Masterfile Researching Photo Claim on US Copyright site

[jbmos]

I first want to thank everyone involved with this website as it has been extremely informative to me and once I get thru this will definitely be making a donation to the site.  Next I want to apologize if this has been duplicated in the discussion forum previously.

I received my Masterfile letter on Friday the 16th.  It stated I had 4 pics in violation and they wanted $10K.  I immediately shutdown the site for now.  My site was just redesigned in July of this year and has only been active for the past 5 months.  As I haven't promoted it at all, it gets zero traffic and creates zero business for me.  I had an independent web developer create the site.  Someone I knew that did the design on the fly.  She is purchased the picks she believes off of either sxc.hu or istock photo.  But so far has been unable to find the current documentation (she is still digging, also believes one of them was off a CD package of generic images), other than that she remember the pics ran $3-$6 a piece.  I have several other generic pictures of the same type on the site.

I have used the website tineye.com to do an image comparison and 3 of the 4 only had masterfile as a source, and the 4th image had zero results.  Manual searches of istock photo and sxc.hu have returned nothing.  My guess is these images were placed in a compilation sometime after the web developer purchased and used them in my website.  And have since been removed from wherever she got them.

What is the best way to research the copyright info on the images?  On the U.S. Copyright site I have tried to look up by the 700# they attached to each picture, by the artist name, or by the image description and I haven't come up with anything yet.  It doesn't help they don't display the pictures either.  I just get zero results.

My plan is to reject this claim in writing by Wednesday (I have no plans on calling them directly at this time) using a lot of the information found on this site, and hope that they decide it isn't worth the effort to fight me.  And if need be, turn any further communication over to a lawyer.

My second question is tracking of lawsuits and claims.  The letter does have a claim number attached to it.  The letter states that they will not contact me further, I am sure in hopes of getting a default judgement.  How and where would I track this claim thru the legal system to know if they are pressing forward or not?

I am really counting on my web developer to retrieve her receipts to make this as easy as possible for me.

Thanks for the info and support.  And again apologize if this was in previous discussions, but I haven't come across it yet and I have spent hours and hours on the site since Friday evening.

Thanks

[SoylentGreen]

I believe that the numbers starting with "700" are MF's internal serial #'s.
If these image(s) are indeed registered, you'll need those registration numbers from MF to check them out.
If you ask MF, they'll provide them, if they do indeed have them.

I don't think that the "claim number" on the letter refers to a "lawsuit" pending in the justice system.
This is probably just MF's internal numbering system; they send out many, many letters.

If you are actually sued, you'll receive a package from a lawyer via registered mail, or in person by a process server.
MF does send out phony "example" lawsuit documents just to scare people.  So, if you receive legal-looking papers by mail, check to see that your names actually on the document.

Personally, if I was going to reject their offer, I simply wouldn't respond.
Or, a good method is to just to make a really low-ball offer that they'll never accept.  Then you could say that you tried to "work with them" if need be.
If you write to them and say that you're not paying, they might bring that to court with them to make you look bad in the event of a lawsuit.

S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Agreed on the numbers MF should supply them, I believe most if not all of their images are registered. They are also known to be aggressive and if memory serves me correctly they have and will file suits over a couple of images. Personally I would see to it that the developer take care of this, whether she has invoices or not. If she is unwilling to step up to the plate, you may have to pay MF then chase down the developer to recoup any expenses.

This has been going on long enough that all developers and designers should be aware of this and thus should be able to avoid it in the first place. I couldn't imagine leaving one or any of my clients on the hook for something like this, maybe i'm just old school..

[jbmos]

Thanks for the info.  I was able to track down one of the images and figure out the copyright number.  But one artist is listed as just Masterfile-19.  And the other two artists never made the copyright page.  So I will call MF and have them provide me the copyright numbers.

Understand on sending the letter.  Since my original posting I have had a change of thought after reading significantly more and watching the videos.  Once I find out the copyright numbers to see if they fall under the same filings, I will offer them the 6 month licensing fee per each infraction to just make this go away.  I have seen other lawyers on other sites beside Oscar here, recommend to call up MF and reference County Cycling Tours court case and use it as a basis for an initial settlement offer and to demonstrate there is already a legal precedence established.

Any thoughts on this strategy?  It seems over the top from my perspective, but cheaper than a long drawn out dispute.  But using this strategy would decrease the initial claim by 75%.

I also have a meeting setup with my business insurance representative ( I am setup as an S Corp), to discuss what is going on and if my policy (which I have never had to use) has any benefits for this type of thing.

It also appears that MF has jacked up the licensing right on their stock photos.  One generic picture used on a secondary webpage with a six month license (not even perpetual) runs over $600.  I just can see super small businesses like mine purchasing these types of photos at that price for short term usage.  It seems like a terrible business plan.  I guess until you realize the business plan is to scare people and threaten legal action.

Thanks again for the comments.  Funny thing is, I am actually looking at closing up shop and moving.  Didn't move fast enough I guess.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

well hell if you're closing up shop, just dissolve the corp.. If it's an "s" corp, they can't go after anything personal ( I think) if the corp doesn't exist, there is nothing for them to pursue..

[jbmos]

Just an update.  Its not definite yet, but my business insurance has a clause that they cover advertising copyright infringements defense and suits.  I was told by my insurance broker to hold off on contacting MF for a couple of days until a rep from the Hartford gets back with me.  Hopefully by tomorrow.

That seems promising.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

Before your insurance company simply cuts a check, would you please reference this site? Maybe they will consider fighting this ridiculous $10,000 charge for 4 images for a few months. At the very least the insurance company should insist on registration numbers on all the images and inquire how this figure was determined.

[Oscar Michelen]

Couple of points - we have had "advertising injury" coverage cover lawsuits for clients but the companies have always chosen to use their in house or standard counsel even though these claims are very different than the usual ad injury claims (exaggeration, painting a competitor in a false light, for eg). I have tried to get them to retain my firm at their expense trying to explain that I will save them money and get a lower settlement position than anyone else but to no avail. Secondly - DO NOT dissolve a corporation especially an S corp while a claim is pending, that can often lead to piercing the corporate veil and personal liability. Just leave the corporation open and active, but don't have it own any assets. You can make it broke, but not dissolved.