Copyright Infringement Notice Help

Not sure, but there are entities who make a living from sending takedown notices and demanding payment, quite often for things they have no connection to.

The fact that the image was obtained from Pinterest makes it suspicious, because why haven’t they gone after Pinterest and whoever posted it on there first?

Pinterest are a pain in the ass when looking for specific information or items, because the location goes straight to them, with very little information about the location or the actual item available.
I’d be inclined to send a reply, just saying “What image?”. As you’ve removed it, it’s now entirely up to them to prove there’s been any infringement of copyright, as there’s nothing there.

Alamy are a stock photo library, who charge clients for the use of images in their library, so chasing after copyright infringement is perfectly acceptable. However, the initial infringement is via Pinterest, who you’ve linked to, so as far as I can see, as the image has been removed from your blog, they no longer have a link to you, any further notices should, I would have thought, gone to Pinterest and/or whoever posted the image there in the first place.

In the, unlikely scenario of them contacting you again, I would reply saying the image isn’t being used by you, any further enquiries should be directed to Pinterest, and that their contacting you was due to a false positive within their system searches.
Or words to that effect. Using an image in the way you are, as reference material, generally comes under fair use, as it’s not for commercial purposes, ie selling an item for commercial gain.

I agree with the above. and unless the image has 'copyright' plastered all over it it is just another non descript image from the interweb, of which there are trilions

You got it from pinterest, so for any claim, the buck stops there.

.

When you say 'got' it from Pinterest do you mean purchased it or just downloaded it off a page of theirs? Was it embedded on  your blog site or linked to from Pinterest a bit like free members photos on here? These details may make a difference.

I'm not in any way a lawyer but if you basically nicked it you should probably be paying someone, although your demand does sound scammy.  :unsure:

There’s no way in a million years this is real or enforceable. Ignore it.

“I got it off the internet” has to be one of the more creative defences to copyright violation.

Technically they’ve got the OP bang to rights, but just refusing to engage may be the best option. They might sue, but probably not.

It might be exempt..

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright

Even if not, what would be the damage to the copyright holder?  Especially as you removed it straight away on being notified.

I'm not a lawyer, but I have deal with image copyright a bit.

This will be a speculative invoice issued by the copyright owner via alamy. You could ignore it - there is a good chance they won't persue it as they issued a whole bunch of them to see who would pay up. You could also find the image on alamy to confirm the licensing value (if they have not already provided a link) apologise for your oversight and offer to pay it - the standard usage fee is £35.

More info here https://fairlicensing.alamy.com/FAQ

You got it from pinterest, so for any claim, the buck stops there.

Not at all true. If the image is still hosted on pintrest, they could go after them too. The company can go after everyone who is using their intellectual property without permission regardless of how they obtained it. The effort and cost of some scenarios would outweigh the benefit though.

You've done the correct thing removing it from your site. If you are writing about the logo then use of the logo is fair game... but without seeing the image in question it's impossible to say if you were just using the logo or some creative that featured the logo. Hand draw the logo yourself and use that... and get the blog live again.

I agree with the above. and unless the image has ‘copyright’ plastered all over it it is just another non descript image from the interweb, of which there are trilions

copyright exists in any artistic work regardless of whether it has been labelled as such or not.

You got it from pinterest, so for any claim, the buck stops there.

legally it doesnt

Your choice now is to ignore it, to respond pointing out it’s legitimate use for critique or to pay them some money.  I’d probably be inclined to say “I believe that was within the terms of legitimate use (s xxx of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act xxxx) but without prejudice and for efficiency we have removed the entire article and trust this draws the matter to a close.”

lesson here is don’t use other people’s work without checking ownership, crediting it etc.

 If you are writing about the logo then use of the logo is fair game

This. Clearly falls under fair use as its being used for non-commercial purposes. Sounds like a scam to me.

Is your blog monetised in any way? I.e. could your use of the logo be seen as trying to take commercial advantage?

