[Closed] I used a copyrighted image. Advice please.

It could still be a scam ....

Why not write to AFP, explain what happened if anything, confirm the image is theirs and confirm they really want you to pay-up....and this company is indeed representing them?

It might not be a scam anyway but I doubt you are the reason they have this company chasing people down.

A quick google suggests that 'PicRights' may not actually be working on the copyright owners behalf...

https://mmjdoctor.com/picrights-fraudulent-copyright-enforcement/

Tell them to jog on?

Just ignore it.

 I can’t remember doing this but I must have used a copyrighted image in one of the issues.

What evidence have they provided that a) You have actually used a copyrighted image

b) They have the authority to chase copyright claims on behalf of the copyright holder.

c) Evidence to support their valuation of the image in question.

?

TBH unless they produce this, I'd be treating it as a scam.

It does sound a bit like what's called 'speculative invoicing' .

If it went to court they'd have to reasonably prove that you profited from using thier image, or demonstrate that they'd lost money from potential sale of the image due to you sharing it without thier permission.

Based on what's been said so far, I'd ignore the letter completely. They are not going to take you to court over an alleged £400 on the basis that it would cost them more than that in time and effort and they are on a sticky wicket anyway..

It does sound a bit like what’s called ‘speculative invoicing’ .

We get this all the time at work for random non existent patent services mainly.....

From the other side of the fence I had a certain airshow use my photos without my permission in a large run of leaflets distributed to local shops (1000s judging by the amount I found in various shops).

I'm purely amateur but was a bit pissed at finding them used like this. They'd actually asked to use them and how much I wanted, so I looked up stuff about pricing photo use and found some prices based on print runs. Would have been a fair amount, but I suggested a low amount (£100 or something as I recall). No response. Then much later I find the leaflets. So I send an invoice. No response. Followed up a few more times and suggesting a negotiation open to offers. No response.

Now this is an air show that is run commercially though claims raises money for charity, but it's run by one of Surrey Hill's famously rich land owner's companies (him of trail conflict fame 😉 ).

I couldn't afford and didn't want the hassle to take him to court for non-payment and copyright theft.

So probably you can just ignore it and it will eventually go away. Like private land parking fines, it's an invoice.

To be fair though, if you're a not for profit small club with no chance of paying, then they should be understanding. Maybe just a chat to explain the position and negotiate something. Even if it's an acknowledgement of the copyright in a future magazine etc.

That said, if it's a rights claim agency, they may be more forceful at chasing it. Maybe approach the copyright holder direct to try to call off the agency.

Still though, seeing that company, I might look into them about my claim, though way too many years have probably passed really 😀

Edit: looking at the other replies, does sound more like a scam organisation, or a bit like YouTube's copyright enforcers who just use algorithms to match stuff but can claim infringement despite the copyright owner actually authorising it.

That's kinda what I was alluding to, for such a small amount you'd have to demonstrate financial damages and wouldn't be able to claim for any legal fees.

If you have used someone else's photo you have to pay. End of. No debate about it. You have stolen their work.

There are firms that will trawl the internet on photographer's behalf and chase you for payment. This is likely to be genuine and they will not go away.

The only debate is about the amount. You have to get them to justify their claim. Presumably you know the use made of the photo. Print run. Views on website etc. Ignoring them will not help. Talk to them. You are liable!

I know all this because I am a photographer who uses similar companies to get payment for me when my images have been used without permission. Ignore them and you will end up in court where you will lose and have to pay their fee and all legal costs.

If it were me i would write back and state you re a non-profit sports club, state no commercial gain and apologise profusely.  Maybe offer a charitable donation as a goodwill gesture.

Some people have blatantly copied my work, I took it as a complement.

The only debate is about the amount.

Well that and if the company is genuine.

can you post a link to the photo?

I’m purely amateur but was a bit pissed at finding them used like this

Sue them for driving you to drink.

There are firms that will trawl the internet on photographer’s behalf and chase you for payment. This is likely to be genuine and they will not go away.

