over the years.
Thanks for doing that. So much for not suing over 1 image....
This is true, this is no longer the best rule of thumb. I think it's more about the amount of the claim than the number of images or infringements. Like Matthew commented on another thread, it's all about risk analysis. They're shooting for $30,000 in this case, so the fact that it's one image doesn't change the economics outlook for Masterfile's legal henchmen.
I don't think they'd go to court for less than a certain amount to make it "worth their while". There are also non-monetary considerations, such as the possibilities of loss of face, damage to their brand, financial blowback and setting bad precedents for their "business models". They probably go in knowing fully well it's likely to end up in a settlement that pays them enough to keep their current posturing and continue with the letter program.
They are definitely sending a statement about the former "never-for-one-image" rule. Like Matthew says, they can take people to court anytime they want and they want us to know that. However, as Matthew also says, the question is whether they can make it stick.
-
Hmm... as the presumed subject of this rant I will "squirrel" away and reserve my comment for a more appropriate time and location. I'll just say that Matthew's take on my case with Masterfile is interesting, if not insightful.
I suggest that we return this thread to it's intended subject - Masterfile. Let's save the negative comments for the truly deserved (MF, Getty, HAN, etc.) and continue to provide support those that are here searching for help.
-
Feel a little bit self-conscious do we? I didn't mention anyone by name or a specific case. You appear to want to own up to it. So what is it that I said that is incorrect? I am happy to correct it. Do you object to the "lazy, cheap, and spineless" comment? They were generic comments.
As the ELI Forums are run by me, I will talk about what I feel like on any thread I want. There were a number of people that I did go out of my way to assist and talk to for free, not just you. You were one of those guys that got way more time than I should have given. I remembered one comment made to me by someone (might or might not be you) throwing in my face how "I was the one doing the calling". When I heard that comment, I immediately knew what that meant and I wouldn't make the mistake again. Somehow that person thought they were doing ME a favor trying to help him. I thought to myself how ridiculous is that. I know how to handle my own situations and here this guy thinks I am doing him a favor.
I now believe giving "free" time has zero value. So newbies get zero free time from me unless they make the minimal ELI Contribution. They make an ELI Contribution then they get past the gate and my hospitality. ELI Forum, self-study, stress, and work is FREE for the people who want to engage in it. But zero free time from me and Oscar. You got the benefit of having your correspondence against Masterfile posted for everyone to read on the ELI Documents Library which will never happen for free again. I even took the time to explain the strategy. It was my way of helping you push back against Masterfile but you seem a bit ungrateful now. I am more than happy to take your letters and your ELI Forum account down and then you can deal with Masterfile 1-on-1. Then you can explain to your wife about why Masterfile letters by Geoffrey Beal suddenly appear on your doorstep.
As far as I can tell you did not hire Oscar either which is NOT mandatory. It was way simpler than me taking the time to talk to you, getting your emails, coaching you, and posting in the ELI Documents Library. I didn't have to do any of that.
I don't have a problem with you wanting to hide out. That's fine. But don't get an attitude with me when you are the one who used ELI resources, my time, and my strategy to beat down Geoffrey Beal. I can't undo my time but I can take down the files against Geoffrey Beal and Masterfile come after you again. Give the word and all your emails will be immediately deleted. You can go back fending for yourself.
I was addressing the issue of a comment of how suddenly "my rule" of "1 image doesn't get a lawsuit" suddenly gets thrown out the window. I clarified that it was NEVER an absolute rule which is why I tell people to respond and NOT IGNORE it ... just in case. I also subscribe to fighting back when appropriate. I practice what I preach. How do you think ELI got started to begin with?
Making some of these rash fear-based assumptions goes to a recurring pattern of those who let their fears do the talking instead of their brain. Statistically, there is still a very, very low chance of getting hit with a lawsuit even from Masterfile.
May I suggest you grow a spine and not crack on the person who went way beyond the call of duty to help your case when no one else would do it for free. As I said, I am more than happy to take down the very public letters against Geoffrey Beal if you feel that was no help to you. I didn't call you out by name. You called yourself out.
Regarding your comments about "appropriate time and location", I take that to mean you want to ride out the 3-year statute of limitations?
Since you are out here, why don't you give us an update? Has Masterfile contacted you or has it been all quiet? If Masterfile has, in fact, contacted you then let me know.
I want to help and support others but I can't save the world. I especially can't help people who say they don't want to pay but to much of a coward or too cheap to do anything about it. The rest of the ELI Community can do what they want.
I am telling you and everyone, I now qualify who I help.
Regarding you, Dieselfish? You are unbelievable after the mini-campaign I did on your behalf and you think your freaking letters and emails were such a big deal. Let's put this to a test. I don't bluff. I promise you I have no problems taking down all your correspondence against Geoffrey Beal and Masterfile and giving them a free pass against you.
Otherwise, just chill out. You not only don't have a spine, too cheap to hire Oscar, too dumb to fight back on your own, can't get your wife in line with what your doing, but you also have a thin skin to boot and no sense of appreciation.
I could say more but I won't.... for now.