Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Dieselfish's 2nd Response to Masterfile

Dieselfish's 2nd Response to Masterfile

Ratings: (0)|Views: 548|Likes:
A copy of Dieselfish's 2nd response to Masterfile's (Geoffrey Beal) letter. Part 4 of 7.
A copy of Dieselfish's 2nd response to Masterfile's (Geoffrey Beal) letter. Part 4 of 7.

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: ExtortionLetterInfo.com on Jan 08, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





December 29, 2011 Geoffrey BealMasterfile Corporation3 Concorde Gate, 4th Floor Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3C 3N7 Dear Mr. Beal: 
Re: Notice of Copyright Infringement - www.com
 We are in receipt of your email dated December 22, 2011.Thank you for sending the documentation showing that Masterfile registered a copyright with theLibrary of Congress, United States Copyright Office. However, these documents only show thata copyright for a group of images was received. Unfortunately, this document does not provethat the image in question was part of that copyright. Masterfile has not provided adequatedocumentation showing that they own the copyright to the image in question. Masterfile hasalso not shown that the artist who originally created the image has consented to and continuesto consent to Masterfile’s management of their rights. In good faith, we are willing to assumethat Masterfile can provide proper documentation in this matter - however, please note thatit has not yet done so. If Masterfile wishes to continue pursuing any alleged damages or compensatory fees in this claim, proof of copyright registration, an artist contract and an artistaffidavit will be required.Thank you also for your offer to forgo compensatory fees and your attempt settle this claim.However, we find your offer of $600.00 US unreasonable for several reasons.First, you state that your “standard un-authorized fee starts at a one year License”. We donot find this fee to be reasonable, nor do we feel that this case qualifies as “standard un-authorized” use. Please remember that this was in no way knowing infringement of your allegedcopyright, the image in question appeared on our site for less than one (1) month, was onlyused for composition purposes, and was only viewed by a very limited number of people. Infact, we are in possession of very accurate statistics showing the number of unique visitors tothe particular page containing the image in question for the time period described in this claim.We can assure you that Masterfile will have a very difficult time showing that anyone other thanemployees or associates of viewed the page with the imagein question. Further, according to the online calculator on the Masterfile website, to regularlypurchase complete usage rights to the image in question, one would select “Internet, WebPromotion, Secondary page, City, Washington DC, Up to one month”, and arrive at a price of $390.00. One would assume that the regular fees associated with a rights-managed image alsoinclude a percentage of the cost of licensing the image, external costs with locating copyrightinfringements, and internal costs associated with enforcing copyrights. Therefore, any fair andreasonable charge for un-authorized use should be in line with Masterfile’s regular fees and notan arbitrary “one year” term. Second, we feel that your comparing to “a client in good
standing” is not reasonable (not to mention somewhat insulting) in this claim. It implies thatwas in the market for a rights-managed image and in theposition to pay for the use of such an image. It was not. In fact, we show you below what wehave paid for the design, build-out, images, copy writing, and hosting of our website. You willsee that $390 US for one (1) month’s use of a rights-managed image from Masterfile was notsomething that we would have remotely considered.
website hosting, domain registration, email service: $6.99 per month ($83.88/year)
website design, build-out, copy writing: $0 (donated time and services)
royalty-free images used on website: $75.50 (4 royalty-free images purchased fromiStockphoto.com)
remaining images used on website: $0 (images taken by ourselves) As you can see, we would pay more for one month’s use of a single rights-managed image fromMasterfile than for for three (3)
of costs associated with the remainder of our website.We feel that if Masterfile were truly being “fair, reasonable, and balanced” it would have notifiedof it’s alleged infringement and asked for removal of theimage in question. If the image was not removed immediately, Masterfile would have muchmore ground to stand on in terms of copyright defence, compensatory claims and recovery of damages. We understand that Masterfile bears the burden of registering and enforcing it’s copyrights andthat artists contracted with Masterfile depend on income generated by the use of their images.We also understand that Masterfile’s rights-managed images lose value with unauthorized use.However, with a copyright and loss of value also comes the burden of proof in enforcement.Masterfile has not proven that they are the exclusive rights holder, has not sufficiently proventhat they hold the copyright, has not proven that the original artist was and is still in contractwith Masterfile, has not proven that the image in question appeared on thewebsite for any length of time beyond the single day of November 21, 2011. Infact, Masterfile would have a very difficult time showing any loss of value incurred at all as aresult of this unknowing infringement. At the very most, is willing to assume, in good faith, a certainpercentage of Masterfile’s external costs in locating infringements and internal costs in enforcingit’s alleged copyrights. We are aware of the burden of proof placed on Masterfile in thissituation - yet we are also aware of our rights. To this end, iswilling to offer $150.00 US to Masterfile to cover external costs in the locating of this allegedinfringement and internal costs in enforcing the alleged copyright associated with this claim.immediately removed the image in question and feels that thisoffer is a fair and reasonable settlement toward this claim. Please note that the removal of theimage in question and this offer of good faith settlement is in no way an admission of any wrongdoing on the part of This is not an agreement to the terms of 

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Gary Rice liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->