I don't doubt that there are also firms that will trawl the internet without the photographer knowing anything about it.

The problem for me is that this is a third party with no obvious connection to their alleged client.  They could be genuine, they could be chancers.

In isolation I'd be contacting "Agence Presse France" to see if they know anything about it.  I sure as hell wouldn't be forking out any money to someone I'd never heard of on the back of an unsolicited threatening letter.  You have no relationship with this company.

However, from the link OHH posted above it would seem pretty clear cut that they're chancers.  It even specifically mentions APF:

"One specific instance of a company which will remain anonymous, outlines the scam as having reached out to them on behalf of popular French media outlet, Agence France-Presse, claiming that the image the company used was under copyright laws, and that the outlet had complained about photo use without proper consent. However, further information from AFP showed that the outlet had not filed any form of complaint regarding the image to PicRights, and that their outreach was seemingly unwarranted. Nonetheless, upon reviewing the email the anonymous company paid PicRights’ invoice due to the potential onset of legal ramifications, in an attempt to resolve the situation. Once gaining the licensing for the image, any outreach to PicRights regarding how to publish the image accordingly under their name was disregarded and ignored, with the agency going so far as hanging up on the company when inquiring about publication rights."

As yet we haven’t responded but they are very persistant (letters and emails) so we will have to do something.

Why will you have to do something?  If I rang you up every day would you give me £400 quid?

Good point. Maybe we’ll sit it out and if it doesn’t go away then contact the actual license holders. I feel pretty bad about this as the letters and emails aren’t coming to me and somebody else is getting the grief.

Thanks for the responses everyone. Much appreciated.

There's a huge amount of speculative fraud around intellectual property. I recently applied online for a UK Trademark and before I'd got a letter of reply from UK IPO I'd received a letter demanding payment for services - they trawl online registries and send-out letters to applicants.  Based the information given above about PicRights, I'd just ignore them.

If you had approached the photographer before stealing his work you would have paid a nominal amount. £40/50.

You took a chance and got caught. Just like breaking the speed limit. You have no defence. The only chancer is yourself.

Now instead of paying a small amount to the photographer you have to pay him a larger amount plus this companies fees. You are paying twice. Ignore it and you will end up in court and have to pay their fees as well. Paying three times.

Unless your club is a limited company it is likely that you as editor will be made personally liable. Fancy a CCJ against your name?

You have been caught. Naughty boy. Now you have to pay. Your choice.....easy or hard.

You took a chance and got caught. Just like breaking the speed limit. You have no defence. The only chancer is yourself.

It's a scam. 🙄

http://www.nealasher.co.uk/picrights-com/

Dear sir

We will deal with your enquiry at our standard billing rate of 789.26 per hour, if you agree to this rate please send a further letter stating your case.

@sarawak - don't talk shit. Read the rest of the thread (especially one_happy_hippy's link) before wading in with such crap.

If you had approached the photographer before stealing his work you would have paid a nominal amount. £40/50.

You took a chance and got caught. Just like breaking the speed limit. You have no defence. The only chancer is yourself.

Now instead of paying a small amount to the photographer you have to pay him a larger amount plus this companies fees. You are paying twice. Ignore it and you will end up in court and have to pay their fees as well. Paying three times.

Unless your club is a limited company it is likely that you as editor will be made personally liable. Fancy a CCJ against your name?

You have been caught. Naughty boy. Now you have to pay. Your choice…..easy or hard.

Tool.

Have it your own way.

I'm outta here. Hope OP has  big bank balance.

It's Agence France Presse, not Agence Presse France. Not sure if this is the OP's error or the chancer company's.

Now instead of paying a small amount to the photographer you have to pay some scammer a larger amount plus this companies fees.

ftfy. And of course you'll have to pay me a consideration. You'll have to. Really.

Hope OP has  big bank balance.

That's nice of you, I must say 🙂

<div class="bbp-reply-author">sarawak
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Member</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">

Have it your own way. I’m outta here. Hope OP has  big bank balance.

