i have received a letter from a company called Picrights, informing me that i have an image on my website that i don't have a licence for.
I have website for my small jewellery business and the image was on an "about me" .
The imagine was a depiction of an item that i made and was on display in a cathedral.
I searched for the image and found that it does need a licence (that i don't have) it's an epa image on shutterstock and is for editorial use only.
I did unwittingly use the image but they are asking for a fee of £1000 for its use.
I am unsure where to go from here. The editorial use licence looks to be £159 but i am concerned that this may be classed as commercial, even though i don't reproduce the item in the pic.
Any advice would be good.
picrights
Re: picrights
Hi badge and welcome to the forum,
I think we can both agree that £1000 is a disproportionate amount and it would not be accepted by a court as the true value of the licence fee which the copyright owner has lost out on.
From your description, it it sounds as if the image was being used editorially, that is to say to illustrate a news story about the item being on display in the cathedral. If the work itself was not being offered for sale via your website, I think it would be hard to justify a claim that the use was commercial. Here is how EPA define the two main types of licence they offer:
I think we can both agree that £1000 is a disproportionate amount and it would not be accepted by a court as the true value of the licence fee which the copyright owner has lost out on.
From your description, it it sounds as if the image was being used editorially, that is to say to illustrate a news story about the item being on display in the cathedral. If the work itself was not being offered for sale via your website, I think it would be hard to justify a claim that the use was commercial. Here is how EPA define the two main types of licence they offer:
On that basis, I think the editorial use licence fee is the correct one on which to base your counter-offer to settle the matter. For more background on the strength of your position vis a vis the possibility of this claim getting as far as court, please read some of the other threads here which deal with claims from PicRights and the Visual Rights Group.EDITORIAL OR INFORMATIVE USE: When an photo or video clip is used to convey information to the public or illustrate a news articles, an event or idea without direct profitable gain or commercial gain. The most common user of this license are newspapers, magazines, news TV programs and documentaries, non-corporate websites, blogs and Social Media, books and educational publications. - has the purpose of illustrating an newsworthy text. Has an informative character without commercial interest
COMMERCIAL OR PROMOTIONAL USE: When an image or clip is used to raise money or to brand, promote and sell a product or a cause. For marketing material and promotional brochures, posters, advertisements, sponsoring, endorsement, merchandising and packing products., web templates or decoration of commercial spaces. Promotional. They normally require rights clearance.
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: picrights
Thanks for the fast reply.
The image was on my retail website but it was just being used on a page giving a range of work i have done. It does seem that the licence fee would only be for one year and this has been on the site for a few years.
I'm wary of engaging with them but feel that i don't have a lot of choice.
The image was on my retail website but it was just being used on a page giving a range of work i have done. It does seem that the licence fee would only be for one year and this has been on the site for a few years.
I'm wary of engaging with them but feel that i don't have a lot of choice.