Hello - I've followed the Permission Machine thread for some months and have received the below from a similar organisation, though part of the photo agency I think - Rights Control seem owned by Science Photo Library
I'm a one-person UK local news website and understand basic copyright law - in 2018 I used an image from a piece from our city University asking for sufferers of a disease to contact them and be part of the research - I must have sourced the image - I haven't got the original email from the uni and can't prove it was licensed. In 10 years of operating it's my first claim
It reads:
We are contacting you as we have become aware that you are currently, or have recently used an image represented by Science Photo Library Limited on your website. Unfortunately, we've been unable to trace any record of a valid license for the use of the image. Using an image without a valid license is considered copyright infringement in violation of the Copyright, Design and Patents Act of 1988. This entitles Science Photo Library Limited to seek legal remedies in any appropriate court.
To see the image in question, please click on the following links:
URL: provided
Image URL: provided
Detail of Image & sum owed:
Case Reference: 67130
Image Number C019/7581
Amount Due: £4,116.00
Amicable Settlement (if paid within 14 days): £1,528.80
DEADLINE FOR CLEARED FUNDS: 31 May 2022
In addition to the above suspected copyright infringement; the image have not been credited to the photographer. This is an infringement of their moral rights and entitles the photographer to significant financial compensation. As the exclusive licensor of the image Science Photo Library is contractually obliged to collect fees for usage, copyright infringement and the violation of the moral rights for the photographer through its UK office.
The following actions must be taken within 14 days from the date of this letter. Failure to do so could result in larger fees and possible legal proceedings.
If you believe a valid license has been issued for the image and use, please email the license information to: rightscontrol@sciencephoto.co.uk including the sales order or invoice number of the license purchase. If the image was licensed in the name of a third party such as an advertising agency, please provide the company name and phone number/contact details. The subject line of the email should include your company name and the case reference number.
If you are unable to provide proof that the image(s) has been properly licensed, you must immediately cease use of the image, delete all copies of the image(s) and provide payment for the unauthorised use of the image. Regrettably, removing the image from use does not eliminate liability for payment of fees.
If you desire continued use of the image, please contact rightscontrol@sciencephoto.co.uk.
Please refer to the attached document to this email which outlines the fees which are now due to Science Photo Library Limited. It also includes a significantly reduced, amicable settlement offer which is valid for 14 days. If we do not receive a timely response from you, the case may be escalated to the small claims division of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, a solicitor or other third party.
Enclosed:
A full breakdown of usage details and fees.
Copies of screenshots showing the use of the listed image on your website.
Frequently Asked Questions which, will provide more information and advice.
Science Photo Library Limited is committed to protecting the intellectual property rights and livelihood of the artists whose work we license and to investigating licensing infractions not only to protect our interests, but also to protect the interests of the professional photographers whom we represent. We must enforce our licensing conditions rigorously and we appreciate your prompt cooperation regarding this matter. This letter is without prejudice and does not affect Science Photo Library‘s Limited rights and remedies, all of which are expressly reserved.
Yours faithfully
END
The attachment of costs reads:
Due on Receipt:
Standard License Fee £245.00
Post use licensing Surcharge £1,225.00
Surcharge for not crediting the image £245.00
Infringement Detection Fee £857.50
Infringement Collection Fee £343.00
Case Management Fee £514.50
Plus VAT 20% £686.00
Total £4,116.00
...and adds
Amicable Settlement Offer- valid for 14 days from the above date:
Standard License Fee £245.00
Post use licensing Surcharge £245.00
Surcharge for not crediting the image £245.00
Infringement Detection Fee £318.50
Infringement Collection Fee £0.00
Case Management Fee £220.50
Plus VAT 20% £254.80
Total £1,528.80
What should I do? Do the answers in the permission machine thread match this situation to? Should I offer the license fee and and admin estimate?
Thank you
Pat
Copyright infringement claim from Rights Control - Science photo library
Re: Copyright infringement claim from Rights Control - Science photo library
Hi Pat,
Yes, the type of operation here is pretty much the same as that of Permission Machine and the others. That is to say, it's perfectly legal, but lacks any moral credibility. Therefore you can adopt the same approach as we have suggested when dealing with Permission Machine (or KodakOne, Picrights, etc for that matter). The only difficulty which may arise in your case is finding out the correct licensing fee. I very much doubt if the figure of £245.00 which they quote is the true one*. If that is really what they charge for some of the very unimpressive images I looked at on the website, then I'm surprised they do any business, since something quite similar could probably be found elsewhere for a tenth of the cost. It might be worth contacting the university where you found the image in the first place to ask how much they paid for their licence.
