Hello, I post images to Instagram and Facebook for a small UK company. Some of these are regrammed images which I cite as inspiration, clearly tagged and credited with the photographers name, and in no way promoting the business.
Copyrightagent.com recently sent the company an infringement notice, supposedly representing a stock photo website. The image in question is not shown on this stock photo website. I believe that copyright.com used a Google reverse search tool or similar to find it. I have since removed it.
A google search brings up numerous instances of similar threats from this company, in TrustPilot, Reddit and articles. The advice given via various people who have been in this position is that this is a scam and they will keep coming back and become more aggressive. I am unsure what to do and would appreciate any advice. Thanks.
copyrightagent.com legitimacy?
Re: copyrightagent.com legitimacy?
Hi TLCVic and welcome,
Firstly, I would like to explore the exact regramming process that you employ. This is important because if you only create a link to the image (eg a retweet) and do not actually make a copy of it, then what you are doing does not infringe copyright, since any visitor to your (ie your company's) social media will actually be served with the image from its original location. EU law (which I won't cover in detail here) allows this. However if your process involves copying an image and saving a copy of that image on an intermediate computer or server before then attaching the image to your Facebook or Instagram account, that may amount to an infringement. This might sound like splitting hairs, but it is a key distinction.
It sounds from your description (tagging and crediting the photographer etc) that you may be following the latter process, and if so, this does leave you open to the sort of claim being made by CopyrightAgent. They are one of a number of companies who operate in this way and I have no rreason to doubt their legitimacy. That is not to say that their methods are particularly ethical or justifiable, but they do provide a service which some content creators find useful, so it would be inaccurate to describe their operation as a scam.
I imagine that CopyrightAgent have demanded a fairly sizeable amount for what they claim is infringement. However you need to be aware that under UK law you are only liable for the actual financial loss suffered by the photographer - that is to say the loss of a licence fee. If the matter went to court, and they usually don't, the claimant would not be entitled to claim either his administrative costs or his legal costs in bringing the claim. This means that CopyrightAgent would not receive their fee (from you at least) and so going to court is not an attractive option for either the photographer or CopyrightAgent. Knowing this gives you a strong bargaining position if you choose to try to settle the matter with a counter-offer. Since you haven't been able to find the same image on the stock site they say they represent, the preferred method is to select a similar image and use the standard fee for that image as you comparator. Usually such fees are around £20-50, depending on the stock site and the marketability or uniqueness of the image. If you haven't already done so, you should do a reverse image search for the image in case it has previously appeared on another stock site. Alternatively if you find instances of it on a third party's site, contact that site to see if they can tell you what licence fee they paid to use the image. The important thing is to establish the image's true market value, and then use that figure as the basis of your counter-offer.
If you would like more details concerning this type of claim and how to deal with them, there are planty of other threads here involving the different comapnies, such as Visual Rights Group, Pixsy and PicRights, who all operate in much the same manner.
Firstly, I would like to explore the exact regramming process that you employ. This is important because if you only create a link to the image (eg a retweet) and do not actually make a copy of it, then what you are doing does not infringe copyright, since any visitor to your (ie your company's) social media will actually be served with the image from its original location. EU law (which I won't cover in detail here) allows this. However if your process involves copying an image and saving a copy of that image on an intermediate computer or server before then attaching the image to your Facebook or Instagram account, that may amount to an infringement. This might sound like splitting hairs, but it is a key distinction.
It sounds from your description (tagging and crediting the photographer etc) that you may be following the latter process, and if so, this does leave you open to the sort of claim being made by CopyrightAgent. They are one of a number of companies who operate in this way and I have no rreason to doubt their legitimacy. That is not to say that their methods are particularly ethical or justifiable, but they do provide a service which some content creators find useful, so it would be inaccurate to describe their operation as a scam.
I imagine that CopyrightAgent have demanded a fairly sizeable amount for what they claim is infringement. However you need to be aware that under UK law you are only liable for the actual financial loss suffered by the photographer - that is to say the loss of a licence fee. If the matter went to court, and they usually don't, the claimant would not be entitled to claim either his administrative costs or his legal costs in bringing the claim. This means that CopyrightAgent would not receive their fee (from you at least) and so going to court is not an attractive option for either the photographer or CopyrightAgent. Knowing this gives you a strong bargaining position if you choose to try to settle the matter with a counter-offer. Since you haven't been able to find the same image on the stock site they say they represent, the preferred method is to select a similar image and use the standard fee for that image as you comparator. Usually such fees are around £20-50, depending on the stock site and the marketability or uniqueness of the image. If you haven't already done so, you should do a reverse image search for the image in case it has previously appeared on another stock site. Alternatively if you find instances of it on a third party's site, contact that site to see if they can tell you what licence fee they paid to use the image. The important thing is to establish the image's true market value, and then use that figure as the basis of your counter-offer.
If you would like more details concerning this type of claim and how to deal with them, there are planty of other threads here involving the different comapnies, such as Visual Rights Group, Pixsy and PicRights, who all operate in much the same manner.
Advice or comment provided here is not and does not purport to be legal advice as defined by s.12 of Legal Services Act 2007
Re: copyrightagent.com legitimacy?
Hello Andy and thank you so much for your detailed reply, it's very much appreciated.
Regarding regramming, my practice is to share the photo directly to a third party social media content platform, Planoly. I then write a comment which includes a credit and tag to the photographer. So I'm assuming this "latter process" you describe is what I'm doing. Planoly has an agreement with Instagram to allow this functionality, so I assumed it was ok. The image is stored in Planoly for 18 days then deleted.
Also, this particular photographer is high profile and widely regrammed. I previously had posted an appreciation post of his work, which he both liked and commented "thank you" in the post. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I believed him to have copyright over the images in his own Instagram account, and by regramming them with credit, I am acknowledging that?
I did a further search on the stock site: previously I couldn't find the image when searching for images available in the UK. I am based in Australia and did the search again using the criteria "images available in Australia". The image is there, and the licence fee is A$49.
I would happily pay this for CopyrightAgent to go away as they are upsetting us all, when we didn't intend any harm or foul or use the image to promote the business. Would you suggest it is worth consulting a lawyer to put forward the counterclaim, to ensure it is dealt with swiftly?
Many thanks again for your considered reply.
Regarding regramming, my practice is to share the photo directly to a third party social media content platform, Planoly. I then write a comment which includes a credit and tag to the photographer. So I'm assuming this "latter process" you describe is what I'm doing. Planoly has an agreement with Instagram to allow this functionality, so I assumed it was ok. The image is stored in Planoly for 18 days then deleted.
Also, this particular photographer is high profile and widely regrammed. I previously had posted an appreciation post of his work, which he both liked and commented "thank you" in the post. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I believed him to have copyright over the images in his own Instagram account, and by regramming them with credit, I am acknowledging that?
I did a further search on the stock site: previously I couldn't find the image when searching for images available in the UK. I am based in Australia and did the search again using the criteria "images available in Australia". The image is there, and the licence fee is A$49.
I would happily pay this for CopyrightAgent to go away as they are upsetting us all, when we didn't intend any harm or foul or use the image to promote the business. Would you suggest it is worth consulting a lawyer to put forward the counterclaim, to ensure it is dealt with swiftly?
Many thanks again for your considered reply.
Re: copyrightagent.com legitimacy?
PS: Sorry, I meant to add, yes you are correct, they are saying we must pay £500.
Re: copyrightagent.com legitimacy?
Hi again,
I am not familiar with the details of Planoly, but it certainly appears that by using the app, you create a separate copy of the target image, rather than make use of a link to the original source. On that basis, you are probably liable for infringement. However, since you have found a site which offers a licence for this particular image, once you have checked that the licence terms would have covered your use of the image, then that fee, converted to UK currency, can be used to make a counter offer. Expect CopyrightAgent to turn down your counter offer, and to continue to press you to settle for the full amount they are asking, namely £500. It then becomes a game of who has the most stamina. As I mentioned, this claim is highly unlikely to go to court, although that is the threat they will continue to make. The reasons for this are the economic ones I explained earlier. If you want greater detail on that aspect, check some of the other threads on the same topic.
It is important to stress that once you have made the counter-offer, and CopyrightAgent have refused it, you should restate your offer as being your best and final offer, and inform them that you see little point in continuing to correspond with them unless they are either prepared to negotiate or that they intend to take things to the next level. If they do issue a claim form (technically that can't be done by Copyright Agent, it has to be the copyright holder) then you should respond to the court with your defence. If you do not respond in the time allowed, the copyright owner may get a default judgment against you, and that could be for the full £500 if you have not opposed the claim. Furthermore, the claimant could allege that additional damages are warranted because of your unreasonable behaviour (ie not entering a defence or engaging with the court process) which might be whatever the amout the claimant dreams up. So be warned, if you want to play hardball with these guys, you need to be prepared to see it through to a court hearing if that is what it takes. But just to re-iterate, I do not think that scenario is likely to happen, but your resolve has to be based on that eventuality. You can represent yourself in court, as the IPEC Small Claims Court system is specifically designed to operate for people who are not professionally represented. More details here: Guide the the IPEC Small Claims Track.
Good luck
I am not familiar with the details of Planoly, but it certainly appears that by using the app, you create a separate copy of the target image, rather than make use of a link to the original source. On that basis, you are probably liable for infringement. However, since you have found a site which offers a licence for this particular image, once you have checked that the licence terms would have covered your use of the image, then that fee, converted to UK currency, can be used to make a counter offer. Expect CopyrightAgent to turn down your counter offer, and to continue to press you to settle for the full amount they are asking, namely £500. It then becomes a game of who has the most stamina. As I mentioned, this claim is highly unlikely to go to court, although that is the threat they will continue to make. The reasons for this are the economic ones I explained earlier. If you want greater detail on that aspect, check some of the other threads on the same topic.
It is important to stress that once you have made the counter-offer, and CopyrightAgent have refused it, you should restate your offer as being your best and final offer, and inform them that you see little point in continuing to correspond with them unless they are either prepared to negotiate or that they intend to take things to the next level. If they do issue a claim form (technically that can't be done by Copyright Agent, it has to be the copyright holder) then you should respond to the court with your defence. If you do not respond in the time allowed, the copyright owner may get a default judgment against you, and that could be for the full £500 if you have not opposed the claim. Furthermore, the claimant could allege that additional damages are warranted because of your unreasonable behaviour (ie not entering a defence or engaging with the court process) which might be whatever the amout the claimant dreams up. So be warned, if you want to play hardball with these guys, you need to be prepared to see it through to a court hearing if that is what it takes. But just to re-iterate, I do not think that scenario is likely to happen, but your resolve has to be based on that eventuality. You can represent yourself in court, as the IPEC Small Claims Court system is specifically designed to operate for people who are not professionally represented. More details here: Guide the the IPEC Small Claims Track.
Good luck
Advice or comment provided here is not and does not purport to be legal advice as defined by s.12 of Legal Services Act 2007
Re: copyrightagent.com legitimacy?
Thank you so much for your advice, it's very much appreciated.