This feels like one for a journalist to answer. There are press articles all the time about commerce or the big tech companies that feature the logos of the corporations being discussed within the article. I can't imagine those journalists either ask permission to use the logo or pay for the privilege.

Feels like a bot/automated trawl to me - for fair means or foul.

Has anybody had an dealings with fairlicensing? This appears to be some sort of portal with a link to alamy and a few other image sites.

Some time ago I had some experience with the same process. If someone owns the copyright to the image (copyright is assumed to be owned by the creator) and you used it w/o permission it can be enforceable. Image sites have web scouring software and there are no win no fee IP lawyers who can back this stuff up. If someone created it and it's not online clearly under creative commons use rights, then you can't just help yourself to it. It sucks if your use is non commercial but the creator has a right to protect an image. How this works with a brand logo and fair use may be the crux here. I suspect you've been caught by an automated process but the right reply may quash it.

I’d probably be inclined to say “I believe that was within the terms of legitimate use (s xxx of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act xxxx) but without prejudice and for efficiency we have removed the entire article and trust this draws the matter to a close.”

For a brand logo used in the OPs context perhaps, I'm not sure. Need to check if rules on permission and reasonable use apply.

its being used for non-commercial purposes

Non-commercial use isn't a factor, it's all on whether it's being used without permission in a way that can cause loss or damage (minor, but still..) to the copyright owner.

This might be of use OP - page 5 mentions 'fair dealing' and you could be covered by that, or at least it should help find a suitable defence.

Non-commercial use isn’t a factor, it’s all on whether it’s being used without permission in a way that can cause loss or damage (minor, but still..) to the copyright owner.

But what would happen if a big news paper did a huge expose of corrupt practice at a large commercial organisation? That would clearly cause loss or damage. And they are not going to be able to get permission. Maybe they just don't use the logo in that circumstance....or just a photo (you took yourself) of a product or building with the logo on it - if that is different.

Or a blog/news article or publicly available academic article about the physical construct of logos - (colour, font, line weight etc and visual impact) and used 20 or 30 examples.....

This feels like one for a journalist to answer.

Taking a photo or piece of art from the internet and using it on a blog is 100% a potential copyright infringement.

But in 20+ years of journalism I never came across any dispute (or even concerns in house) about using company logos.

So there is certainly a long-standing convention that using logos for editorial (even if carrying adverts) is "fair use".

Here's something from Gov.UK which appears to cover it: Exceptions to copyright - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

However, the fact that Alamy are on to you makes me wonder whether you have used a stock photo of a logo, e.g. a photo of a sign, a vehicle or a can of beans featuring the logo?

This photo will have been taken by a photographer, and they (or their agency) is entitled to pursue copyright claims.

In that case, you are bang to rights - but you might still want to ignore the letter and hope it goes away.

It's probably automated and certainly they're taking a swing at collecting money speculatively. Depending on whether your name and location is on the webpage, they probably don't know who you are or where you are, so they couldn't sue you yet. (They could get third party disclosure from ISPs etc but that takes time and money).

If you have already deleted it, I would ignore it in the first instance. If they email again and it looks legit,  I agree with Poly - "I don't agree with your assertions but I have removed the image and consider this correspondence closed". I wouldn't panic by any means.

I know photographers who make a living collecting fees from unauthorised use of their images. Usually ones who can’t make a living actually selling their images, but that’s neither here nor there.

You cannot just grab (steal) a piece of copyrighted media from the internet, put it on your website and claim ignorance or naivety. I assume you know not to do it with music or film, so why is photography different?

Your best bet to make it go away asap is to contact Alamy and offer the basic amount for a licence for this use, probably only a few pounds as someone has pointed out.

Photographers like me make their living selling licenced images so don’t steal them. It’s like going into the local shop and helping yourself to the pick and mix. That means not posting them on forums like this too, in case anyone is wondering. You’re opening yourself up to claims when you do.