The point to note is that in civil proceedings, if this claim were to go that far, the aim is to put the claimant into the same position as he would have been in had a standard licence been obtained. All the nonsense about surcharges, detection, collection and case management fees etc are all totally inadmissible in a civil claim.
*A search on their website using the Image Number (C019/7581) quoted in their breakdown does not find the image.
Yes, the type of operation here is pretty much the same as that of Permission Machine and the others. That is to say, it's perfectly legal, but lacks any moral credibility. Therefore you can adopt the same approach as we have suggested when dealing with Permission Machine (or KodakOne, Picrights, etc for that matter). The only difficulty which may arise in your case is finding out the correct licensing fee. I very much doubt if the figure of £245.00 which they quote is the true one*. If that is really what they charge for some of the very unimpressive images I looked at on the website, then I'm surprised they do any business, since something quite similar could probably be found elsewhere for a tenth of the cost. It might be worth contacting the university where you found the image in the first place to ask how much they paid for their licence.
The point to note is that in civil proceedings, if this claim were to go that far, the aim is to put the claimant into the same position as he would have been in had a standard licence been obtained. All the nonsense about surcharges, detection, collection and case management fees etc are all totally inadmissible in a civil claim.
*A search on their website using the Image Number (C019/7581) quoted in their breakdown does not find the image.
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: Copyright infringement claim from Rights Control - Science photo library
Thanks AndyJ
I’ll start there then
I did find the image it is unimpressive
I’ll try the Uni
You have to create an account to get a price which I have done, but then when you find the image and order it ( add to basket ) it says you have to contact because it’s rights managed based on usage
Does that change anything?
- I doubt there’s a way to find out this true fee unless I contact them and ask them - assuming they’re not joined up as departments it might be worth a try - or just suck it up and accept that fee in my offer
I really appreciate your help thank you
I’ll start there then
I did find the image it is unimpressive
I’ll try the Uni
You have to create an account to get a price which I have done, but then when you find the image and order it ( add to basket ) it says you have to contact because it’s rights managed based on usage
Does that change anything?
- I doubt there’s a way to find out this true fee unless I contact them and ask them - assuming they’re not joined up as departments it might be worth a try - or just suck it up and accept that fee in my offer
I really appreciate your help thank you
Re: Copyright infringement claim from Rights Control - Science photo library
Pat,
As I'm sure you know, Rights Managed licences are intended for one time use of an image for a specific purpose. The rate will usually depend on whether you are seeking any sort of exclusivity and would typically be calculated on the normal number of visits your website receives over a given period. It will also take into account whether the use is to be editorial or commercial in nature. Since yours is a news website, I imagine that after initial publication, older articles get much fewer reads over time, and clearly you would not have sought an exclusive licence since you were aware that the university had already published the image. These two factors should mean that the hypothetical cost of an RM licence in your case should be on the lower end of the scale.
While it is not strictly relevant to this stage in negotiations (but it would be if you had to argue the matter in court) the process of arriving at the true market value of the licence assumes the situation of a willing buyer and a willing seller. That is to say, if you had been seeking a licence at the time you wrote the article, you would only have been prepared to pay so much for that licence. If SciencePhoto had been asking, for example, for a fee of £245 at the time, you might well have not taken their licence and gone elsewhere for a similar, cheaper image. The court could take this into account when it decides on the appropriate level of damages.
The other matter which I didn't address in my earlier posting was the matter of an increased claim for damages because a credit for the photographer was not provided. Again we are in the area of hypotheticals, but if the university site did not provide a credit then there is no way in which you could have done so, given that at that point you were not negotiating with SciencePhoto so could not have known whether or not a credit was required, or indeed have known the identity of the person concerned. Under UK law the author of an image needs to assert the right to a credit beforehand (see section 78 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988) and there are only limited circumstances in which a third party may be deemed to have knowledge of such an assertion. Where it can be established that the right to credit was required and that you were deemed to have knowledge of that fact, and the credit was omitted, then this might typically double the amount of the standard damages. While copyright infringement is a matter of strict liability (ie ignorance of the fact that an inage was protected by copyright is immaterial), failing to provide a credit is a breach of the author's moral rights and as such is a breach of statutory duty (see section 103 CDPA), and would need be proved by the claimant on the balance of probabilities.
