Posted by MW/VA on 2/26/11 11:21am
Msg #374304

I'm being sued--copyright infringement.

I really messed up & used an image that I'd used with a business card a few years back on my website.
Simple image--fountain pen, but the image belongs to the artist. Got a very official letter from a co. in Canada, Masterfile, offering a settlement or threatening lawsuit. The settlement is $2800. This one threw me for a loop, but turned it over to my insurance company (took a business liability policy last year) to see if it's covered. Strange thing is that the contact person didn't respond to my v/m or the insurance cos.
I'd be interested in hearing what any of the attorneys out there might have to comment on this one.
I know this has been discussed before, but reminding everyone to be careful of what images, etc. you use on the internet.

Reply by Victoria_NJ on 2/26/11 11:32am
Msg #374306

sounds like a scam - let your insurance co handle it and don't get personally involved, meaning do not contact anyone personally now that it has been turned over to your insurance.

Oh, and take the image off your website IMMEDIATELY.

Reply by MW/VA on 2/26/11 11:34am
Msg #374308

I did remove it, but the letter states specifically that

won't negate the issue. I already considered that it was a scam, but it doesn't appear to be so.

Reply by Victoria_NJ on 2/26/11 11:42am
Msg #374311

You are getting sued out of CANADA -

Do you live in Canada? Sounds like a scam to me.

My only other question is: When you had your business cards done, was the image on your card something offered by the printing company or did you go out on the web and "find" it yourself.

If it was offered by the printing company, you may have bought the right to use that image through the printing co. The question is, did you have the right to use it anywhere other than the business cards?

Just thinking out loud here

Reply by MW/VA on 2/26/11 11:48am
Msg #374312

Point is that I used the image on my website, which means I

published it. I know "Canada" raises a red flag, but they sent it to me Fedex, and I had to sign for it. It appears legal in every way, but I'm letting it up to the insurance company to investigate.

Reply by MW/VA on 2/26/11 11:52am
Msg #374315

The suspicious part is that they wanted me to pay the amt.

they offered for settlement in 10 days--no way!!!!

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 2/26/11 12:06pm
Msg #374319

JMHO, Marilynn, but I'd call my attorney first thing Monday

too - just to be on the safe side.

Reply by MW/VA on 2/26/11 12:10pm
Msg #374321

Re: JMHO, Marilynn, but I'd call my attorney first thing Monday

That was my first thought. I don't have a regular atty. & decided to consult with my insurance co. first. The insurance co. will usually represent you in a lawsuit, because they're the one's who will have to pay.

Reply by James Dawson on 2/26/11 12:30pm
Msg #374326

Re: JMHO, Marilynn, but I'd call my attorney first thing Monday

MV Sorry for the problem but I personally wouldn't worry. Why? Because that sound like small claims court jurisdiction/matter. Second, there has to be a settlement conference first. Third even if they came to your area as a plaintive they would not be entitled to travel expenses which makes it stupid for them to show up. And finally, even if you were to loose your case, collection is a different story.
How do I know this, I lost a suit for $20+ thousand dollars and I agreed to pay it off @ $50.00 per month and the judge granted it! They were pixxed! ROFLMAO

Reply by Cheryl Meril on 2/26/11 12:12pm
Msg #374322

Re: The suspicious part is that they wanted me to pay the amt.

I personally believe it's a scam because if they had a case they'd sue first, then settle. Just a little hint, that's the common way of doing things.

Reply by BrendaTx on 2/26/11 1:35pm
Msg #374334

Disagree, Cheryl.

It's too expensive to file a lawsuit without attempting a settlement first.

Reply by Cheryl Meril on 2/26/11 2:16pm
Msg #374343

Re: Stop Putting My Name in Titles of Your Post

That's interesting. I'm wondering why you feel it necessary to put my name in the title of your post? Why so personal? Why don't you leave me alone and not make this so personal?

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 2/26/11 2:57pm
Msg #374351

Because you made a statement and she's

disagreeing with your statement - so she's directing her response to you..

What's wrong with that??

By the way - I agree with Brenda.

Reply by Carolyn Bodley on 2/26/11 3:03pm
Msg #374352

Re: Cheryl, yes, I AM intentionally directing this to you

I don't have a dog in this fight although someone once stole the major part of my website (except for changing out my picture, name and contact info with her own) and began using it as her own -- so I do know somewhat the ins/outs of copyright infringement, and I do know that many courts expect the parties to try to come to some sort of agreement and settlement, on their own, without wasting the court's time. Lawsuits should be the last resort. Unfortunately, we have become a "sue" nation which is why the court system is so backlogged and the lawyers continue getting richer.

