Masterfile price dropped but still high - seeking advice

[mariastev]

Last year I had a logo made with the help of a local business. The picture was given to me (I asked the person and she said it was free).  Last week I received a letter from Masterfile demanding that I pay $3880.00 for violating their copyright agreement. I took the picture down the same day. I wrote them a letter letting them know that I did not know that I violated the agreement and I needed them to send me a proof that my potential error cost them $3880.00.  Today I got a response from them – they dropped the price to $1940.00 They said that they would charge the same amount to their client who use the image for a year. They also sent me several documents showing their VA copyright documentation.

Can anyone help me? What should I do now? I don’t think I should pay that much money. They gave me ten days (I have 9 left) to respond.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

What did the "local business" say when you told them about this? They are the party that appears guilty of selling someone's work as theirs.

[mariastev]

Hi Jerry
MF said it did not matter if I got the pic from a third party.
The business person who helped me said sorry and convinced that she got the picture from a free place.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Hi Jerry
MF said it did not matter if I got the pic from a third party.
The business person who helped me said sorry and convinced that she got the picture from a free place.

It's too bad the "local business" doesn't care about it's "local customer" and won't take responsibility . shame on them!

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

Yeah disappointing about the designer and her "thinking" it was a public domain image. Also, Masterfile usually tends to have their agreements and copyright registration slightly better organized than Getty.

The best thing you could do would be to read the site and see how other's responded to MF.

If it were me I would get the designer to kick in half the fee ($100) and sign up for Oscar's letter program.

[SoylentGreen]

I feel that designers should be aware of the pitfalls of copyright infringement by now.
It puts their clients through a lot of trouble oftentimes.  Images are cheap to license these days... why risk allegedly "free" content?
Even if somebody says that something's "free", there's no way for the end user to really know who owns it.

Its common practice for MF and others to give very short time limits in order to trigger the "panic button".
But there's tons of time.  Oscar's program is great for these kinds of infringements.

As for settlements, $1940 is still really high.
If necessary, people should endeavor to settle for between 20% of the demand (low), and 10% of the demand (high)... that's $194 to $388 dollars.
But, only if necessary.

S.G.

[mariastev]

Thank you everyone!
I am scheduled to speak to Matthew Chan and will go from there.
I hate dealing with this problem – but like someone said in the forum - it is weirdly entertaining!

As far as the local business - I should know better! I bought 3 pictures for the website but not the one in dispute. I learned my lesson, and am willing to pay for it BUT NOT THAT MUCH!

Maria

[Oscar Michelen]

Your designer certainly should have known better. MF has amped up its program recently and has been holding on to higher settlement demands.