Messages

1

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile Corporation

« on: October 14, 2009, 11:04:35 PM »

I agree Oscar, but on the other hand, I went to Masterfile's site to look up the price of the two items they claimed were infringed and my conclusion that for those particular items, catalog numbers 700-00023992 and 700-00020568, I can only conclude that Masterfile either had no realistic intentions of trying to sell the images for the outrageous licensing prices of from $500 to over $2500 apiece (similar and sometimes better images were being sold on istockphoto for around $40!) . Maybe the person that sets the prices for Masterfile images is on bad drugs?

In any event it seems like Masterfile's business model is to make its money from threats and litigation rather than actual sales. I would love to find out how much of their revenue is from legal action (including from demand letters) versus people actually paying for their images which are several times the prices of other stock photo providers. I am sure that Masterfile may have a collection of images that people would buy, but the two in question I can guarantee no one would buy from them and would go to istockphoto instead. I guess if Masterfile is not guilty of extortion, they most certainly could be placed with those who price gouge customers!

2

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Masterfile Corporation

« on: October 07, 2009, 04:34:27 PM »

Hi all!

A website client of mine recently received a notice of copyright infringement from Masterfile for two images. The kicker is that the client does not have any of the images on his website. A review of the letter sent from Masterfile shows screenshots of a pre-design prototype of his website but not his actual website. Moreover, the alleged infringing website is on a server that is not controlled by my client and has a URL completely different from his. The name of the URL also has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter or industry of my client. I contacted the listed technical contact of that website and he claims he does not know who put the replication of the site on his server or why the URL was pointing to it. A Wayback Machine check of that website does not show any of the images. My client contacted the FBI and they said they were familiar with Masterfile Corporation and told my client it was a scam.

My client sent Masterfile a scathing letter informing them of the facts and that he is not liable for any content published or used by a third party with whom he has no associations or affiliations with and on a server over which he has absolutely no control over. It will be interesting to see how Masterfile proceeds.

In the meantime, I am curious as to what the FBI is investigating regarding Masterfile. One thing I think is that Masterfile knows that 90 percent of their images used online were sold by someone either directly or indirectly affiliated with them prior to 2006 (they claim 38 affiliations worldwide) and that those parties are no longer in business or affiliated, allowing Masterfile to now come back against all the innocent purchasers and claim infringement. The most telling thing is Masterfiles letter. It does not say anywhere "show us proof of ownership" or provide a receipt, etc. It just claims infringement. It would be great if someone actually saved their email payment receipt or credit card records from 2000 to present so they could prove something.