A Masterfile Demand Letter Story

[dieselfish]

Thank again all!  Soon after the telephone conversation with Geoffrey Beal of Masterfile he sent another "registered" email to my client.  I sent it to Matthew to have him post it as well.  I'm not sure if the above Scribd link that Matthew posted will update, or if Matthew will have to supply a new link.  Basically Mr. Beal didn't say anything in writing - just asked that my client contact him regarding our postings on an "Extortion Letter site". 

@mcfilms The image was originally taken from a google search.  I found several websites using the same image - none of which displayed any copyright information.  In fact, I have screenshots and URLs of the sites containing the images.  Looking at the image on the Masterfile site - that watermark would have been very difficult to remove with Photoshop or crop out.  And, they may think that they have us at our tipping point... but they have just fueled the fire as far as I am concerned.   

@buddhapi I had read Matthew's FDCP Act previously - so I'm not worried about the collection agency.  My question was whether anyone had any previous experience post demand letter settlement attempts.  I would rather my client have a chance at a fair negotiation with someone other than this Geoffrey Beal who is clearly not taking the time to read our letters, research the claim, or attempt to "amicably" settle the claim as he so states.  Also, it is going to be very hard for them to cut me out of the loop on this.  I won't disclose why here because it is apparent the Mr. Geoffrey Beal of Mastefile is also reading this post - but they won't be able to cut me out. 

In further studying the "cut and paste" issue I found out that Geofrey Beal of Masterfile even referenced an incorrect claim number!  I don't even know what Masterfile's original claim number is any more because Mr. Beal has "cut and pasted" so many different numbers! 

I thank you all for your support and comments thus far - you've really given me a boost.  I hope that my sharing with you will help others out as well. 

[Matthew Chan]

This is a cryptic email by Geoffrey Beal of Masterfile to DieselFish. I think this has to do with Geoffrey being unhappy with his emails being plastered for all to see.

His superiors get to see how embarrassingly bad of a job with some of his cut-and-paste replies.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/77671811/Masterfile-Email-to-Dieselfish-Regarding-ELI

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

Okay that letter makes no sense to me. Unless it was a way to say "I know that you are posting on the ELI site." Well, yeah! So? Since Mr. Beal is already on the site, I would hope that he would join and engage in a dialog here.

I'm so glad to hear that dieselfish is nowhere near "tipping." If one were to objectively look at the scenario, the best solution would be to re-consider dieselfish's $150 offer. Already a search for "Geoffrey Beal masterfile" turns up nearly a full page of information about this issue and points here. Trying to "force" removal of these threads has not worked out for other attorneys (See the Julie Stewart threads).

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Already a search for "Geoffrey Beal masterfile" turns up nearly a full page of information about this issue and points here. Trying to "force" removal of these threads has not worked out for other attorneys (See the Julie Stewart threads).

yes and it's hampering my efforts! 

[dieselfish]

I keep re-reading the third letter from Geoffrey Beal of Masterfile.  I find it interesting that he threatens that Masterfile "may elect to receive actual damages instead of statutory damages".  Wouldn't it be harder for them to prove actual damages in this case given the limited alleged use of the image?  Remember the website was under soft launch and only had about 20 unique page views (most of which are limited to myself and the client).   

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Good point DF, they'd probably get less if anything! Apparently they are to the point of not even thinking thru the scare tactics.

[Matthew Chan]

Actual damages is very hard to prove and with such low traffic stats, it will be interesting to see what kind of so-called argument they could make.

As I said, you have clerks drinking the Kool-aid pretending they have actually been in court.  I have been in court many times and I would put my experience and ability to argue a case in front of one these hourly collection clerks any day. They may talk legal but they have no authority or license to do anything.

Every letter recipient has the power to defend themselves "pro se" which requires nearly no money to do so.

I keep re-reading the third letter from Geoffrey Beal of Masterfile.  I find it interesting that he threatens that Masterfile "may elect to receive actual damages instead of statutory damages".  Wouldn't it be harder for them to prove actual damages in this case given the limited alleged use of the image?  Remember the website was under soft launch and only had about 20 unique page views (most of which are limited to myself and the client).

[dieselfish]

@buddhapi  I agree about Masterfile and Geoffrey Beal not thinking through their scare tactics.  Which makes me wonder about scare tactics in general.  They go out of their way to state that they are attempting an "amicable" negotiation in all of their correspondence.  Yet, doesn't charging a ridiculous, unfounded amount of money, threatening, demanding, and placing time limits on response effectively close any attempt at being "amicable".  Is there a legal definition of the word "amicable" that I am not aware of? 