But in 20+ years of journalism I never came across any dispute (or even concerns in house) about using company logos.

Yes you can probably justify the use of a logo with editorial comment, etc, but not a photo you've (even if just out of naivety as seems to be the case here) used without permission (i.e. stolen).

everyone seems to be fixated on the OP having used a logo, but that is not what the OP actually says.

You didn't read the rest of my post, did you?

nope 🙂

Just be aware that you will be one of 1000's that this company are chasing. If you make it difficult then they'll eventually give up and move onto the next one.  Do they know your full name, address, phone etc? If not then don't worry.

Google the company chasing you and the heading of the e-mail and you'll see there are loads of people in the same boat. They rely on trying to scare you into paying. Up to you if you end up paying or not.  From what I gather these cases have never reached court in the UK, so people either pay up or they drop the matter.

With me (20 years ago, aged 18ish, similar situation) they dropped the matter eventually. I told them I knew I was just 1 of thousands on their list so they could either waste their time and resources on me or just move onto the next victim. Then kept on hanging up on them til they gave up.

Be aware they will try every tactic in the book to scare you into paying. Shouting down the phone, threatening how it will escalate costs and affect your credit rating score*.

*on their own meaningless internal credit rating system!

I haven't heard of this scam for a few years but think maybe AI has improved their image scanning ability and made it lucrative again? An old client of mine (who later built his own website) is currently being chased by them for an image he uploaded and they're currently being pretty threatening to him.

An old client of mine (who later built his own website) is currently being chased by them for an image he uploaded and they’re currently being pretty threatening to him.

Assuming we are talking about Alamy here, has he, at any point, simply offered to pay the original licensing fee?

Sorry, slight mistake by me but it was PicRights who are chasing him for an image he used which apparently is owned by Associated Press.  I'm not sure what he's offered.

Back in the day I offered to pay £5, they rejected and then I just ignored them to they left me alone.  I was 18 and had no assets then.

From what I read there's a few of these companies, who are often acting off their own back and the actual copyright holder is unaware of the claim.

In some cases they are making claims for images that aren't breaking copyright (I read about a case where a red carpet photographer had his celebrity photo mistaken for someone elses from a similar angle).

Do some research on Google and I bet you'll find a subreddit/forum where people are in the same boat as you - share info and see what everyone else is doing and whether they follow through on their threats.  And don't give them any additional info (contact / work details in your e-mail footer, auto responders etc).  If all they have is an e-mail address they can't do much.

I’d probably be inclined to say “I believe that was within the terms of legitimate use (s xxx of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act xxxx) but without prejudice and for efficiency we have removed the entire article and trust this draws the matter to a close.”

The risk here is that you're admitting guilt.  I wouldn't be giving them any info they don't already have.

Do some research on Google and I bet you’ll find a subreddit/forum where people are in the same boat as you – share info and see what everyone else is doing and whether they follow through on their threats.

There is.  There's a lengthy thread (and others) here:

https://copyrightaid.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3072

The risk here is that you’re admitting guilt.  I wouldn’t be giving them any info they don’t already have.

in what way does that admit “guilt”, it actually explicitly denies any wrong doing.

It's not, in any sense, "admitting guilt".

Also, if you do post in a forum obvs don't use a username similar to your e-mail address, or any identifiable info  - if you say you're worried and might pay up then I guarantee Alamy keep an eye on posts and will put extra pressure on.

In my experience that sort are just a bunch of bullies who shout and threaten as it gets results - don't give them anything to feed off.

Also, if you do post in a forum obvs don’t use a username similar to your e-mail address, or any identifiable info – if you say you’re worried and might pay up then I guarantee Alamy keep an eye on posts and will put extra pressure on.

In my experience that sort are just a bunch of bullies who shout and threaten as it gets results – don’t give them anything to feed off.