</div>

<div class="bbp-reply-content">

</div>
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

I can’t remember doing this but I must have used a copyrighted image in one of the issues.

In their threatening letters have they actually provided proof of image used and proof of ownership?

Picrights uk ltd company number 11172740 incorporated 26 Jan 2018, one Director a French lady called Anne Quilliet, no accounts no other entries - looks and feels like a scam

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/annequilliet

Previously a copyright gonk at Getty Images. Pinch of salt obviously, but seems slightly more well-constructed than the usual scam.

None of which confirms the OP/club actually owes them the money.

Some people have blatantly copied my work, I took it as a complement.

Problem is this attitude has devalued the stock photo market. News organisations especially take advantage of this. "Can we use your photo unlimited use, for no return other than the complement of your photo and name being shown?".

Those that ask that is. The rest just assume because you've posted a photo somewhere on the Internet it's copyright free (it's not), or at least won't kick up a fuss about it, or likely won't even notice when the nick it.

They are listed as a partner on the afp website - feels like a deal where they’ve said ‘let us pursue people speculatively and if we get something we get a cut, and if we don’t we dont’.  I’d still be tempted to ignore for the moment at least...

If you had approached the photographer before stealing his work

Give it a rest, the OP didn't knowingly carry out copyright infringement.

I'm a photographer, I freelance for AFP, AFP are primarily a pre subscription based pay model but they do sell their pictures to non subscribers in the UK via Getty Images, the standard price of a pic on the Getty website varies between around £285 and £485 + vat unless you have some sort of subsrciption deal with them, it's always the price next to mine when I check what's been sent out from a job. I mostly shoot Premier League footy and sport so prices may vary for other pictures. There may be an increased fee for unauthorised upload, most people do charge extra for this, some up to three times uplift for unauthorised usage but will usually accept a lower fee if you agree to settle.

If it's an AFP pic they will be able to confirm it's their picture very easily via metadata etc.

I'd give them or Getty a ring, their sales department will point you in the right direction and you'll soon know if it's a scam or not. I have no idea about third parties collecting on their behalf but Getty are very tenacious about chasing copyright infringers, the law is on their side so if it's gen you'll have to pay or they'll just get legal on you and you'll have to pay that bit too.

I see lots of threads on a work FB page where photographers chase infringers, the law is very clear and the infringers always lose and have to pay the legal too so I wouldn't just ignore it if it's genuine it won't go away.

Good luck

I work in the industry - do as Catfood suggests.  Other photo agencies will charge different fees for a licence depending on the use.  They won't all be as expensive as Getty.

I would suggest checking out some prices from Alamy or Shutterstock and the like, then you will know the sort of price you should have paid.  Offer that.

Agencies have a duty to look after the image rights of the photographers who give them images to licence.  Those agencies will use third parties to trawl the internet.  Offer them the much smaller original fee and you will probably be fine.

Using a copyrighted image you haven't paid a licence for is theft.  But the actual cost if you did it legally in the first place can be very little.

As an aside AFP will own the copyright not the photographer who shot it, it's now a condition of working for them that you sign copyright over for any jobs you shoot on their behalf.

Give it a rest, the OP didn’t knowingly carry out copyright infringement.

And if I didn't knowingly do 50 in a 30 would that get me off?

I'm not saying the OP should be hung for this, what I am saying is that ignorance is no defence. I would suggest going to the copyright holder directly as suggested and negotiating from there. Apart from anything else it's the right thing to do.

That's slightly different. You have to pass a test and are expected to understand the law in regards to driving on the public highways.

You are not expected to have passed a test to create an item for a not for profit club.

Next.

Ignorance is no defence in law generally AFAIK.  "Sorry your honour, I didn't realise it was illegal to stab someone."

It's still a scam, though.  Have we ascertained yet whether they've even identified the image that the OP is alleged to have used?

That’s slightly different. You have to pass a test and are expected to understand the law in regards to driving on the public highways.

