Infringement of image rights in a Facebook post
Discussion
This post has been prompted by an email received by Mrs Oxgreen from PA Media Group, demanding a fairly large sum of money because she used one of their images in a blog post. The email appears genuine, and she admits that on this occasion she was slightly careless and did indeed use an image that she harvested from a news article. The amount demanded is clearly punitive (hugely more than the cost of legitimately licensing the picture), and whilst it possibly could be challenged on that basis, I’m suggesting she pay up to make it go away, and chalk it up to experience.
This post is not specifically about Mrs Oxgreen’s transgression. But it has set me thinking about whether I could also come a cropper…
When you create a Facebook post containing a link to an article on a news web site (as I often do), Facebook automatically inserts an image link to the article, typically using the big top-of-page image from the article. So that image (which the news site either owns or has licensed for their own use) appears in your Facebook post - but you have not paid a licence fee for it. You can remove the image if you wish, but it’s not obvious how you do it and it does require a positive action on your part.
So what is the legal position on this?
Have you, as the Facebook poster, infringed the image rights?
Has Facebook infringed the image rights by inserting it into your post? I’ve never checked to see whether the Facebook post contains a remote link to the image, or whether Facebook has harvested a copy of it. Does it make any difference?
Is Facebook on the hook for it because your post is hosted on their platform? Or is the content creator (i.e. you) responsible?
Does it make any difference that the image was used purely as part of a link to the article? Morally I think it makes it okay because you’re pushing traffic their way, but does the law see it that way?
99% of my Facebook posts are visible only to my friends. Does that make any difference? It presumably makes it difficult (impossible?) for anyone other than Meta to detect the unauthorised image usage.
I’d be fascinated to hear from any IPR experts on this.
This post is not specifically about Mrs Oxgreen’s transgression. But it has set me thinking about whether I could also come a cropper…
When you create a Facebook post containing a link to an article on a news web site (as I often do), Facebook automatically inserts an image link to the article, typically using the big top-of-page image from the article. So that image (which the news site either owns or has licensed for their own use) appears in your Facebook post - but you have not paid a licence fee for it. You can remove the image if you wish, but it’s not obvious how you do it and it does require a positive action on your part.
So what is the legal position on this?
Have you, as the Facebook poster, infringed the image rights?
Has Facebook infringed the image rights by inserting it into your post? I’ve never checked to see whether the Facebook post contains a remote link to the image, or whether Facebook has harvested a copy of it. Does it make any difference?
Is Facebook on the hook for it because your post is hosted on their platform? Or is the content creator (i.e. you) responsible?
Does it make any difference that the image was used purely as part of a link to the article? Morally I think it makes it okay because you’re pushing traffic their way, but does the law see it that way?
99% of my Facebook posts are visible only to my friends. Does that make any difference? It presumably makes it difficult (impossible?) for anyone other than Meta to detect the unauthorised image usage.
I’d be fascinated to hear from any IPR experts on this.
I think we're talking about two different things here.
If you harvest an image from a news article and use it in your own blog then you're bang to rights.
If you post a link to a someone else's article and Facebook displays an image that was legitimately used within that article on your page with the link, then that's fine.
In the first case you've stolen someone else's work to use in your own work.
In the second case you've simply created a portal to someone else's work within your own online space.
If you harvest an image from a news article and use it in your own blog then you're bang to rights.
If you post a link to a someone else's article and Facebook displays an image that was legitimately used within that article on your page with the link, then that's fine.
In the first case you've stolen someone else's work to use in your own work.
In the second case you've simply created a portal to someone else's work within your own online space.
MitchT said:
I think we're talking about two different things here.
If you harvest an image from a news article and use it in your own blog then you're bang to rights.
If you post a link to a someone else's article and Facebook displays an image that was legitimately used within that article on your page with the link, then that's fine.
In the first case you've stolen someone else's work to use in your own work.
In the second case you've simply created a portal to someone else's work within your own online space.
So, are you saying that if she d linked to the news article, and that link wrapped around an IMG tag that remotely downloaded the image (rather than using a local copy), that would be okay?If you harvest an image from a news article and use it in your own blog then you're bang to rights.
If you post a link to a someone else's article and Facebook displays an image that was legitimately used within that article on your page with the link, then that's fine.
In the first case you've stolen someone else's work to use in your own work.
In the second case you've simply created a portal to someone else's work within your own online space.