Alamy are huge, one of the largest stock agencies in the world. They are not keeping an eye on forum posts and changing tactics based on what someone said. Especially not when the actual invoice amount is effectively small change for them. Your experience from 20 years ago has absolutely no bearing on what happens in these situations today.

Alternative viewpoint here. Photographers are absolutely entitled to take the necessary steps to protect their content, and that will always include a higher invoice value when billing for unauthorised use of their content. A settlement figure lower than the original invoice value will almost always be accepted - and in many cases just paying the standard license fee will close the matter.

Learn about image copyright and pay the fair price for use of content someone else created. Or learn how to create it yourself and make your own content.

@OP - where was your blog hosted? Do you have your own domain or is it a generic wordpress type site? Before deciding whether to take some of the 'ignore it' advice you need to determine if you are in any way traceable from the details you had on your page(s). Alamy is owned by PA Media group who are UK based. While I'm not suggesting they will take action, it is not difficult for them to make a claim through the IPEC small claims route and it would cost them under 60 quid to do so. It would be incredibly inconvenient for something that could be settled quickly.

Sorry, my mistake, I meant fairlicensing, the company doing the chasing.

Your experience from 20 years ago has absolutely no bearing on what happens in these situations today.

To be fair it seems fairly similar, unless the law has changed?  A 3rd party legal firm chasing using threatening tactics and not necessarily on behalf of the image agency or copyright holder, and often demanding excessive sums of money? They were doing this 20 years ago, with families getting chased for thousands as their 7 year old uploaded a photo to their first Geocities website.

Some reviews of fair licensing: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.fairlicensing.com

Edit: Alamy aren't doing much better: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/alamy.com

Those reviews are all crap from people who don't understand what fair licensing is.

They are not a third party legal firm.

They are a supplier of a software service - and to quote their marketing material here

Please note that Fair Licensing does not make any copyright claims or licensing offers but is soleley a provider of software for photographers and agencies to allow them to resolve copyright infringements directly with possible copyright infringers.

https://www.fairlicensing.com/en/

So in the OPs case the email is from Alamy and no-one else. And for all those people who put their reviews on trustpilot, well their emails are from the companies who own the copyright of the content they used without permission.

Subsequent edit. I agree Alamy are shit - way better services out there - but from the perspective of this conversation they have the law on their side.

I joined facebok(since closed the account) and left the pics section blank.

Then a few months later logged in to find a pic of myself on my title page. I certainly did not upload that, and yet here it was. There is actually only one pic of me online, on retrobike from a RB meet/ride.

So clearly facebook has searched for, and added a personal pic. How or why i dont know, only i didnt do it, and never would. I believe in anonymity.

I resized the pic and cropped it just to show a section of the background, then a day or two later just shut the account because i do not like that type of thing. Taking bloody liberties.

The risk here is that you’re admitting guilt.  I wouldn’t be giving them any info they don’t already have.

Bit late for that I'd have thought. They will have saved the webpage before issuing the notice. Delete the page or image, they'll have all they need anyway (assuming OP can be linked to the page).

I am struggling to understand how a logo could have image rights attached, more so, how an organisation like Alamay could own the copyright. Was it just a logo, or a photograph featuring the logo?

Well indeed, If I wrote a blog about logos, something along the lines of - bright bold designs are successful because...blah blah, example:

[URL= https://images2.imgbox.com/0b/12/wdCHasqT_o.jp g" target="_blank">https://images2.imgbox.com/0b/12/wdCHasqT_o.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]

Have I just commited copywrite infringement?

GPLlama on YT has had threatening letters/email from copyright lawyers a few times from memory. He's Australian based, so no idea if the laws down there are specially different but he's basically told them to jog on over the years.

mattyfez - you probably have because presumably you didn’t make the graphic with the 9 logos in it - so that is someone else’s (c).   Each of the logos are probably another 9 people’s (c) but generally you probably aren’t going to have an issue raising someone’s brand profile - however as well as (c) for logos you should be concerned about trademarks both (R) and TM.  They are all usually quite easy to manage without pissing people off if you use them properly acknowledge the intellectual property rights and remember someone else did work to create the image you want to use.

