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