PA Media infringment

[snapperman67]

ABSOLUTE LOFTS v ARTISAN HOME IMPROVEMENTS LIMITED is an interesting case from several prospectives. Firstly the award for the pictures is based on a 'user' principle as Absolute Loft had no prior record of licensing images to other parties. If an image creator has a proven track record of sales of licensing images then the Court will use this as their basis for the award given. If its a picture library that sells licenses for £30 ea then the claimant will only get that amount, but if its a professional photographer who licenses images for say £300 upwards then that is the rate the Court will award. Presenting other photographers rates or cheap picture library rates to the Court to try and lower the award (from experience) are immediately dismissed irrelevant as the Act clearly states that the image creator is allowed to claim their normal fees.

With regards to damages and additional damages (based on ABSOLUTE LOFTS v ARTISAN HOME IMPROVEMENTS LIMITED), - typical awards for photographers/creatives at present are between 100-500% additional damages depending on the type of infringement (lack of attribution, editing image, deletion of meta data, previous track record of infringement etc). A far better judgement to look at for guidance is Webb v Newsquest 2024.

[goatley]

Hello all,

So I too have received emails from PA.

I unknowingly used a copyrighted image, I missed that about a week ago I received their initial shake down email telling me I had to pay a sum of around £550, with a generous discount of 10% off If I paid promptly.

I only saw their follow-up today saying I have till midnight to keep the 10% off, I then received another follow-up this afternoon. So 3 emails total.

I removed the image off my website, and after seeing the advice on this forum I tried to look for the image on Alamy and other sites to get a true value of the fee I'd hypothetically have to pay in case of damages in small claims.

I have found the original image and thinking of buying the license (£24), taken screenshots as well of their fee.

I haven't responded to any emails yet, after looking at the experiences on here I may go back and say I'd pay them £50 for the use of the image, let them know I already have solicitors involved to build me a case as the webpage the image was used on didn't received any traffic or used for commercial use which I can prove, they'd be hard pressed to get me for damages passed the license fee.

It's been nice reading through this forum to know I'm not alone, as I definitely cannot afford a one off £500 payment.

Let me know your guys' thoughts

Have a great day whoever reads

[Disgruntled123]

I don't think that whether or not the website had one or a million visitors makes any difference to the breach of copyright, and personally I wouldn't mention solicitors as they might think you have some spare money to be able to afford that. So, my advice is follow the general principles on this site and hold firm.

Be polite but clear that you know the real value of the image is £24 and not £550, but expect them to claim all sorts of nonsense about how they can charge you whatever they want because you didn't get a license in advance, and that PA Media and Alamy aren't the same thing (they are!) so the Alamy pricing doesn't apply, etc.

Personally I paid for the Alamy license online and shared the receipt with them. I also offered them the same again as a goodwill gesture but they rejected the idea of both. I just never budged after that, always responding politely but consistently, and they threatened and whinged and came round and round in circles but ultimately appear to have given up. In reality they got the money they were actually owed from me but no more.

[goatley]

I don't think that whether or not the website had one or a million visitors makes any difference to the breach of copyright, and personally I wouldn't mention solicitors as they might think you have some spare money to be able to afford that. So, my advice is follow the general principles on this site and hold firm.

Be polite but clear that you know the real value of the image is £24 and not £550, but expect them to claim all sorts of nonsense about how they can charge you whatever they want because you didn't get a license in advance, and that PA Media and Alamy aren't the same thing (they are!) so the Alamy pricing doesn't apply, etc.

Personally I paid for the Alamy license online and shared the receipt with them. I also offered them the same again as a goodwill gesture but they rejected the idea of both. I just never budged after that, always responding politely but consistently, and they threatened and whinged and came round and round in circles but ultimately appear to have given up. In reality they got the money they were actually owed from me but no more.

Thank you for the advice

So you think it's in my best interest to actually pay this licence and start a dialogue with them? The thing I'm worried about is them having my billing address.

