Unlicensed Use Imagery... Next Steps

[sagarich]

Background:

I co-own a very small Ltd company in the Education sector, we have a website with very little traffic.

Recently I have been contacted by a company called "Picrights" saying that in 2015 we used an unlicensed picture on a blog post.

For this, they're asking for a high three figure payment to settle the case and compensate the photographer working at a large news agency.

Of course, at first I thought this was scam... I kind of still do. But I looked up the post and yes, it turns out during that period we were using a freelancer and she doesn't seem to have used a royalty free image. So, hands up, we're in the wrong.

My questions are:

Is PICRIGHTS UK LIMITED the real deal? (Their CH filings suggest not).

If they're legit, what's the process and how willing are they to negotiate?

[deckster]

Plenty of hits if you google them and yes, they seem to be legit if unsavoury.

This one https://copyrightaid.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2... appears to have some good advice.

[sagarich]

deckster said:

Plenty of hits if you google them and yes, they seem to be legit if unsavoury.

This one https://copyrightaid.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2... appears to have some good advice.

Thanks Deckster, yes I had a google before coming on here. Something just felt a little bit off with the search results and their legitimacy.

I did stumble upon the link you sent and it seems I'm not the only one.

Happy to pay a settlement... but don't want to unwitting fall into an elaborate scam.

The demands for payment to swiss account also raised alarmbells. Maybe I'm just paranoid.

[mmm-five]

Can you not find out who owns the rights, then retrospectively pay for a licence to the image?

[Doofus]

mmm-five said:

Can you not find out who owns the rights, then retrospectively pay for a licence to the image?

They might not grant a licence.

Wehad a similar issue several years ago. We asked the various owners for retrospective permission. Around half gave it, and the others didn't so we still had to pay up.

[boyse7en]

We had this about 8 years ago for an image we used.
Don't remember which company it was that contacted us (from memory it was one of the Gettyimages offshoots) demanding £795 for using their image.
We asked them to send documentation showing that they were the sole licensee of the image (since some photographers sell their pics via multiple outlets) and never heard from them again.

[mmm-five]

Doofus said:

They might not grant a licence.

Wehad a similar issue several years ago. We asked the various owners for retrospective permission. Around half gave it, and the others didn't so we still had to pay up.

Hence the need to find out where it came from in the first place, and you'd hope the 'invoice' would tell you whose rights you're infringing.

I get this sort of thing a lot, when I prepare a draft for a company with multiple image options for them to choose from. I tell them to review it, decide on the most appropriate image (for their 'abstract' message) and then tell me so that I can licence it correctly. About half the time I go back & forwards on design choices and content but nothing about the licensing...and then I realise they've gone ahead and used the document with the stock photo proofing watermark clearly visible.

My invoice will list the image references, where I've got them from, and whether I've paid individually or it's part of a company subscription (depends on the company of course).

[moustachebandit]

Has the image been available for download through a paid stock photography service like shutter stock etc? If so the freelancer you used may have legitimately purchased the image for your use.

Run the image through Tin Eye or a similar reverse image look up service to see if its available to purchase through the various photography stock sites.

[Simpo Two]

Seems similar to this thread: https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

[MitchT]

Surely the freelancer should be on the hook for this?

[Simpo Two]

MitchT said:

Surely the freelancer should be on the hook for this?

That was my first thought - but it was the company that published it. If a licence had been bought, who would own it?

[StevieBee]

mmm-five said:

Can you not find out who owns the rights, then retrospectively pay for a licence to the image?

The rights will always rest with the photographer (unless otherwise arranged which is rare). When they put their photos on a library site, when they’re used they receive a fee. One photo may be used many times by different people so it’s unlikely that they’d sign over the rights to single user for an amount that would be acceptable to both parties. And even if that wasn't the case, the agreement they have with the library may well prohibit that.

Quite often, these claims are as a result of non-adherence to the license agreement because few people bother to read it. So a fee may have been paid originally but if the licence restricts the time the image can be used, the context, territory, etc... then it’s the library that comes knocking and what they’re after is their license fee. The library is not representing the interests of a photographer - only themselves.

Simpo Two said:

MitchT said:

Surely the freelancer should be on the hook for this?

That was my first thought - but it was the company that published it. If a licence had been bought, who would own it?

Yep - legal liability exists with the company that publishes the thing with the photo. If the freelancer purchased a licence on behalf of their client then I believe that that licence remains with the freelancer with rights afforded to the client to use the image. If the freelancer did not make clear the terms of those rights (as set out in the licence) to the client then then the client may well have a claim against them.

Of course the solution to all this is to source images direct from - or commission - a competent professional photographer!

[Al Gorithum]

I've encountered this twice. Ignored it both times. Never heard from them again. Seems to be a numbers game for them (some will pay - some don't).