As I'm sure you know, Rights Managed licences are intended for one time use of an image for a specific purpose. The rate will usually depend on whether you are seeking any sort of exclusivity and would typically be calculated on the normal number of visits your website receives over a given period. It will also take into account whether the use is to be editorial or commercial in nature. Since yours is a news website, I imagine that after initial publication, older articles get much fewer reads over time, and clearly you would not have sought an exclusive licence since you were aware that the university had already published the image. These two factors should mean that the hypothetical cost of an RM licence in your case should be on the lower end of the scale.
While it is not strictly relevant to this stage in negotiations (but it would be if you had to argue the matter in court) the process of arriving at the true market value of the licence assumes the situation of a willing buyer and a willing seller. That is to say, if you had been seeking a licence at the time you wrote the article, you would only have been prepared to pay so much for that licence. If SciencePhoto had been asking, for example, for a fee of £245 at the time, you might well have not taken their licence and gone elsewhere for a similar, cheaper image. The court could take this into account when it decides on the appropriate level of damages.
The other matter which I didn't address in my earlier posting was the matter of an increased claim for damages because a credit for the photographer was not provided. Again we are in the area of hypotheticals, but if the university site did not provide a credit then there is no way in which you could have done so, given that at that point you were not negotiating with SciencePhoto so could not have known whether or not a credit was required, or indeed have known the identity of the person concerned. Under UK law the author of an image needs to assert the right to a credit beforehand (see section 78 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988) and there are only limited circumstances in which a third party may be deemed to have knowledge of such an assertion. Where it can be established that the right to credit was required and that you were deemed to have knowledge of that fact, and the credit was omitted, then this might typically double the amount of the standard damages. While copyright infringement is a matter of strict liability (ie ignorance of the fact that an inage was protected by copyright is immaterial), failing to provide a credit is a breach of the author's moral rights and as such is a breach of statutory duty (see section 103 CDPA), and would need be proved by the claimant on the balance of probabilities.
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: Copyright infringement claim from Rights Control - Science photo library
Hi AndyJ
Sorry I didn't reply quicker to the last post I was away for a few days
So your advice was fantastic - I got an account at the photo supplier and requested a quote for use as an editorial image and the reasons for it - the quote is for £50 + VAT - not £245 ( you have to write for a quote - prices aren't on the site for some pictures )
So now I feel armed to offer £50 ( +£50 copyright assertion - I don't know this is asserted without buying a license but it seems little compared to the original invoice ) plus £50 admin or similar +VAT
Do you think the fact that they ask a license fee of £245 gives me more credibility on this? Isn't it dishonest? Perhaps I shouldn't make a counter-offer on the basis of this?
Is there any wording you would recommend on how I should react and argue the license fee specifically
I understand there is no point in actually purchasing a license now.
Thanks for all you do to help people AndyJ
Pat
Text of reply from SPL:
START
Hope you are well and thank you for your interest in Science Photo Library,
The license fee for an image being used on Editorial News Website is £50.00+Vat per image.
You can license the image directly online by clicking on PRICE and selecting EDITORIAL WEBSITE under Publishing.
Once you have completed your order you will be able to download the image directly from the website.
Alternatively I can arrange the License/Invoice for you.
ENDS
Sorry I didn't reply quicker to the last post I was away for a few days
So your advice was fantastic - I got an account at the photo supplier and requested a quote for use as an editorial image and the reasons for it - the quote is for £50 + VAT - not £245 ( you have to write for a quote - prices aren't on the site for some pictures )
So now I feel armed to offer £50 ( +£50 copyright assertion - I don't know this is asserted without buying a license but it seems little compared to the original invoice ) plus £50 admin or similar +VAT
Do you think the fact that they ask a license fee of £245 gives me more credibility on this? Isn't it dishonest? Perhaps I shouldn't make a counter-offer on the basis of this?
Is there any wording you would recommend on how I should react and argue the license fee specifically
I understand there is no point in actually purchasing a license now.
