Copyright Aid

Hi Hermie25 amd welcome to the forum, There shouldn't be any problem with what you want to do. Reality TV show formats can be protected but that really only extends to other TV shows which try to copy them in major way. But the protection is far from well established. It lies mainly in the concept ...

Hi, yes that email to GW looks very sensible. It is a pity, and frankly slightly incomprehensible, that Etsy have this strange policy with regard to DMCA takedown claims and counter notices where one of the parties is based outside the USA. There is nothing in the DMCA that says that is how the ...

Hi Mike and welcome, You don't say where you are based so I will assume that you are in the UK. But even if you are based somewhere else, much the same principles apply. To file a counter-claim follow Etsy's guidance here . Don't worry about the references to US law etc. Since Etsy is a US company ...

Hi zxlmxltx1 and welcome to the forum. As you live in the US you have a strong advantage in that the courts there are more likely to accept your fair use defence than would be the case in Europe. That said, I don't think the VRG or anyone else is going to take you to court based on what you have ...

Hi sibbooks and welcome to the forum, Yes, you are right that copyright does not protect concepts and ideas. It is an individual's expression of the idea which attracts the protection. There can sometimes be a grey area where the idea and the expression overlap, when it is a matter of establishing ...

Hi Smudger, Thanks for the added detail. I assume that the image which you acquired in 2017 is still in use on your site. It is arguable that the statutory limitation period of 6 years would prevent a copyright owner from taking any action even if you weren't able to produce evidence of your licence ...

Hi Smudger, As I am sure your are aware, this has very little to do with copyright or protecting the photographer's interests, and is more about these claims companies making a profit based on few overheads and seemingly no system in place to check if these images are concurrently being made ...

Hi Smudger and welcome to the forum, Although I am aware that this problem exists, this is the first time I have heard of an individual or company being targeted more than once or twice, to the point where it has become so problematic that it requires the sort of defensive action you have outlined ...

Hi Sussexsticher and welcome to the forum, Given that the majority of the Royal Regalia you mention was created a very long time ago, copyright is unlikely to subsist in them today. And even if that was not the case, your embroidered reproductions probably lack sufficient direct copying to ...

Hi Nitasali and welcome to the forum, In case you are not aware, royalty-free does not mean 'free'. It refers to a form of licensing where you pay an upfront fee for the licence and you don't have to pay royalties. However, since you mention Unsplash and Pexels, you are probably referring to images ...

Hi Jenny, I doubt if Trading Standards will want to get involved. They tend to concentrate on the criminal infringement of copyright and leave the civil claims to the courts to resolve. The point being that, distasteful though PicRights's activities are they are not actually doing anything illegal ...

Jenny, I spent a little more time thinking about this issue last night. I am working on the assumption that this claim is based solely on the use of the Daily Express masthead which probably looks something like this*: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/Daily_Express_masthead ...

Well I hope so too. That last line about "you will be held liable for any possible additional fees incurred" is pure fiction. If the matter went to court, which of course it won't because, as you have mentioned, it is de minimis, then the court would only award damages equal to the amount lost by ...

Snapperman, I do not understand any of your points. I do not keep quoting the Charley Records case - I've referred to it once and that was in this thread. The case was heard on late 1999 and judgment was handed down 22 March 2000, not 1994. 1994 was the date of the initial claim which set off the ...

The relevant part of the Limitation Act 1980 is section 32 (1)(b) which says: 32 Postponement of limitation period in case of fraud, concealment or mistake (1) Subject to subsections (3) and (4A) below, where in the case of any action for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act ...