Brenda has no problem sticking up for herself and I'm sure she will tell you why she put your name in the subject matter of her post. For me, the reason I directed this to you is to point out that sue first/settle last is not the way it's done. Furthermore, an attorney will first contact the party in the wrong in an attempt to come to some sort of settlement/agreement -- when you can do the same thing on your own for free, why would you line the pockets of an attorney to do it for you?

Reply by James Dawson on 2/26/11 3:58pm
Msg #374361

Brenda, Linda and Carolyn, I agee with you

Keep on being the best.

Reply by BrendaTx on 2/26/11 4:46pm
Msg #374374

Re: Stop Putting My Name in Titles of Your Post

I didn't mean anything by it. People on this forum often use someone's name in the subject line. It was not meant to be personal.

Reply by Glenn Strickler on 2/26/11 12:14pm
Msg #374323

Sounds like a shakedown.

Letting your insurance handle it is the best option. This type of shakedown is not uncommon.

Reply by SueW/Tn on 2/26/11 12:18pm
Msg #374324

Re: Sounds like a shakedown.

I agree completely with Glen. My friend was involved with something similar (only in that papers AND a certified check were sent via Fed-X requiring a signature). Turned out a total scam, gotta remember a $20 FedX investment with a payoff of $2800, great return. I wouldn't ignore it though, going to insurance company was best idea and I'd leave it with them.

Reply by James Dawson on 2/26/11 12:33pm
Msg #374328

Re: Sounds like a shakedown.

I would have checked my policy first, there may have been a "clause" excluding negligence....if that what it was. JMO

Reply by MW/VA on 2/26/11 4:19pm
Msg #374365

Re: Sounds like a shakedown.

Yes, it's a wait & see for now. Insurance is checking if this is covered since it is so unusual.
Also, someone else reminded me that I'm set up as an LLC, so I'm protected personally. My co. has no assets.

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 2/26/11 12:32pm
Msg #374327

Marilyn
Where did you get the image from originally?
Masterfile is a stock photo agency.
http://www.masterfile.com/

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 2/26/11 1:48pm
Msg #374338

Some stock image companies sell their files to be used for a specific purpose, or prohibit use in print or via the web. Sometimes, you can only use it for one item for the fee paid. So if you then publish it elsewhere without paying the additional fee, you're in violation of the usage agreements.

A lot of people (not saying Marilyn did this) will take the sample images from these sites and use them without paying. In fact, last year I noticed a signing agency (one who has been mentioned here before) actually did this on their website and you could tell because the company's watermark was still visible. Any credibility that individual may have had went right out the window when I saw that... especially since the image would have only cost her $5.00 to use on her website.

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 2/26/11 4:35pm
Msg #374371

I got a PM from Marilyn, she tried to post where the image came from but NR wouldn't let her post the name of the company apparently.

But, it was a business card she bought from the online company that offers free business cards and just pay for shipping, and the name of the company is on the business cards if you get the free ones. First name is the same as my computer operating system

Apparently the business card company has permission to use the image but Marilyn didn't.

Reply by BrendaTx on 2/26/11 1:42pm
Msg #374335

MV - sorry for the problems...

But, I've always wondered where / how notaries could use those images without having someone sue them for it.

Shakedowns are common scams these days.

Don't panic. A settlement of $2800 is likely to be a lot less if that's their initial offer IF this is for real.

Notaries, scrub your sites of those pen and paper/seal and paper photos.

Reply by BrendaTx on 2/26/11 1:44pm
Msg #374336

Also, if the letter did not come from an attorney,

that raises a flag. Attorneys usually send settlement offers and threats of lawsuits.

Reply by cayenne1227 on 2/26/11 1:47pm
Msg #374337

hmmm....$2800.00 sounds like

the amount that comes out of Nigeria...."Hey!! you have just won 195,000.00....just send in the $2800.00 for taxes....." ah ha.....OK!!! They must have a special reason for using the amount of $2800.00.....

Reply by Lee/AR on 2/26/11 2:42pm
Msg #374346

Google Masterfile Canada... lot of info... n/m

Reply by BrendaTx on 2/26/11 7:07pm
Msg #374389

Wow, Lee...ain't it the truth!