You are not expected to have passed a test to create an item for a not for profit club.

Next.

Ignorance is no excuse.

As Cougar says they should ID the image for you, it will have a unique number on the Getty Images site, all their pictures do.

I would expect them to be quite comprehensive in giving image info, specific image number on site, evidence of your usage etc etc.

Personally I'd call Getty and ask if they're allowed to chase infringements up on their behalf, check you're not being scammed.

I have recently been in this situation.

We did some graphics on a race car, the customer was delighted.

He sent us a photo of the car racing at a circuit, and said he was happy for us to have and use the photo.

We posted it on the gallery on our website, it was there for several years.

We then got a similar correspondence from an agency, stating unauthorised use. (With proof and dates)

We were convinced that the customer of ours had said we could use the photo but no longer had the email which they sent us. He had paid for the photo with rights as the graphics were promoting his wifes book! He wanted to use the photo to promote the book, any extra web coverage was his benefit.

Apparently the photographer was not aware of this, the customer told the photographer he had never given it to us (he didn't want to incriminate himself!)

I ended up talking to the photographer personally and put my case to him, he had already committed with the agency and would be charged a flat fee if he withdrew.

Long and short of it all was a £600 fee which we managed to negotiate down..

Best advice... try and talk to the photographer, and see if you can negotiate directly with them. Good luck.

Offer some modelling as a trade?

Don't argue or steal any of sarawaks pics, when not playing with his aperture he's swinging a 7lb hammer by his ear cutting out bricks, has an arm like mike tyson

You took a chance and got caught. Just like breaking the speed limit. You have no defence. The only chancer is yourself.

Now instead of paying a small amount to the photographer you have to pay him a larger amount plus this companies fees. You are paying twice. Ignore it and you will end up in court and have to pay their fees as well. Paying three times.

Unless your club is a limited company it is likely that you as editor will be made personally liable. Fancy a CCJ against your name?

You have been caught. Naughty boy. Now you have to pay. Your choice…..easy or hard.

Nice. Care to show the class your legal training and qualifications? Thought not.

This sort of thing is only going to get moe frequent with the EU’s proposed copyright laws, which will allow the likes of Google to issue take-down notices for infringement involving a great many copyright free items.

They have to identify the alleged copyright infringement. Just saying you used an unspecified image, that’ll be £x isn’t sufficient. I’d either ignore it or reply saying you have no knowledge of any infringement and ask them to particularise their claim so you can look into it. Sounds like it might well be a scam. Unfortunately, unlike patents and trademarks, there is no law against making unjustified threats for copyright, otherwise you might be tempted to say piss off or your counterclaim.

Ps ignorance isn’t a defence for copyright infringement, nor any IP infringement.

Pps they should also demonstrate how they have acquired the right to assert the copyright on behalf of the copyright holder. The more I think about it the more it sounds like a scam.

Ignore it - I've had this years ago with Corbis and Getty Images (naive 15 year old web designer used some images believing they were free to use) - they'll try and intimidate you, but you're just a name on a long list to them, and they'll give up and pursue the next guy.  Last time I checked, they'd never sued anyone for the amounts they'd quoted in this country - it's all b*llshit to make the 1 in 10 people who fall for it pay up.

Tell them to jog on?

I got it.. 😉

DrP

There's even a big colour picture in One_happy_hippy's link! Why can't people see it! Weird. You read the article about this scam and it describes [i]exactly[/i] what the OP is experiencing. I'd post it again, but can't be arsed.

I got it..

DrP

Thanks Doc. Nice to be appreciated.

My invoice is in the post for unauthorised duplication of one of my copyrighted jokes. 😉

£500 + VAT or I'll set Ling on ya.

Ignore them and you will end up in court where you will lose and have to pay their fee and all legal costs.

That's nonsense for a start - a £400 claim would almost certainly go onto the Small Claims track so no costs could be awarded.

https://www.compactlaw.co.uk/free-legal-information/small-claims-court/claiming-costs.html