Oscar Michelen Defends Chaga Against $6 Million Masterfile Lawsuit

[Matthew Chan]

The case of Masterfile vs. Chaga International is especially significant for ELI to follow not only because of the crazy amount ($6 million) being sued for. It is also significant because our own Oscar Michelen has joined the battle on Chaga's behalf against Masterfile in this lawsuit. This is an opportunity to watch Oscar strut his stuff as this unfolds.

There is a good chance that this case (as with nearly all of Masterfile's prior cases) will settle. However, the many points Oscar brings up regarding the problematic registrations, registration of collections, and copyright registration procedures puts the plaintiffs in a challenging position.

The recent docket is here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88226398/Masterfile-vs-Chaga-International-Docket

The initial complaint is here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88226171/Masterfile-vs-Chaga-International-Complaint

Oscar Michelen's Declaration in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment is practically mandatory reading.  If anyone wants to see Oscar pull out the big guns, this is one of them so far. Oscar goes to town and provides 24 Exhibits consisting of nearly 200 pages to support his case!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88228764/Masterfile-vs-Chaga-Oscar-Michelen-in-Support-for-Motion-to-Dismiss-Complaint

The Memorandum of Law in Support for Summary Judgment as to Liability is also another big gun being brought out. Only the brave and the bold dare try to get through this one. Lots of meat and potatoes here. Even I am going to need some time to digest this one in its entirety.  (I recommend everyone take small bites and chew well before swallowing.)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88229310/Masterfile-vs-Chaga-Memorandum-of-Law-in-Support-for-Summary-Judgment-as-to-Liability

Apparently, Oscar's response caught the opposing attorney, Steve Weinberg, off-guard. Weinberg had to file an extension document from Israel!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88229536/Masterfile-vs-Chaga-Weinberg-Declaration-for-Time-Extension

A Joint Stipulation to Extend Time for Replies and Proposed Order was submitted to the Judge. Presumably, it will be accepted as both plaintiff and defendant counsel have agreed to this.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88229831/Masterfile-vs-Chaga-Joint-Stipulation-to-Extend-Time-for-Replies-Proposed-Order

We will continue to use this thread for further updates on this case.

[SoylentGreen]

Thanks for posting this content; it's of great interest.
Thus far, I've read the complaint.  I'm no expert by any means.
What jumped out at me is that many of the pictures have the same copyright registration numbers.
They're demanding a lot of money, and I'm not sure that these compilations would really stand up to close scrutiny.
They're certainly in good hands with Oscar.

Looking forward to reading the rest of the documents..!

S.G.

[Mulligan]

Fascinating reading so far. Thanks Matt and Oscar for sharing these important documents.

[Peeved]

Well after reading the complaint, I'd have to say that Oscar has his work cut out for him and yes it will be very interesting! I did see as Soylent did that there are indeed some same registration numbers for different images, so the compialation thing will be interesting.

With regard to being sympathetic to the Defendant however, I'm sorry to say that I personally am NOT. Their initial infringement was for 22 images for which they settled on April 7th, 2010. Then on May 30th 2011, the Plaintiff discovered that this company was once again infringing with ANOTHER 34 images, 40 in total! The Defendant was notified of the misconduct and refused to rectify constituting "willful infringement"!

HELLOOOOOOOO!

If the Plaintiff does not have the "proper registrations" in place, I can see how this could be detrimental to their case, but I do not personally feel that this gives folks Carte Blanche to continue infringing when they have been notified and warned!

Just my opinion. 

[SoylentGreen]

Yes, Peeved makes a good point, indeed.
It does make it look quite "willful", unless I've missed something.

S.G.

[Matthew Chan]

Might I remind everyone that regardless of "intent" or "willfulness" that $6 million is simply off the charts and that it would feed the coffers of Masterfile? Even 10% of that is simply off the charts. The defendant is paying in the form of aggravation and paying legal fees so far.

No one can convince me that even if they intentionally or willfully committed the infringements that Masterfile deserves $600,000 much less $6 million.

One of the biggest problems is that these claims are outrageous and unjustifiable. We may agree the defendant needs to pay something but if the defendant loses in a big way here, it hurts everyone else including all of us. We don't need a legal precedent that helps the stock photo agencies. We need a legal precedent that stresses "proportional" and "actual damages", not one that will encourage the stock photo companies to file more of these nonsensical lawsuits.

Might I suggest remembering the big picture of why ELI exists to begin with?  To fight the outrageousness and disproportionate nature of this whole thing.

[SoylentGreen]

Yes, it's just "greed"...
These things could more often be solved faster and more amicably if the demands were reasonable.
I know that Steve Pigeon wants to retire... but, I'm not sure if this is going to work.
MF has had some large (six-figures) awards in the past... however, I think that the "infringing" companies closed, and the owners simply opened new businesses.
I doubt that MF ever got a cent.

S.G.

[scraggy]

In April 2010, the defendant actually paid Masterfile for his infringement of 22 images.
However, in May 2011, the same defendant was still displaying 20 of these exact same images on his websites!
There's simply no way that anyone in their right mind would have done this willfully! Not a chance! It was an unfortunate, unintended and unplanned human error.
To sue the same person again over the same images shows a total lack of good faith! Masterfile clearly thought that he was easy pickings, that he would roll over and pay again.
I cannot believe that a judge would be sympathetic to suing twice over the exact same images!

[Peeved]

No one can convince me that even if they intentionally or willfully committed the infringements it that Masterfile deserves $600,000 much less $6 million.

Totally agree with Matt & Soylent. It is pure greed. I doubt that the judge will comply especially with Oscar at the wheel. HOWEVER, as Smokey The Bear says.....

"Only YOU Can Prevent Wildfires".

[SoylentGreen]

I've read Oscar Michelen's Declaration in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment...
...I had no idea that MF's legal standing was so weak in regards to ownership.
Surprising...

S.G.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Wow, lots of great information here.  It will take a while to digest all of this.  Thanks for posting this.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

To hell with small bites, I dove right in and read all of it at once, from what I see Chaga has a good shot at winning this, I can see if the registrations were flawed in one area, but there are multiple issues on each registration, and apparently Ms. Wolff, Paca and the copyright office don't have the power to make the rules as they go along, and it seems to me that is what happened here, not only did the copyright office give bad info/advise, PACA did not do it's legal homework before sending this bad info on to the stock agencies...

[jpm-pc]

For those that have have seen the documents, here are links to the:

Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law - http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/cacdce/2:2012cv00850/523070/33/0.pdf?1344672723

The Judgment: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/cacdce/2:2012cv00850/523070/32/

[Mulligan]

Thanks for the links.

[Lettered]

I suppose MF could register the images properly and then file a new suit for "actual damages".  I'm guessing they're going to quietly drop the whole effort.