They are busy little beavers.

Reply by MikeC/NY on 2/26/11 3:48pm
Msg #374357

Just for future reference

Always use a stock photo service like Fotalia.com to get your images for use either on the web or in print - most only cost a couple of bucks to purchase and are royalty free (I purchased a similar photo to use on a web site several years ago).

Reply by MW/VA on 2/26/11 4:23pm
Msg #374366

Re: Just for future reference

Thanks, Mike.

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 2/26/11 6:44pm
Msg #374385

Seems like a scam

First letter is almost always a cease and desist order. For then to demand $2800 in their very first correspondence is absurd, and I doubt they would get that much from you even if it went to court.

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 2/26/11 7:17pm
Msg #374393

Re: Seems like a scam

I got a "cease and desist" letter once back in May 2004 telling me to cease and desist from using the words Certified Mobile Notary Public on any documents, letterheads, business cards etc. They said they had those words copyrighted and trademarked. I was also to cease and desist from using the words "Mobile Notary" I also got a copy of it in my e-mail box. I sent a reply back requesting to get certified copies of the trademark and copyright certificates held on the phrase Certified Mobile Notary Public and the initials CMNP.

I never heard any more about it. Obviously they didn't have a case.

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 2/26/11 7:40pm
Msg #374396

The CMNP is supposedly trademarked by the

United States Mobile Notary Association (http://www.usmna.net). But as for calling yourself a "mobile notary"? I didn't think people can trademark common phrases like that, nor do I believe that the USMNA has trademarked the term.

Especially considering that probably 75% of the members here consider themselves to be mobile notaries and advertise as such.

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 2/26/11 7:42pm
Msg #374397

And there are no "CMNP"s in my entire county

and I'm in a fairly large area.

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 2/26/11 7:59pm
Msg #374399

Re: The CMNP is supposedly trademarked by the

"supposedly" is the right word.
I talked to the trademark office at that time and the phrase was not copyrighted or trademarked. Another notary a few months later posted the same problem to another signing agent site. I told them just to ignore it. He never heard back either.
And as to their claim that the initials CMNP were copyrighted etc, I looked up the initials online at the time and there were several entities using those initials.

Reply by Susan Fischer on 2/26/11 8:18pm
Msg #374400

I'd like to see proof of the claim. The business card co

that rhymes with Mista Sprint should be able to shed some light on usage of images for sale on their site. (Only 250 cards are 'free, we pay for additional amounts of cards.)

They've been around a ~long~ time.

If you 'repurposed' an image for your site, it may or may not be an issue, depending. That's where the insurance lawyers come in...

Best of luck.

Reply by Victoria_NJ on 2/28/11 3:45pm
Msg #374544

I agree with Susan - if the biz card sold you the right

to use the image, there may not be an issue. By using the business cards with the image, that is a way of "branding" you using a particular image. I'd look at the terms and conditions of your business card printing agreement.

Reply by MW/VA on 2/28/11 7:36pm
Msg #374566

I haven't brought up with Masterfile how I can to get the

image in the first place. BTW the biz cards weren't fee because I opted not to use their advertising on the back. I also purchased address labels, etc. It's a moot point as I see it. Even if they were authorized to use the image, I wasn't authorized to use it. Thanks to Mike I realize I can purchase an image for a few dollars on another website. That should also make for an interesting tactic in this matter, since they want an unreasonable amt. of money in an unreasonable amt. of time.

Reply by LKT/CA on 2/26/11 9:44pm
Msg #374401

<<<Simple image--fountain pen, but the image belongs to the artist.>>>

A fountain pen? That's like saying you used their image of a chair, a table, a tree, a bathtub, a chocolate chip cookie - any other common, every day item. I agree with those that believe this is a scam - there are a lot of them out there. Your insurance company will certainly investigate and in the end, it will all come to nothing.

Reply by MikeC/NY on 2/27/11 4:36pm
Msg #374451

Not necessarily true

"A fountain pen? That's like saying you used their image of a chair, a table, a tree, a bathtub, a chocolate chip cookie - any other common, every day item. "

Just because the photo is of a common item has nothing to do with copyright. They're not claiming copyright to EVERY image of a fountain pen - just that particular one. You can call it "artistic expression" or whatever, but they created that photo and unless they've released the photo to the public domain, you need their permission to use it.

"But it's just a fountain pen" is not a defense against charges of copyright infringement....