Picrights UK

[AndyJ]

Hi stansteel and welcome,

You say that "my company was closed this year and no longer has a website". Do you mean that the images had already been taken down before PicRights contacted you, or did this only happen after you received their demand? I assume that when you say this dates from 14 years ago, that was when you used the images, which were then available on your company website until recently. If this is so the alleged infringement carried on until the images were no longer available on your site, and so the Limitation Act does not come into the equation. I further assume that PicRights are only going after you at this stage and not the dierector of the George Sampson video*, or wherever the L'Oreal makeup shoot was published. I am also unclear about how you used the images to create the rain effect, but that probably doesn't matter too much at this stage. Clearly the original images could still be identifed even after your manipulation of them.

Unfortunately your personal financial circumstances make no difference to any liability you may have for infringement, but if the matter was to go to court then this might be a factor in determining what damages were awarded against you and how long you had to pay. I would like to think it is unlikely to go to court, but if the amount of £3,000 can somehow be justified, then it would make a claim in court more viable.

The first thing you need to do is try to find if the images are still available via Shutterstock and make a note of the cost of the appropriate licence you would have needed in order to re-use the images to create the effects. Those licence fees represent the true market value which Shutterstock or its photographer client has lost by this alleged infringement.

Unfortunately based on what you said so far I can't see any compelling argument as to why this claim should just go away. However I think we can all agree that the figure of £3,000 is totally unreasonable.

* I assume this was the Singin' in the Rain video.

[stansteel]

Hello again,
The effects I created at the time was real rain (actual water) seen in the photos, from a hydrant and bowser tanker using rain stands on the location,
my website was in the process of being closed down as from last month when picrights contacted me, but didn't generate work after 2020.
I'm in communication with Shutterstock who connected to Splash news, who picrights claim have the photos.
I have asked for proof from both companies and so far shutterstock can't find them, They are currently looking into it to resolve the problem.
The photos were taken before shutterstock/ splash news were even set up. I have proof of my stands i took on the day.
picrights only gives a reference number. Which shutter stock doesn't recognise. the website was renewed ie changed on 25 Mar 2024, where the 14 year old photos were added, as an illustration to the rain effects section. Though no work came in I had to close a few weeks back.
the website had a redesign in hope of generating more work, it did not and so hence closed. hope that helps.

[AndyJ]

Hi stansteel,

Well, unless Shutterstock or Splash can provide evidence that they own the copyright or are exclusive agents of the photographer who created the images, the claim doesn't get off the ground. You should therefore be careful not make any statement which could be taken as an admission of liability, because that might be used as a short cut to support their case. At present, there is no good evidence that the images you used to create the rain shot have infringed anyone's copyright. I would be inclined to adopt that stance until such time as Shutterstock or Splash can provide that vital ownership evidence.

[stansteel]

thanks ill take your advice, however i will be calling shutter stock for a written update as to them not having the images in question tomorrow

[stansteel]

Shutterstock called off the dog, they were very helpful and understanding.

[AndyJ]

That is great news.
Thank you for letting us know.