Thanks for all you do to help people AndyJ
Pat
Text of reply from SPL:
START
Hope you are well and thank you for your interest in Science Photo Library,
The license fee for an image being used on Editorial News Website is £50.00+Vat per image.
You can license the image directly online by clicking on PRICE and selecting EDITORIAL WEBSITE under Publishing.
Once you have completed your order you will be able to download the image directly from the website.
Alternatively I can arrange the License/Invoice for you.
ENDS
Re: Copyright infringement claim from Rights Control - Science photo library
Hi Pat,
Well done in establishing the true market value of this image. That figure should certainly form the basis of your counter-offer. I suggest that you do not specifically state that you are prepared to offer the same amount for the omission of a credit. You could say that as you know the actual value of the licence, this forms the basis of your counter offer, since it is the value of damages a court would find to be appropriate in the circumstances. You can then go on to say that you are prepared to double this in order to cover their reasonable expenses, on the understanding that this would be in full and final settlement of their claim.
The problem with explicitly mentioning the matter of the missing credit is that that aspect would need to be proved by the claimant to the court, in the unlikely event the claim ever got that far, and so you should not say anything beforehand which amounts to an admission of liability for not providing a credit since that would make their job easier. If the university site didn't provide a credit, then there is a strong argument in your favour that you are not liable because you had no means of knowing that a credit was required or indeed who to credit. The same does not apply to the alleged infringement by copying, for the simple reason that that is a matter of strict liability - in other words the starting assumption would be that you have infringed unless you could prove you didn't.
Without wishing to sound paranoid, this is a public forum and it is entirely possible that companies like Rights Control monitor what goes on here, so it would be unwise to go into more detail about your tactics. Up to now, everything we have discussed is fine because it lets them know that you know how the law works, and that your counter-offer is fair and reasonable since this is the approach a court would take.
I hope this helps.
Andy
Well done in establishing the true market value of this image. That figure should certainly form the basis of your counter-offer. I suggest that you do not specifically state that you are prepared to offer the same amount for the omission of a credit. You could say that as you know the actual value of the licence, this forms the basis of your counter offer, since it is the value of damages a court would find to be appropriate in the circumstances. You can then go on to say that you are prepared to double this in order to cover their reasonable expenses, on the understanding that this would be in full and final settlement of their claim.
The problem with explicitly mentioning the matter of the missing credit is that that aspect would need to be proved by the claimant to the court, in the unlikely event the claim ever got that far, and so you should not say anything beforehand which amounts to an admission of liability for not providing a credit since that would make their job easier. If the university site didn't provide a credit, then there is a strong argument in your favour that you are not liable because you had no means of knowing that a credit was required or indeed who to credit. The same does not apply to the alleged infringement by copying, for the simple reason that that is a matter of strict liability - in other words the starting assumption would be that you have infringed unless you could prove you didn't.
Without wishing to sound paranoid, this is a public forum and it is entirely possible that companies like Rights Control monitor what goes on here, so it would be unwise to go into more detail about your tactics. Up to now, everything we have discussed is fine because it lets them know that you know how the law works, and that your counter-offer is fair and reasonable since this is the approach a court would take.
I hope this helps.
Andy
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: Copyright infringement claim from Rights Control - Science photo library
Thanks Andy much appreciated
Re: Copyright infringement claim from Rights Control - Science photo library
@andyj
Andy I wanted to update the forum
I answered the email using all the advice available - that is, the correct licence fee with screen grabs of quotation, the ' I have knowledge of what's covered in court' parts - and offered £50 lic fee plus VAT - doubled as a gesture of goodwill for admin costs to £100 + VAT
The reply within 24 hours was agreement and an invoice for £240 - ( not £120 )
I pushed back and said offer was £100 - received an apology and an invoice for £100 + VAT
Thank you - this shows nobody should panic - take it calmly it seems like the advice here is crucial
Best wishes
Pat
Andy I wanted to update the forum
I answered the email using all the advice available - that is, the correct licence fee with screen grabs of quotation, the ' I have knowledge of what's covered in court' parts - and offered £50 lic fee plus VAT - doubled as a gesture of goodwill for admin costs to £100 + VAT
The reply within 24 hours was agreement and an invoice for £240 - ( not £120 )
I pushed back and said offer was £100 - received an apology and an invoice for £100 + VAT
Thank you - this shows nobody should panic - take it calmly it seems like the advice here is crucial
Best wishes
Pat
Re: Copyright infringement claim from Rights Control - Science photo library
Hi Pat,
Thanks for the update. It is fairly rare to get this sort of report on the outcome, so it's much appreciated in this case.