We churn out a large amount of content using freelance writers. Even though we have strict policies around licensing,  good royalty free images are often hard to find so people in a bind occasionally google/copy. Thus we’ve had a fair few of these over the years.

as far as I’m aware there is some legal president but we generally remove the image and ignore. Not had one follow up as of yet.

However, IANAL and all that

There is some good advice/ info on this thread, there is also some very bad advice.

The bottom line is that you have infringed somebody's copyright by downloading and using their work, it doesn't matter if it was on Pinterest, photographs on the internet although easily downloaded can not then be used in any way that would financially disadvantage the original creator or licence holder, ie a licence fee would be expected to be paid for you to use it on your blog, the chance of it also being fair usage on a blog is very slight but we'd need context for that.

I'm a photographer and I also moderate a press photographers' FB page where this comes up all the time, there are set processes to follow and if done correctly the photographer or pursuing organisation will always win as copyright infringement is an open and shut case, they also take people to court all the time as the amounts involved fall within the remit of the small claims court, there are quite a few cases where people have ignored these things and it's got very expensive indeed ( one guy got £29,000 when a club used one of his pics to promote themselves but that's pretty exceptional). I'm not saying you should settle straight away but if it does escalate don't ignore it, a typical unauthorised usage will be around three times what the photographer would have licensed the photograph for, check Alamy's single usage rates for non subscribers and maybe apologise and offer that, if they pursue this.

You say that there is no link to your identity on your blog, if this is the case you may be in luck and they may just move on, a larger company like Alamy may just do this, although Getty for instance are know to pursue infringements relentlessly, if it was the photographer themselves pursuing you and they could establish your identity then it would be best to just apologise and settle for a reasonable fee, some photographers chase every infringement and won't hesitate to get legal.

I am struggling to understand how a logo could have image rights attached, more so, how an organisation like Alamay could own the copyright. Was it just a logo, or a photograph featuring the logo?

I guess we'll never know, because this appears to be one of those threads where the OP come on with a massive  woe is me post then just ****s off without further comment.  :bye:

^^ In fairness he could just be up to real life stuff.

Up to real life stuff that trumps the initial concern about not being able to pay for an image whose rights have been contravened. Clearly not that worried.

johndoh
Free Member
Up to real life stuff that trumps the initial concern about not being able to pay for an image whose rights have been contravened. Clearly not that worried.

Its a lot of money for many people, most people in fact, I hope he resolves it in a way that's amicable for himself and any other parties involved.

No-one got murdered, the op doesn't sound like a hardened criminal and I hope he doesn't end up paying a punitive amount when it's obviously going to put him in financial distress.

That's about it really.

Sorry for no comment on this yesterday.

Had a really busy day - had some work to do, then had to go through my website and then was reading as much about this as I could.

The image in question was of the logo on a building.

The blog was on my website but I have now removed all posts and effectively shut down my blog. I ended up going through my site to ensure there were no more possible violations, All other images were from unsplash etc and I have ensured that all image credits are given as required.

I dont think its a good idea to just ignore this but I will be replying with an offer of the original license cost (£35) x3.

I feel this would be a reasonable offer and think it will be looked upon as being reasonable should this escalate.

I really can't afford to pay this as I haven't had any income at all since last November and have been supporting myself with savings, but there is a part of me thinking I just want this to go away. The amount of £500 seems punitive and I suspect if this went to a small claims court that they would be awarded the original license fee that they missed out on. That seems to be the general consensus from the forums I have looked at. The idea is to recoup their losses - not to punish.

This was a really stupid mistake and the stress this is causing is awful.

I probably won't be able to be back on here until later tonight or maybe even tomorrow.

Thanks for all the comments and help.