I am also curious about Masterfile's use of the term "without prejudice" in all of their correspondence.  Clearly, this is an attempt to hide behind a legal definition.  But it doesn't seem to make sense to me.  As I see it "prejudice" is a preconceived opinion not based on reason or experience.  By claiming that their correspondence is "without prejudice" they are claiming that they are basing their preconceived opinion on fact.  Yet the facts in the claim were never established, nor were they even acknowledged when presented to Geoffrey Beal of Masterfile.  Clearly Geoffrey Beal and Masterfile undertook some form of prejudice as they sent an invoice, demands, and threats along with their correspondence.         

[SoylentGreen]

The "without prejudice" thing probably came about when somebody used something an MF employee said as a defense.
The problem is that only a judge can can deem his/her decision "without prejudice".
Such a term has no meaning outside of a court decision.

In some cases, this concept might not help anyway.
For example, if an MF employee admitted that MF didn't register an image in the US, the defendant might not be able use the actual written statement from the MF employee.
But, that wouldn't change the material fact that the image isn't registed, which would be revealed during the discovery phase.

S.G.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

The term "without prejudice" is also used in the course of negotiations to indicate that a particular conversation or letter cannot be tendered as evidence in court; it can be considered a form of privilege. This usage flows from the primary meaning: concessions and representations made for purpose of settlement are simply being mooted for that purpose, and are not meant to actually concede those points in litigation.

Such correspondences must both be made in the course of negotiations and a genuine attempt to settle a dispute between the parties. A prohibition exists on documents marked "without prejudice" being used as a façade to conceal facts or evidence from the court. As a result, documents marked "without prejudice" that do not actually contain any offer of settlement may be used as evidence, should the matter proceed to court. Courts may also decide to exclude from evidence communications not marked "without prejudice" that do contain offers of settlement.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice_%28legal_procedure%29

[dieselfish]

Well. Tomorrow, January 12th is the "deadline" for me to respond to Geoffrey Beal and Masterfile before they "release this matter for further action".  I feel that I have stated my case in my previous letters to them but continue to weigh the option of sending one final letter to them.  A letter that spells everything out.  They have made it clear that they have made their "final offer".  It is evident to me that because they clearly are not taking the time read my previous letters, proof read their own letters, or afford my case the same consideration that I am affording them, that they have effectively ended the negotiation.  I am toying with the idea of letting them know that they have ended the negotiation - not me.  I may also remind them of how this case would look once made public - ask them to consider the news headlines, "Huge Stock Photo Company Sues Startup Clinic for Children with Autism".  Or, I may just wait for them to come back with their next round of threats and demands - which will surely be posted here for all to read.  But just a little part of me thinks, "maybe I should give them one more opportunity to negotiate".  I can't decide.     

[dieselfish]

Wow.  Good thing I haven't yet pulled the trigger on my letter.  It turns out that I have found some new evidence that clearly puts Masterfile's claim to exclusive copyright of the image into question.  I have come across a website that publishes the image as their own.  It clearly shows a watermark and a copyright statement that does not belong to Masterfile.  I did a google reverse image lookup and came across the site.  Now, granted it is a Chinese site, but none the less, it calls Masterfile's claim of exclusivity into question.

Scroll down in this link and you may find a familiar image - with a copyright watermark by someone other than Masterfile. http://www.rayli.com.cn/zixun/LT_405772_15.html

Here is another copy of the image. http://lifestyle.rayli.com.cn/skills/2008-03-22/L0014005_295626.html

A Google Translate of the text below the image reads, "Credit: Panorama (provided) Copyright shall not be reproduced without the written permission".  Looks to me like Masterfile is going to have to do a lot more to prove that they have exclusive rights to the image in question.  And I recommend that Geoffrey Beal and the lawyers at Masterfile brush up on their Mandarin!

[InMOTION_Pgh]

Any resolution to the Dieselfish situation?  I recently received a letter from Masterfile as well and I'm interested to see what the outcome was.  Apparently they love trying to make the little guy sweat.

[testycal]

observations from Canada

interesting points

MF inadvertantly allows its sub-licensees to exhibit images with their own copyright, referring to MF using the word "Agency"

A sub-licensee is not an agent

MF cannot assert exclusive copyright where 2 legal entities claim copyright separately and therefor cannot maintain an action

Damages - MF claims typically 3 years (limitation period) - should MF not be held to a higher standard of due diligence ie it has access to the  webcrawler software that monitors the internet 24 hours a day - how is it that alleged infringements come to its attention only after 3 years

Damages - coupons are shows on its site allowing 20-30% discounts - is not after  discount pricing its true measure of damages if all other elements proven

Random points for consideration

[Oscar Michelen]

These are good points testy but the issue often is that to prove or establish them you have to go to court and get the proof (or lack thereof). Masterfile, since the 9th Circuit decided their method of registration is valid (in the US of course), has gotten even more aggressive.