Glad you can now put this experience behind you.
Andy
Thanks for the update. It is fairly rare to get this sort of report on the outcome, so it's much appreciated in this case.
Glad you can now put this experience behind you.
Andy
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: Copyright infringement claim from Rights Control - Science photo library
I just created an account because I wanted to add some information.
In October 2022 I've received a similar notice, with absurd amounts for a single image.
TL:DR - short version:
They wanted 2500£+ for a random low quality image we found on google.
Offered 80£.
They wanted 300£ (going down from 2500 to 300 you can see how big of a BS this whole copyright sh** is, anyway)
I said no.
They begged.
I said no.
They said ok.
Paid.
They said "No further action will be taken."
I expected an invoice or something, but that will have to suffice.
More details:
I got the image from google, on a random website, where there was no indication that this image might be copyrighted.
(They wouldn't have cared, even if I were to delete the image)
Upon getting the notice was a bit worried, but this forum helped me a lot. Thanks everyone.
In their "Legal Demand" pdf they are charging "Infringement Detection Fee £524".
Surely they they used "google image search" to find the image posted on facebook.
(I'm mentioning this because their whole pricing "system" is just BS to see if you bite the hook)
Anyway.
I did a bit of research, even found the content creator who confirmed he took the photo. I saw a price on that image on their website to licence for 1 year. Offered this.
They wanted to negotiate the amount
They begged a bit.
They accepted, gave me their bank details, paypal and card option was given also.
I knew they were a legitimate "business" (and not a scam) because some staff was on holiday, (don't ask how I knew, I just knew) and their details matched to what info I found online.
Upon payment of my offer they said "No further action will be taken."
Key people: Danielle, Justin.
If you are reading this, hi.
Sidenote, if I would have had the strenght, money and the willpower to investigate further, I would have just said something like
"forget it, let's go to court, it will cost you more the whole litigation than the 80£ the image "costs". So, dismiss the case or let's go to court."
Not sure if that would have worked, but would have been interesting.
If you (the reader) are not rich, just offer something and get over it quickly.
In October 2022 I've received a similar notice, with absurd amounts for a single image.
TL:DR - short version:
They wanted 2500£+ for a random low quality image we found on google.
Offered 80£.
They wanted 300£ (going down from 2500 to 300 you can see how big of a BS this whole copyright sh** is, anyway)
I said no.
They begged.
I said no.
They said ok.
Paid.
They said "No further action will be taken."
I expected an invoice or something, but that will have to suffice.
More details:
I got the image from google, on a random website, where there was no indication that this image might be copyrighted.
(They wouldn't have cared, even if I were to delete the image)
Upon getting the notice was a bit worried, but this forum helped me a lot. Thanks everyone.
In their "Legal Demand" pdf they are charging "Infringement Detection Fee £524".
Surely they they used "google image search" to find the image posted on facebook.
(I'm mentioning this because their whole pricing "system" is just BS to see if you bite the hook)
Anyway.
I did a bit of research, even found the content creator who confirmed he took the photo. I saw a price on that image on their website to licence for 1 year. Offered this.
They wanted to negotiate the amount
I said nah.Rights Control is authorised to negotiate the sum in order to agree an amicable settlement. On the basis of the costs involved in first detecting the infringement and then the work involved to check if a licence is in place before contacting you, Rights Control is able to agree a sum of £310 incl. VAT in full and final settlement.
They begged a bit.
I said no.Rights Control would hope to agree a fee of £155 incl. VAT for this use.
However, I realise that you are prepared to pay £80 plus VAT.
In order to reach a quick agreement, Rights Control is authorised to accept your offer in full and final settlement.
I will organise the invoice which will include details of how to pay.
They accepted, gave me their bank details, paypal and card option was given also.
I knew they were a legitimate "business" (and not a scam) because some staff was on holiday, (don't ask how I knew, I just knew) and their details matched to what info I found online.
Upon payment of my offer they said "No further action will be taken."
Key people: Danielle, Justin.
If you are reading this, hi.