So, unfortunately, the image may well have a copyright attached - the licence fee isn't for using a logo, but someone's image that happens to feature a logo. I've been there myself (using an unlicensed image – it was included in a visual for a website and accidentally was used on the live site). It was a long time ago, but IIRC we argued that we ordinarily paid for licences (we used Getty Images lots back then and it was a genuine oversight). We managed to get the fee halved IIRC. I doubt they will accept just the original fee (otherwise that's what everyone would do every time) but fingers crossed you can come to an agreement with them.

I have a question.

Someone took a photo of a logo of a building.

Someone else lifted that photo and stuck it on Pintrest.

Someone else again - the OP - saw it on Pintrest and used it on their blog.

How were they supposed to know any different?

Doesn't help with the claim (and that's already been covered pretty comprehensively), but is there any way you can take your own photograph of something featuring the same logo and at least get your content back online?

How were they supposed to know any different?

By not using an image found online unless you know for certain that it's ok. By default, it's not.

"How were they supposed to know any different?"

As far as I'm aware (and I have only a passing interest/knowledge of this as my work as a teacher gives me a fair bit of 'fair use' leeway) it's on the end user to do their due diligence.

saw it on Pintrest and used it on their blog

Yeah, just don't do that and you'll be grand.

hunterst
This was a really stupid mistake and the stress this is causing is awful.

I make far worse mistakes pretty much weekly but luckily, most of the time, there aren't financial implications.

Keeping my fingers crossed for you that they accept the offer in good faith and keep us updated. <Thumb up>

"How were they supposed to know any different?"

Copying an image without permission (and without checking any license conditions) is *always* dodgy. There are some situations where it's ok, but as a general rule, you just can't republish someone else's work without permission.

Another point to make is that most amateurs will happily allow non commercial use of their pics if you ask. I wrote a blog about an attempt on the Cuillin Ridge in a day.  I used 2 really  good pics that weren't mine which I had seen on other blogs/websites. I emailed both photographers and asked them then credited the pics. One by an unknown photographer, Alexis Gilbert  another by Simon Caldwell.

A quick google shows Alexis has quite a few on Geograph.

The reality is that most people think that if a picture is in the public domain, ie on the internet then it's fine to use for whatever purpose they see fit, the vast majority of people have no real concept of copyright theft where pictures are concerned as millions of pics are shared and re shared on a daily basis, it's only really when professional photographers work is used that troubles occur and is often the first instance where people realise that what they have done is illegal.

Just suppose - can you use an image and manipulate it, does it then still remain copyright or is it now mine?

Say, IDK, I got a picture off say an album cover of a guitarist, cropped the image to show only them, recoloured it to make it a recognisable but silhouette outline (IDK again, maybe they are well known for playing a Fender Jag) and then got that printed onto a t-shirt.

Just suppose – can you use an image and manipulate it, does it then still remain copyright or is it now mine?

@theotherjonv that is where you get into the more murky areas of derivative works. The high level summary is 'probably not' particularly in your example.

Section two on the link below explains it best but the key message is "Legally only the copyright owner has the right to authorise adaptations and reproductions of their work - this includes the making of a derivative work."

https://copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p22_derivative_works

one of them was about the history and evolution of the logo of a long established brand.

What about contacting that company direct. Explaining you are doing a study on their brand and ask if it is ok to put their logo on your blog.

As long as it is nothing nasty about the company, and not for commercial purposes, they might well agree.

Then mail Alamy and tell them you have the company permission. Obviously saying when you got that permission doesn't need to come into it.

Pinterest is just image theft protected by the power of venture capital money.

I think that people forget that publishing an image on a website is like copying a movie and putting on the notice board of every house on the planet.

From what I’ve heard, agencies like Alamy are happy to settle for a reasonable amount that matches an ordinary licence fee. Infuriatingly, the photographer is very unlikely to see any percentage of the monies collected! The agencies consider their work in chasing down copyright infringements so onerous that they have to keep all the money for themselves. Another way hypercapitalism makes life more shit.

