My wife's business received a letter in April 21 from PicRights claiming unlawful use of an image belonging to Reuters and demanding either proof of licence or £350 for use of the image as well as removal of the image from her website. The image had been used by a website designer and, obviously, we didn't know the designer had used an unlicensed image. We took down the image immediately and I wrote back that the image was of a technique which is never used in her business and was in any event on a web page that was hardly ever accessed. PicRights ignored my comments and issued an identical letter a month later, this time adding a threat to refer to an outside legal partner unless we settled within 14 days.
I wrote back to say that I would not pay a sum of money simply because they demanded it. I asked for consideration of the points I had previously raised and suggested that, unless the dealt with my specific points they would be responsible for any costs incurred by their outside legal partner.
After a delay I received a letter in November from a law firm called Burness Paull, again ignoring the points I had raised and effectively threatening Court proceedings. I wrote back and again pointed out that the business had not benefitted from the use of the imagery and I had not been provided with any proof as to the loss to Reuters. Burness Paul responded by referring to Reuters pricing matrix which they said showed a price of £350 for a year's use (6th Dec). At this point I tried to "purchase" the image to see what it costs but instead received an email from someone at Reuters saying I would have to resolve the matter with PicRights. I emailed back to say that I could find no way of independently verifying that the price was £350 but this email was ignored. I then threatened to make a complaint against Burness Paull which resulted in a phone call from a partner in the firm who listened to the above history and my complaint that people had ignored my arguments and promised to come back after Christmas. By way of "compensation" the partner offered to settle for a reduced price of £245. I have spent at least a day of my time on this which should also be taken into consideration. PicRights are, it seems copyright trolls and a lot of postings here are of the view that I should just ignore them. Really? Views?
PicRights
Re: PicRights
any more news on this?