So this is okay:
<a href="http://www.news.com"><img src= www.news.com/image.jpg /></a>
But this is not:
<a href="http://www.news.com"><img src= www.my_site.com/image_copy.jpg /></a>
The onscreen effect is identical. I m just not sure that the law understands HTML well enough to make that distinction.
What I mean is, if you post a link to someone else's article on your Facebook page and it adds an image from that article to your post, as is ususally does, then that's fine as you're just linking to someone else's article and any image accompanying the link is a legitimate of part of that article. But if you download a pic from somewhere and then upload it and use it in your own post then that's not OK as you haven't obtained the right to use the image.
Drawweight said:
When you say fairly large sum of money how much are we talking about.
A quick ChatGPT search gives examples of £300 - £800.
If it s in that price range honestly I d pay up as she seems not to have much of a defence.
If it s more I d be inclined to try to negotiate.
I'd take the image down, apologise, and then say "go on then" if they threaten to waste their own time over a few hundred quid. Exactly what happened to me years ago with "borrowed" images. I just took them down and apologised feigning innocence.A quick ChatGPT search gives examples of £300 - £800.
If it s in that price range honestly I d pay up as she seems not to have much of a defence.
If it s more I d be inclined to try to negotiate.
Griffith4ever said:
I'd take the image down, apologise, and then say "go on then" if they threaten to waste their own time over a few hundred quid. Exactly what happened to me years ago with "borrowed" images. I just took them down and apologised feigning innocence.
That s what the person who used one of my photos did. He had picked it from ph, and used it to sell automotive paints. (It wasn t you was it?). Mind you the apology was more of an argument saying they could use the pic and that I had no right to prevent its use. They went on to pinch someone else’s pic of a Reflex Purple Tuscan.
Edited by blueg33 on Sunday 7th December 04:25
blueg33 said:
Griffith4ever said:
I'd take the image down, apologise, and then say "go on then" if they threaten to waste their own time over a few hundred quid. Exactly what happened to me years ago with "borrowed" images. I just took them down and apologised feigning innocence.
That s what the person who used one of my photos did. He had picked it from ph, and used it to sell automotive paints. (It wasn t you was it?). Mind you the apology was more of an argument saying they could use the pic and that I had no right to prevent its use. They went on to pinch someone else s pic of a Reflex Purple Tuscan.
Edited by blueg33 on Sunday 7th December 04:25
On a " regular" site I used a random forum pic and was approached by the owner. We agreed a fair price and I paid, and kept it up. Was reasonable and both were happy, though he was cross at first
Edited by Griffith4ever on Sunday 7th December 06:07
You've opened a can of worms for me here OP.
I had no idea that this could be an issue. I'd thought that if the image was on the internet then it could be used.
An example was a PH thread I'd made about an oven lamp, I'd searched for a picture of the same type of lamp and inserted it in my post to show the bulb I was on about.
I've deleted it now.
There are loads of pictures I see on this and other forums and facebook etc, that are obviously copied from somewhere else. So presumably anyone that posts a picture that they haven't taken could be on the hook for a bill.
ETA
Thinking about it - there are loads of copied pictures on PH. The "Blast from the Past" and "Guess who has Aged" forums for example, would not work without pictures.
Are all us who search and add a picture to a post really liable to be "invoiced" for using them in such a way?
I had no idea that this could be an issue. I'd thought that if the image was on the internet then it could be used.
An example was a PH thread I'd made about an oven lamp, I'd searched for a picture of the same type of lamp and inserted it in my post to show the bulb I was on about.
I've deleted it now.
There are loads of pictures I see on this and other forums and facebook etc, that are obviously copied from somewhere else. So presumably anyone that posts a picture that they haven't taken could be on the hook for a bill.
ETA
Thinking about it - there are loads of copied pictures on PH. The "Blast from the Past" and "Guess who has Aged" forums for example, would not work without pictures.
Are all us who search and add a picture to a post really liable to be "invoiced" for using them in such a way?
Edited by GasEngineer on Sunday 7th December 08:29
t you really did delete the pic of a light bulb. Lmfao. .We had this some 15 years ago.
Former company director used an unlicensed image. They wanted £500 I think.
We just wrote back saying sorry, fixed it , done by a former director and after a few letters they dropped it.
Image libraries do actively search out use of their images ( fair enough ).
Former company director used an unlicensed image. They wanted £500 I think.
We just wrote back saying sorry, fixed it , done by a former director and after a few letters they dropped it.