Then mail Alamy and tell them you have the company permission. Obviously saying when you got that permission doesn’t need to come into it.

Again, the image file itself is copyrighted, irrespective of its content. The creator owns the rights to that image, even if it contains a logo.

I really can’t afford to pay this...This was a really stupid mistake and the stress this is causing is awful.

You must not worry about this. It's like the supermarket sending you a "penalty charge notice" for overstaying in the car park. No-one is going to arrest you or seize your home.

Before offering to pay - how about just replying to say "thank you for your email. I don't understand all of this but I have deleted the image completely, thank you, goodbye"?

I think I would 100% do the above. If there is no longer any evidence of the image being used by you online, and of course it was never for commercial reasons, I can’t see there is much chance of it being pursued. I’d then let them know it has been permanently removed.
I would wait for a reply on this before making any offer. Or just remove it (as you have) and wait to see if you hear any more.
I had this a few years back after accidentally using an image on a website. We removed the image immediately and forgot about it. Never heard anything more.

Anyone remember this... from 2019!?

Copying an image without permission (and without checking any license conditions) is *always* dodgy.

So presumably the original authors of photos like the Distracted Guy meme are rolling in royalties?

I understand what you're all saying, as a (shit) photographer myself I have a vague handle on copyright.  But lifting images is normalised, stuff on the Internet gets copied, forwarded and posted with gay abandon.  It's not difficult to see how the OP got caught out.

Photographer of distracted guy photo has said he's not interested in taking any action.

Which took me all of 30 seconds to google, BTW. There's a lot of information readily available on the internet for anyone who wants to find out stuff.

Question.

If a user or contributor sends a picture they say I can use on my website (I'm asking for permission if you like) and it turns out to be lifted from say Alamy or just random from the net. Who is liable? How far can you check, or just never use images ever, to be on the safe side ?

If a user or contributor sends a picture they say I can use on my website (I’m asking for permission if you like) and it turns out to be lifted from say Alamy or just random from the net. Who is liable? How far can you check, or just never use images ever, to be on the safe side ?

Strictly speaking, yes, you would still be liable.

Although in that case 'Oh, I'm sorry, {someoneelse} informed me the were the copyright owner and provided me with permission to use the image. I'll take it down right away, and forward on the details of {someoneelse}" would probably be enough for most companies. Moreso if you then ask about licensing the image for continued use.

Quickest way to check is a reverse image search on anything you plan to put online. If it brings anything up other than the person who gave you permission at the very least clarify.

Highsmith v Getty

This seems to be the norm for the massive photograph outfits.

I photographed an image/etch from an old encyclopedia from the 1930's. Quite liked it as an image when made totally B&W.

Did a search on it and Alamy or Getty one of them had the exact same image, claiming it as theirs.

Now, the question is, is mine and theirs just a photograph of the same old image from a book. The actual original image is years out of copyright and inside the public domain.

But I guess the action of taking a new photograph of an old thing (image) makes only a new photograph, irrelevant of what the content is? But the new image of the old thing is a new image. Albeit, that you cant tell the difference about the content when they are side by side 🙂

Would they come after me, because I took a picture of the same etch, same as someone else has done and submitted it to one of dubious stock image firms. Just because they £££££££££££

But I guess the action of taking a new photograph of an old thing (image) makes only a new photograph, irrelevant of what the content is? But the new image of the old thing is a new image. Albeit, that you cant tell the difference about the content when they are side by side 🙂

Not all photographs attract copyright.  It is not the content that matters, but the intellectual creativity that goes into making the photo.  But you will require deep pockets to challenge that, so it is not really practical.

Logos will probably have copyright protection themselves,  but the brand owner is likely to be more relaxed about this type of use (that is  not use in relation to selling goods and services) than a photographer for whom use of images is the basis of their income. And the argument that the use is covered by a defence becomes a bit clearer.  So taking your own photo is a good idea, but will not necessarily get you off the hook, it all depends on the context in which the image is used.