Sidenote, if I would have had the strenght, money and the willpower to investigate further, I would have just said something like
"forget it, let's go to court, it will cost you more the whole litigation than the 80£ the image "costs". So, dismiss the case or let's go to court."
Not sure if that would have worked, but would have been interesting.
If you (the reader) are not rich, just offer something and get over it quickly.
Re: Copyright infringement claim from Rights Control - Science photo library
Hi I’ve just received an almost identical email from the original posters and am now worried it’s going to cost me a fortune, any help would be much appreciated the email I recieved from rights control reads
Dear Sir,
We are contacting you as we have become aware that you are currently, or have recently used an image(s) represented by Minden Pictures Inc. on your website. Rights Control, a division of Science Photo Library, has been authorised by Minden Pictures Inc. to collect fees for usage, copyright infringement and the violation of the moral rights of the photographer. Unfortunately, we've been unable to trace any record of a valid license for the use of the image(s). Using an image without a valid license is considered copyright infringement in violation of the Copyright, Design and Patents Act of 1988. This entitles Rights Control, a division of Science Photo Library to seek legal remedies in any appropriate court.
The image has been found on the following website:
URL: https://www.facebook.com/Portsmouthpest ... 63/?type=3
Image URL: https://scontent-muc2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/ ... e=638B42DF
Details of Image(s) & sum owed:
Case Reference: 73133
Image Number(s): 00640275, 00640275
Amount Due: £3978.80
Deadline for cleared funds: 30 days
Amicable Settlement (If paid within 14 days): £1470.00
In addition to the above suspected copyright infringement; the image(s) have not been credited to the photographer. This is an infringement of their moral rights and entitles the photographer to significant financial compensation.
The following actions must be taken within 14 days from the date of this letter. Failure to do so could result in larger fees and possible legal proceedings.
If you believe a valid license has been issued for the image(s) and use, please email the license information to: rightscontrol@sciencephoto.co.uk including the sales order or invoice number of the license purchase. If the image(s) was licensed in the name of a third party such as an advertising agency, please provide the company name and phone number/contact details. The subject line of the email should include your company name and the case reference number.
If you are unable to provide proof that the image(s) has been properly licensed, you must immediately cease use of the image, delete all copies of the image(s) and provide payment for the unauthorised use of the image(s). Regrettably, removing the image from use does not eliminate liability for payment of fees.
If you desire continued use of the image(s), please contact rightscontrol@sciencephoto.co.uk.
Please refer to the attachments in this email which outlines the fees which are now due to Rights Control, a division of Science Photo Library. It also includes a significantly reduced, amicable settlement offer which is valid for 14 days. If we do not receive a timely response from you, the case may be escalated to the small claims division of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, a solicitor or other third party.
The following documents attached with this email outline:
A full breakdown of usage details and fees.
Copies of screenshots showing the use of the listed image(s) on your website.
Frequently Asked Questions which will provide more information and advice.
We are committed to protecting the intellectual property rights and livelihood of the artists whose work is licensed and to investigating licensing infractions not only to protect the interest of Minden Pictures Inc., but also to protect the interests of the professional photographers whom are represented.
We must enforce our licensing conditions rigorously and we appreciate your prompt cooperation regarding this matter. This letter is without prejudice and does not affect Rights Control, a division of Science Photo Library’s rights and remedies, all of which are expressly reserved.
Yours faithfully,
Justin Hobson
Rights Control Specialist
Any help would be much appreciated please
Dear Sir,
We are contacting you as we have become aware that you are currently, or have recently used an image(s) represented by Minden Pictures Inc. on your website. Rights Control, a division of Science Photo Library, has been authorised by Minden Pictures Inc. to collect fees for usage, copyright infringement and the violation of the moral rights of the photographer. Unfortunately, we've been unable to trace any record of a valid license for the use of the image(s). Using an image without a valid license is considered copyright infringement in violation of the Copyright, Design and Patents Act of 1988. This entitles Rights Control, a division of Science Photo Library to seek legal remedies in any appropriate court.