Image libraries do actively search out use of their images ( fair enough ).
Unfortunately there are plenty of instances of this company pursuing the claim through the courts. Their email also states that removal of the image will not resolve the matter. It doesn’t matter whether the usage is for gain or not; plenty of charities and other not-for-profit organisations have been chased by them.
If they were to take it to court, chances are we’d lose, and it would cost us a helluva lot more than the roughly £450 they’re demanding. Even if we could argue successfully that the claim is punitive and somehow unenforceable (paying to use the image in the first place would have been a fraction of that amount), I doubt we’d get our costs back and it would still cost us a lot more.
They’ve clearly chosen the amount of their claim on that basis: it’s a chunky amount that’s worth their while chasing, but the cost of fighting against it is likely a lot more.
Clearly, using an Amazon product image is not going to get you into hot water because Amazon would be idiots to risk their customer goodwill like that (even though technically I do think you probably have infringed their image rights). But using a library image from a news site is risky because the agency that owns the image doesn’t care what the end readers think of them - all that matters to them is their reputation with the news sites, not the end readers. And in this case the image itself is the commodity: the library has lost the revenue they “should” have earned from your usage of the image.
The picture in question is from the occasion when David Cameron was visiting a school and was sitting at a table with two young children. Cameron said something moronic that caused the little girl to headbutt the table in disbelief, and the photographer caught the moment.
If they were to take it to court, chances are we’d lose, and it would cost us a helluva lot more than the roughly £450 they’re demanding. Even if we could argue successfully that the claim is punitive and somehow unenforceable (paying to use the image in the first place would have been a fraction of that amount), I doubt we’d get our costs back and it would still cost us a lot more.
They’ve clearly chosen the amount of their claim on that basis: it’s a chunky amount that’s worth their while chasing, but the cost of fighting against it is likely a lot more.
Clearly, using an Amazon product image is not going to get you into hot water because Amazon would be idiots to risk their customer goodwill like that (even though technically I do think you probably have infringed their image rights). But using a library image from a news site is risky because the agency that owns the image doesn’t care what the end readers think of them - all that matters to them is their reputation with the news sites, not the end readers. And in this case the image itself is the commodity: the library has lost the revenue they “should” have earned from your usage of the image.
The picture in question is from the occasion when David Cameron was visiting a school and was sitting at a table with two young children. Cameron said something moronic that caused the little girl to headbutt the table in disbelief, and the photographer caught the moment.
Dr Mike Oxgreen said:
Unfortunately there are plenty of instances of this company pursuing the claim through the courts. Their email also states that removal of the image will not resolve the matter. It doesn t matter whether the usage is for gain or not; plenty of charities and other not-for-profit organisations have been chased by them.
If they were to take it to court, chances are we d lose, and it would cost us a helluva lot more than the roughly £450 they re demanding. Even if we could argue successfully that the claim is punitive and somehow unenforceable (paying to use the image in the first place would have been a fraction of that amount), I doubt we d get our costs back and it would still cost us a lot more.
Basically blackmail then.If they were to take it to court, chances are we d lose, and it would cost us a helluva lot more than the roughly £450 they re demanding. Even if we could argue successfully that the claim is punitive and somehow unenforceable (paying to use the image in the first place would have been a fraction of that amount), I doubt we d get our costs back and it would still cost us a lot more.
Are there any instances of this company of scumsuckers actually winning their claims?
A court has a judge and judge decide how reasonable each claim is.
It doesn't cost anything to defend in Small Claims - as in you don't need a solicitor.
CanAm said:
There was a lengthy thread on this very subject a few years ago, where a firm of 'solicitors' appeared to be actively seeking out victims such transgressions.
It may be worth searching for it.
I've found at least 5 threads on the subject, going back as far as 2008. There's even a company who have set up a scheme for those who have been targetted by this 'scam'. It may be worth searching for it.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?host...
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Simpo Two said:
Are there any instances of this company of scumsuckers actually winning their claims?
A court has a judge and judge decide how reasonable each claim is.
It doesn't cost anything to defend in Small Claims - as in you don't need a solicitor.
They may well win in court if if ever got that far. A court has a judge and judge decide how reasonable each claim is.
It doesn't cost anything to defend in Small Claims - as in you don't need a solicitor.
Start by apologising and remove the image.
When they persist offer a low-fair non punitive price - £25??
If it ever gets to court the judge will see the OP being reasonable and that will count against the company.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff