Copyright Infringement on a non-commercial website

[Evolve]

Thanks Steve - it would be useful to hear the outcomes. I am still torn whether to just settle and move on, or whether to just take the risk and ignore it and hope they don't follow up. My 'deadline' is this Monday 11th. I am thinking I will go back and try to get a further reduction and then settle. But it would be really useful to hear if anyone has ignored successfully please.

[stevedavies]

Depends on your finances, what you can afford. If you can settle at an amount you can manage, can always make a new offer.
People have ignored them, going by the Trustpilot moans from artists but that is not a sweeping outcome. Though can't see much of my type of case going the litigation route with the costs so high.
My offer was rejected, it's low but also what I can afford at present. If my circumstances change, I may make another offer. Right now I have no interest in further comms with the harassing agent.
If it does go to court, it will take many months before the hearing so that gives time to come up with further offers or the money demanded.

[Les]

Can I just echo what Steve said - it's important for people embroiled in this to know what happens to other people who are further into it. It would be great to know people have got through it, but equally if you choose to pay them, don't feel anyone will be critical of you. It's not a macho competition.

For the case I'm helping with we're still at the stage of repetitive emails from Pixsy giving irrelevant information and ignoring the points we make. Typical. No offer from them to reduce the amount, only to spread the cost over several months.

[stevedavies]

I have read about people just paying up as in one fella's case in this thread. Sadly he caved in as the emails got too much and paid £650. https://legalbeagles.info/forums/forum/ ... -of-images

Basically, the stress of it and the constant harassment and loss of time (me back in September the same) forced the guy to pay an unmerited amount of money. And I've read about this happening across the web in the UK but not specifically CC 2.0 images and just artists bragging about how they used pIxsy and "love them" due to the money taken. Emphasis on 'taken'.

Les, that's how it's been for me. Lots of to and fro and Pixsy ignoring anything I write regards finances, the license fee justification and how the case would surely be viewed at the IPEC. I'd really appreciate more from lawyers on this and a bit staggered at the lack of information on what exactly to expect since UK cases have occurred. Only offer for spreading payments I got was a 3 month plan they have from the start with their first invoice.

If I end up going to the IPEC and losing and paying several hundred pounds, there is a deep flaw in the law system. Can't believe it can happen but not dismissing the possibility either. Over a free image for which its use cost the artist nothing and no loss of earnings, no value at all and the banned artists at Flickr failed to follow the rules on contacting innocent reusers of images.

A simple expected request to take it down would have been the end of it and within 30 days as specified under the rules. The court will look at this aspect surely. Would the IPEC allow an artist to benefit from his or her own breach?? And as the original position of the artist is to be attributed not paid if it's a free flickr CC2.0 image. Pixsy sending us proof of licensed images from the artist is irrelevant as those were not on Flickr and not available for free with attribution. Is this what the attorneys try on? Comparing to the value of licensed images... That's dodgy and not specific to the value of a CC 2.0 image.

Pixsy will ignore anything you say until they can get a substantial amount of cash out of you or think it's pointless or costing too much time and money before it even gets to court - where the real fees start for the claimant. No mention of anything outside of what they see as infringement - but is not, it's more moral rights - is ever responded to. Except when they use a load of bull to dismiss anything that explains that it was not wilful e.g. the fact you used the image without wilful intent being irrelevant as that was an infringement, and a focus on only that, so disregarding the good faith use aspect.

They are not lawyers and just quote from the UK GOV site or the US copyright law sites. And the US aspects are irrelevant here in the small claims track. They are nothing more than glorified agents with no moral compass who think they have legal powers. They have to pay likely expensive attorneys if they want to bother. It's clear they'd prefer to avoid the legal route. I've had ultimatums to pay within 1 month or even a week or less since August. They know it won't make sense and straining to avoid a lawsuit and suing.

I still see them as chancers. I will certainly keep updating as I am expecting another legal threat, may even be from some rogue attorney they use. Who knows? What I want to do next is go back to the lawyers I've chatted with and try and find out more about any cases in the UK at the IPEC where defendants lost and if it was Flickr images under the CC 2.0 license.

But I'm not responding to the idiot agent at the firm anymore. Only if legal proceeding do occur or possibly if I can send a higher offer. That's a big maybe.

Also, an update from Flickr.

I understand you would like to see one-click upgrading and automated attribution. While this is not currently an option through Flickr, I can definitely understand the desire to see such a feature. I went ahead and forwarded that suggestion on to our Product Development team for consideration as a potential feature to add to Flickr at a later date.

While I do not have a timeframe for if/when this would be put into effect, they are now aware that this is something that members of Flickr would like to see as an option.

This is great acknowledgment of a much needed change to the licenses and how firms like PIxsy take advantage of image users under the current flaws.
I hope they make these changes.

[astonavfc]

Have you had any progress?

I have had one of these claims through today of over £2000 from pamedia...

I have gone back and stated it was a mistake and that i am not a business but a blog owner, and awaiting their response.

[Evolve]

An update from me - I caved in and paid in the end. Negotiated a discount of c£200 from the original. Debating the issue back and forth over about 1 month. There didn't seem to be enough evidence on this helpful site of people refusing to pay and pamediagroup dropping the claim. The cost seemed high considering the photo (which was used in error) was only on our website for c10 days, was removed as soon as notified and image is available to use for c£20! I am not sure they would take it all the way to court but I suspect they have deeper pockets than I and they could probably rattle off a legal letter with the threat of court action quite quickly.

[CP85]

I'm also receiving threatening emails from Adrian at PA Media Group. I took the image down and responded initially offering them £50 plus 25% admin fee. They responded saying their photos are much more expensive than Alamys' as they directly employ their own photographers. Interestingly, I never mentioned Alamy and the plot then thickened when they sent the next email with the subject line they said they were acting on behalf of Alamy. Very dishonest. I'm now ignoring the emails and will let you know if anything further happens. Also interested to hear how it pans out for others!

[CP85]

Just to give a quick update, I'm still receiving (and ignoring - having made a final offer previously) threatening emails which now say if we are unable to resolve this case, they will consult with the CPA (Copyright Protection Agency) specialist that they work with. Does anyone else have an update?

[stevedavies]

Firstly, I'd look at the PA Media Group focused threads here for assistance though seems the same rogue outfit as Pixsy.
Secondly, what the heck is the CPA???? Copyright Protection Agency?? Sounds like a service similar to Pixsy or PA or maybe like actual copyright services like Copyright Licensing Agency which is govt regulated. But that can't be it.
In any case, what's the price for the image if bought legally through Alamy? That's the value of the image not whatever fee they claim. And that's how the IPEC will view it plus you agreed to take it down, which is a prerequisite expected not to extort money out of people.

[Les]

I understand why it’s helpful to hear of outcomes. I posted mine elsewhere but I’ll put it here too.

I was chased by Pixsy for £900 for a CC2 image from Wikipedia. Investigating it I found the photographer had been approached by around ten others on Wikipedia asking if Pixsy represented him and asking him to call them off. I raised this with Wikipedia and it led to weeks and weeks of debate among the admins about whether the photographer should have his photos removed from Wikipedia. He was well respected there. He chipped in to defend his use of Pixsy. Eventually the ‘ban’ was voted down but a new page on Copyleft Trolling was added to Wikipedia containing advice for those caught up including a link to this forum.

While all this was going on Pixsy offered to settle for £600. I replied with an offer of £100, expecting they’d ignore it and continue with the threat to go to IPEC, which I was prepared for.

But to my surprise they accepted it. It felt like giving in to pay it but having made the offer in black and white i didn’t feel I had a choice. And it was a considerable relief to have it over. This forum was the most valuable support I found throughout, so my thanks to Andy.

[leedare]

I have no idea whether this is good advice or not (so don't blame me if I'm wrong) but I just want to share my 'opinion' on this. I would also say that people need to carefully **read between the lines** on what I'm about to say. Firstly, I have had a almost identical experiences regarding a copyright photo that was used accidentally on my blog (which is completely non-monetised and non commercial). By 'accidentally' I mean that I got the image off a random internet site and did not realise it was subject to copyright. I had all the Adam nonsense (Adam is almost definitely a robot) and threats, etc, etc. I have ignored all these messages altogether and no action has been taken so far. I find it really *strange* that no one has ever come back on here (or anywhere else I can find on the internet) and said what actually happened to them after their initial post. Hmmmmmm. Think about it. You need to also think why PA Media (or whoever) are contacting you. How did they get your email address? Do they know your name? And why do they want you to respond to them? I'm being very careful what I say here, but what I have decided to do myself is totally ignore them altogether. I am not going to respond to them even once (not even once). And I am also going to be very careful what I post about this *anywhere* on the internet. I will try to give an update if possible, but if I do not give an update then you can assume that nothing actually happened.