The image has been found on the following website:
URL: https://www.facebook.com/Portsmouthpest ... 63/?type=3
Image URL: https://scontent-muc2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/ ... e=638B42DF
Details of Image(s) & sum owed:
Case Reference: 73133
Image Number(s): 00640275, 00640275
Amount Due: £3978.80
Deadline for cleared funds: 30 days
Amicable Settlement (If paid within 14 days): £1470.00
In addition to the above suspected copyright infringement; the image(s) have not been credited to the photographer. This is an infringement of their moral rights and entitles the photographer to significant financial compensation.
The following actions must be taken within 14 days from the date of this letter. Failure to do so could result in larger fees and possible legal proceedings.
If you believe a valid license has been issued for the image(s) and use, please email the license information to: rightscontrol@sciencephoto.co.uk including the sales order or invoice number of the license purchase. If the image(s) was licensed in the name of a third party such as an advertising agency, please provide the company name and phone number/contact details. The subject line of the email should include your company name and the case reference number.
If you are unable to provide proof that the image(s) has been properly licensed, you must immediately cease use of the image, delete all copies of the image(s) and provide payment for the unauthorised use of the image(s). Regrettably, removing the image from use does not eliminate liability for payment of fees.
If you desire continued use of the image(s), please contact rightscontrol@sciencephoto.co.uk.
Please refer to the attachments in this email which outlines the fees which are now due to Rights Control, a division of Science Photo Library. It also includes a significantly reduced, amicable settlement offer which is valid for 14 days. If we do not receive a timely response from you, the case may be escalated to the small claims division of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, a solicitor or other third party.
The following documents attached with this email outline:
A full breakdown of usage details and fees.
Copies of screenshots showing the use of the listed image(s) on your website.
Frequently Asked Questions which will provide more information and advice.
We are committed to protecting the intellectual property rights and livelihood of the artists whose work is licensed and to investigating licensing infractions not only to protect the interest of Minden Pictures Inc., but also to protect the interests of the professional photographers whom are represented.
We must enforce our licensing conditions rigorously and we appreciate your prompt cooperation regarding this matter. This letter is without prejudice and does not affect Rights Control, a division of Science Photo Library’s rights and remedies, all of which are expressly reserved.
Yours faithfully,
Justin Hobson
Rights Control Specialist
Any help would be much appreciated please
Re: Copyright infringement claim from Rights Control - Science photo library
Hi glenn,
You need to read the other posts in this thread. Sadly your case is pretty much the same as the experience of others, and so there is nothing new we can add to the advice given previously.
You need to read the other posts in this thread. Sadly your case is pretty much the same as the experience of others, and so there is nothing new we can add to the advice given previously.
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: Copyright infringement claim from Rights Control - Science photo library
Thanks Andyj so would I be right in thinking I should offer the cost of the license for the picture in question? I looked it up on the website and it’s £180 for a liscence so would I just offer double that?
Re: Copyright infringement claim from Rights Control - Science photo library
Hi Glenn
Yes the normal cost for the relevant licence would be the correct starting point, and provided that you are sure that there are no aggravating circumstances to the alleged infringement, such as the deliberate removal of a copyright notice or author's credit, that's all you need to offer. You can of course add on something to cover their administrative costs, say around 10%, but I don't think it is necessary to double the cost of the basic licence otherwise. If you are prepared to to go as high as £360, you could hold that figure in reserve in the event that your initial offer is rejected. I appreciate that you are keen to resolve the matter as quickly as possible. Fortunately, so are Rights Control because extended negotiations cost them money.
The important thing to get across to them is that you know where you stand legally and that you are not going to be fooled by their quasi-legal justification for their inflated claim.
Yes the normal cost for the relevant licence would be the correct starting point, and provided that you are sure that there are no aggravating circumstances to the alleged infringement, such as the deliberate removal of a copyright notice or author's credit, that's all you need to offer. You can of course add on something to cover their administrative costs, say around 10%, but I don't think it is necessary to double the cost of the basic licence otherwise. If you are prepared to to go as high as £360, you could hold that figure in reserve in the event that your initial offer is rejected. I appreciate that you are keen to resolve the matter as quickly as possible. Fortunately, so are Rights Control because extended negotiations cost them money.
The important thing to get across to them is that you know where you stand legally and that you are not going to be fooled by their quasi-legal justification for their inflated claim.
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: Copyright infringement claim from Rights Control - Science photo library
Thank you for your help I’ve emailed them to say I’d be happy to pay £250 to cover the cost of the liscence and a bit extra for their admin costs so will wait to hear back from them