That's what my husbant got by e-mail in response to our requests:
Dear Mr. :
I am in receipt of your emails dated July 14th and July 18, 2011. In response to your emails, please note the following:
1. Masterfile is in the business of licensing rights-managed images for commercial reproduction by clients around the world. We have been doing so for nearly 30 years. While we would prefer if end users licensed our material legally, unfortunately this is not always the case. As such, we must dedicate valuable resources which could be utilized elsewhere to locating infringing use of our intellectual property, and enforcing our copyright. We do this because the unauthorized use of our images negatively affects us and our artists.
2. The image you published on your commercial web site is represented exclusively by Masterfile. As exclusive licensee, Masterfile has the right to protect and enforce its interest in the image and is entitled to the remedies provided by the Copyright Act. Masterfile has no record that it has authorized your use of the image. The use of the image, without a valid license from Masterfile constitutes copyright infringement.
3. With all due respect, many of the comments contained in your correspondence are without merit, irrelevant and are certainly uniformed. In addition, your attorney’s comment that a rights-holder must “…put the copyright sign…” on their intellectual property in order to protect it is completely false. There is no requirement or obligation for a copyright-owner to assign a copyright symbol, watermark or any other type of identification to a copyright-protected work in order to protect their rights to their intellectual property. It is solely the responsibility of the end user, the party publishing the intellectual property, to ensure that they are not infringing on the rights of any party prior to publishing said material.
4. As per your request, I have attached a copy of our Certificate of Registration number VA 1-023-866, issued to us by The Library Of Congress, United States Copyright Office for the registration of Masterfile Corporation’s (“Masterfile”) rights-managed image number 700-00022728 ( Niagara Falls , ON ). In addition, I have provided you with a redacted Artist Agreement with Mr. Miles Ertman, the artist related to this matter, for your review. Please refer to Section 4 – “Assignment of Copyright” of the attached Artist Agreement with regard to your question related to the ownership of the image referenced above.
5. Our Claim amount in the sum of US$2,790.00 includes: (i) the regular fee for licensing the image; (ii) our external costs associated with locating infringements of our copyright protected materials; and (iii) our internal costs associated with enforcing our copyright. The fees pursued in infringement matters where our rights-managed materials are published without license or authorization from Masterfile or compensation being paid to the artist, are fair, balanced and reasonable.
6. I have attached a PDF document containing a side-by-side comparison of the image you published on your commercial web site and a copy of our watermarked image number 700-00022728, for your verification purposes. Review the images closely; I assure you they are the same image.
7. In the absence of a watermark (according to your statement), it is reasonable to assume that the Masterfile image you acquired through the Yandex.ru search engine was likely licensed to a legitimate user who legally published it on their own web site. This does not legitimize your use of our image.
8. “Innocent infringement” is not defense to liability, but is only considered in assessing the appropriate measure of statutory damages. Moreover, it is your burden, and a heavy one, to show that you are entitled to the lowest measure of statutory damages based on qualifying as an innocent infringer. Depending on the circumstances, Masterfile may elect to receive actual damages instead of statutory damages.
9. Your use of a Masterfile rights-managed image has caused damages to Masterfile and the artist that it represents as Masterfile has not been able to pay royalties to its artist for your use of the image. It also potentially harms Masterfile’s ability to license the rights-managed image. For these images, Masterfile needs to carefully track and control their licensed use so that its clients can know if their competitors have used the same (or even similar) images by providing usage histories for rights-managed images. These rights-managed images are more expensive to license than other types of stock images, and the control of their use is vitally important to Masterfile’s business. The bottom line is that Masterfile’s business is licensing images so it harms Masterfile’s business when it is not compensated for the use of its images.
10. Please feel free to consult with as many attorneys as you wish. And please note that if Masterfile is forced to litigate this matter, we will willingly provide any and all documentation required by the Court at that time. We have nothing to hide.
Be advised that if this matter is not resolved immediately, Masterfile will be left with no choice but to commence litigation. In such event, Masterfile will seek all remedies available under the Copyright Act, including statutory damages and all legal costs.
This letter is an attempt to settle this claim. Masterfile reserves all its rights and remedies whether legal or equitable.
Best regards,
John MacDougall
Well written, huh?
Topic: Masterfile - in need of urgent advice (Read 16906 times)