Which took me all of 30 seconds to google, BTW. There’s a lot of information readily available on the internet for anyone who wants to find out stuff.

Maybe you could use it yourself to better understand what a random example is.

My point was, there are many thousands of images that have been doing the rounds on a near-daily basis for years.  People post and forward them constantly, perhaps with slight tweaks.  Side-eye girl, hell yeah baby, triggered woman, nope/yep dude in the hat, etc etc and indeed etc. (NB for the hard of thinking: just more random examples.) I've seen my own photograph posted to a group by a complete stranger, we had a bit of a chuckle about how bizarre that was.  No-one intends to commit copyright theft, chances are that without threads like this it wouldn't have crossed most folks' minds.

If someone who uses an image of a building on a personal website can get an invoice for £500, the photographers of these images must be millionaires by now.  Right?

Why not?  Is perhaps the law more nuanced than "YOU USE PITCHER GEIF MONIES NOW!!"?  I know that legally ignorance is no defence but it seems mad to me that a private company can issue what is clearly a punitive fee for people using copyrighted images by accident.  Why stop at £500, why not £5,000, £50,000?  Because the former is a figure people are likely to roll over for and the latter something which will definitely be challenged?  Parking companies got stood on for this, but are allowed an increased charge as a deterrent; where's the deterrent here when the OP was oblivious until the snotty email?

I'm all for artists being paid.  But I can't help think this could be resolved more civilly.  "Dear sirs, you probably aren't aware but you've used one of our images.  The licensing fee for this image is £35, alternatively we must request that you remove it from your website."  It feels like a racket.

there are many thousands of images that have been doing the rounds on a near-daily basis for years.

..... and how are "we" supposed to know/find out who owns the copyright to a certain image if it isn't stated?

"Maybe you could use it yourself to better understand what a random example is."

And maybe you could have worked out the answer to your question(s) quicker than posting them.

What the relevant articles make clear is that yes, if your image is regularly used and you didn't specifically licence it for general use, you could potentially sue multiple people for copyright violations, and you could get rich as a result. Unless you're actively selling/licensing the image, however, you'll struggle to demonstrate any loss.

Copying and republishing an image doesn't happen "by accident" any more I cut and pasted your words "by accident". (and that is indeed a potential copyright violation on my part, but I'll claim fair use if STW tries to come after me for it - I presume they claim copyright on all material posted here, but I haven't checked T&C).

I don't think you have any general right to know who owns the copyright. You can't copy and republish stuff without permission. If you can't get permission, don't copy. It's really not very complicated.

Assume all images / movies / music / books are copyrighted unless otherwise stated. People seem to think photography is different because unauthorised usage is so widespread. Doesn’t change the fundamental rules though.
Royalty free images from a library are incredibly cheap now, so no, photographers are not millionaires. Ignore the headline price the libraries quote if you see an image you’d like to use, they’re always available at a fraction of that cost if you ask or buy a cheap credit pack from someone like iStockPhoto.

Is it not kind of like brinkmanship though?

I mean if it ended up in court would the copyright holder not have to prove damages /lost income.. Otherwise what are they suing for?

In the case of the OP there's probably no provable damages, as opposed to someone selling prints of an artists work... The artist is selling their own prints so there is a clear damage /loss there?

Nope all they have to prove is that they own copyright and it's licensable, if you've used it without a licence being granted ( your responsibility to prove you have one) then the copyright holder will win as a licence fee is owed. You can't just use copyright covered material without permission for free.

And maybe you could have worked out the answer to your question(s) quicker than posting them.

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of a discussion forum?  You can probably google that whilst you're looking up how examples work.

I don’t think you have any general right to know who owns the copyright.

Then how am I supposed to ask permission to use an image?

Genuine Q

Maybe you can't. Like I said, if you don't have permission, don't copy (republish). That's all you need to know.