Here is the email I'm going to send:
Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your email and for bringing this matter to my attention.

Upon review, the image in question was removed promptly once identified. The page did not receive any traffic and was not used for any commercial purpose; I can provide evidence of this if required.

I have since obtained a licence for the image, reflecting its standard market value, and have attached the receipt for your reference.

Without admission of liability, I am willing to offer an additional £25 as a gesture of goodwill in full and final settlement of this matter.

I consider this a fair and proportionate resolution given the circumstances.

Please confirm if you are willing to settle on this basis.

Kind regards,
[Name]

[Disgruntled123]

That's pretty much what I did though others might say pay nothing and just argue it out until they get bored.

Bought the license retrospectively (which they said I couldn't do, and they are probably right, but I felt it showed willing and immediately gave them some money), and then offered them the same amount again as a goodwill gesture for a genuine error.

Then did not budge no matter what they said after that about what they believed they could charge ... which was relentless for a bit but then stopped.

[goatley]

That's pretty much what I did though others might say pay nothing and just argue it out until they get bored.

Bought the license retrospectively (which they said I couldn't do, and they are probably right, but I felt it showed willing and immediately gave them some money), and then offered them the same amount again as a goodwill gesture for a genuine error.

Then did not budge no matter what they said after that about what they believed they could charge ... which was relentless for a bit but then stopped.

Yeah i've seen two different things, either get into a back and forth and not budge on a settlement or just not respond at all.

I've went ahead and bought the licence.

I think my email is pretty sound, what do you think? I haven't sent it yet.

[goatley]

I have received my second follow up today!

Now debating whether to get into the back and forth with them.

Here is my email I might send:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your email and for bringing this matter to my attention.

Upon review, the image in question was removed promptly once identified. The page did not receive any traffic and was not used for any commercial purpose; I can provide evidence of this if required.

I have since obtained a licence for the image, reflecting its standard market value. I have attached the receipt for your reference, censoring any sensitive information.

Without admission of liability, I am willing to offer an additional £25 as a gesture of goodwill in full and final settlement of this matter.

I consider this a fair and proportionate resolution given the circumstances as the requested fee of £562.50 is not within my financial means, nor is it representative of the original copyright holders hypothetical damages.

Please confirm if you are willing to settle on this basis.

Kind regards,
[Name]

[WriterPerson]

I received the PA Media letter.

I replied I'd bought the image from Alamy. This worked. No more emails.
If necessary, I would have cited Absolute Lofts as the High Court verdict that sets compensation at the amount that would have been paid. Since I bought the Alamy image for £30, this eliminated any further fee.

[snapperman67]

mmm... that's a poor interpretation of the Lofts judgement. The Lofts verdict was based on a user principle as the claimant did not have an established rates fee for licensing an image so the judge took the pragmatic view that the images should be valued against other similar images. If the claimant has an established and evidenced license fee then it will be based o that. However the dissuasive element of the order is far more important as to how infringement should be viewed.

This is re-enforced by IP21S00019, 16.12.2021 , Webb vs London Tenants
Deputy District Judge Vary said :

“Copyright infringement in photographs is widespread, and there would be no dissuasive effect to infringement if the worst outcome as paying what the infringer should have paid had he bought a licence. The court should seek to deter infringement generally.”

This has been reflected in many recent judgements where the Courts have awarded typically 2x -5x the amount claimed by the claimant as additional damages to deter further infringement (plus costs and interest).
Believing that all you are going to pay is the license fee if you get caught and taken to Court, is naive at best and incredibly foolish at worst. A good example of this is IP-2024-LIV-000002 Webb v. Blue Horizon Group & A Taylor. Judge Johnson ordered:
1. There be judgment for the Claimant in the total sum of £3,369.92 (comprising £2,412.00 in
damages and £957.92 in interest).
2. The Defendants must pay the Claimant's costs of the action in the sum of £672.17.
3. The total sum payable in (1) and (2) is £4,042.09.
This was for 3 images images on used on the defendants Facebook page.