Hi.
I’ve have recently received a letter stating unlicensed use of an image via social media and the need to settle this breach within 14 days via a substantial sum of money-of which I’m told will increase dramatically if I fail to meet the deadline.
The image of concern was a screen shot from Google taken in April 2018. At that time there were no watermarks on the image and no referral to a third party image company.
Since receiving this letter I have searched for the same image which now does have a watermark running across it and directs you to a third party image control site to allow purchase of said image.
The letter states the license fee for this image is £345 although the image company has the licence set as £295.
I have taken a screen shot of this for my file.
There is then a plethora of additional charges which appear to just crank up the total fee.
The image is a very mundane image and I’m stunned that anyone would pay £295 for it. If it was charging £10 for it back in 2018, I still wouldn’t have paid for it and I would have gone somewhere else or just recreated myself. The simple fact is that I’m 2018, there was no indication that the image required any license at all. I understand that ignorance is not an excuse but to charge nearly £2,000 for it seems disproportionate.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
Copyright infringement on social media
Re: Copyright infringement on social media
H Stanted and welcome to the forum,
Sadly you are not alone in receiving this kind of outrageous demand for payment. There are several threads here which explain where you stand legally and practically in such a situation. The first thing to say is that this unnamed company can make all the threats they like about increasing the sum demanded but these have no basis in law. You don't say where the image licence is available but I rather suspect that it is not a reputable image agency, so the figure of £295 may well not be trustworthy as a guide to the image's true market value. But even if it is the legitimate fee, and not one dreamed up just to support this particular claim, that is all that the copyright owner would be due by way of damages if the matter went to court. There is very little chance of it going to court provided that you make it clear to the claims company that you fully understand your legal position and are determined to fight the matter all the way. These companies only exist because of the disproportionate sums they demand and they aren't interested in the prospect of a costly (to them) fight to get just £295, most of which would actually go to the copyright owner, not them. The danger with doing nothing is that they might get a default judgment for the full £2000 (or indeed a higher amount) if you failed to defend the case at trial. In a situation like that the court will not necessarily question the amount stated as damages and would probably deal with the matter without a hearing in open court.
Sadly you are not alone in receiving this kind of outrageous demand for payment. There are several threads here which explain where you stand legally and practically in such a situation. The first thing to say is that this unnamed company can make all the threats they like about increasing the sum demanded but these have no basis in law. You don't say where the image licence is available but I rather suspect that it is not a reputable image agency, so the figure of £295 may well not be trustworthy as a guide to the image's true market value. But even if it is the legitimate fee, and not one dreamed up just to support this particular claim, that is all that the copyright owner would be due by way of damages if the matter went to court. There is very little chance of it going to court provided that you make it clear to the claims company that you fully understand your legal position and are determined to fight the matter all the way. These companies only exist because of the disproportionate sums they demand and they aren't interested in the prospect of a costly (to them) fight to get just £295, most of which would actually go to the copyright owner, not them. The danger with doing nothing is that they might get a default judgment for the full £2000 (or indeed a higher amount) if you failed to defend the case at trial. In a situation like that the court will not necessarily question the amount stated as damages and would probably deal with the matter without a hearing in open court.
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
-
snapperman67
- Regular Member
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2023 5:05 pm
Re: Copyright infringement on social media
Hi
You haven't stated if this is a photography company or a copyright infringement company. If it's a photographer, there is a very good chance this will end up in court if you don't negotiate. There are quite a few precedents now for dissuasive awards plus normal license fees and the dissuasive element against future infringement is now being favoured by judges (as stated in the Berne Copyright convention) to prevent other types of obvious infringement being repeatedly brought before the court. Firstly, not knowing is not a defence - this defence has no validity and judges take a very poor approach to those who try to use it. Telling a court that the image has a monetary value of £10 or less, also does not work - if the claimant has a proven track record of licensing their images for the amount claimed, then the court will award that amount. Also, if the defendant has been deemed to have been hidden from the claimant, changing the file name, resizing, cropping, flipping, removing the meta data etc, there will be additional up lifts made by the court for this. Additional up lifts (recently awarded) have been for non-attribution, editing, derogatory use (where the claimant would have not given permission for the use of an image in the context it was used) etc. Seeing a claim of £2000 when the image could have been licensed for £300 - given that the above points could be applied is entirely reasonable - I would suggest you look very carefully at the uplifts on the claim and see if any of the criterias above are mentioned. Saying this amount is outrageous will only inflame the situation. I would suggest looking at recent judgements such as Webb v. Newsquest, Webb v. Blue Horizon Group for significant uplifts awarded by the Court - 4x -5x the amount claimed plus interest and fees
You haven't stated if this is a photography company or a copyright infringement company. If it's a photographer, there is a very good chance this will end up in court if you don't negotiate. There are quite a few precedents now for dissuasive awards plus normal license fees and the dissuasive element against future infringement is now being favoured by judges (as stated in the Berne Copyright convention) to prevent other types of obvious infringement being repeatedly brought before the court. Firstly, not knowing is not a defence - this defence has no validity and judges take a very poor approach to those who try to use it. Telling a court that the image has a monetary value of £10 or less, also does not work - if the claimant has a proven track record of licensing their images for the amount claimed, then the court will award that amount. Also, if the defendant has been deemed to have been hidden from the claimant, changing the file name, resizing, cropping, flipping, removing the meta data etc, there will be additional up lifts made by the court for this. Additional up lifts (recently awarded) have been for non-attribution, editing, derogatory use (where the claimant would have not given permission for the use of an image in the context it was used) etc. Seeing a claim of £2000 when the image could have been licensed for £300 - given that the above points could be applied is entirely reasonable - I would suggest you look very carefully at the uplifts on the claim and see if any of the criterias above are mentioned. Saying this amount is outrageous will only inflame the situation. I would suggest looking at recent judgements such as Webb v. Newsquest, Webb v. Blue Horizon Group for significant uplifts awarded by the Court - 4x -5x the amount claimed plus interest and fees