Masterfile starts it round of 2012 Lawsuits

[Bekka]

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/idaho/iddce/1:2012cv00012/29042/

I hope these people fight.  It looks like this might be a veternian clinic.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I'll go attempt to get the rest of the files from PACER

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

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.

[Bekka]

Thanks for doing that.  So much for not suing over 1 image....

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

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..

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

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

[Bekka]

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.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

hmmm intersting, I can pull up the link, maybe MF has you blocked mc! 

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??

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

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

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

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..

[Bekka]

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. 

[Bekka]

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!

[lucia]

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
Looks like you could phone and ask.   

[Peeved]

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
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.

[dieselfish]

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.