Use of image on website

[NatalieH]

Hello,

I have received an email from a Jim Barnes from Pic rights stating that we have used an image unlicensed image on our website. They wrote to us in 2018 stating the same infringement which we paid a fee of £80 to them. The are now stating that as we did not remove the image from our website we are liable for another infringement and want us to pay a fee again. I responded confirming that we had paid the fee and asked them to provide evidence of the second infringement. They sent a screenshot of the image but it was the one from 2018.
As I had not responded to their email they are now threatening court action and stating i am liable for any incurred fees.

After further investigation I have noticed that the image in question from AFP is different to the one I had actually used on the website. The image they are representing is of Barnier solely, the image I used is of Barnier and Junker. I cannot remember were I sourced the image from but after searching online I can see that the image I used is identical to the image on Bing linking to the daily express.
how would you respond?
Many thanks

[AndyJ]

Hi Natalie,
If you have not been using either of the images since the initial contact from PicRights and your payment of the fee, then the second claim is clearly groundless. That alone should be sufficient to stop any further action by Pic Rights. You do not explicitly state that you haven't used that earlier image since 2018, merely that the screenshot they sent was from the earlier incident, so I am unable to say how you should respond to that aspect. Equally, when it comes the issue of the two images, I am not clear if you are saying that you did continue to use the image from 2018, but it was the Barnier/Junker one and so clearly not the image which PicRights was basing its claim on.
If you have been using the Barnier/Junker picture recently, and provided that you are absolutely certain that the one you used and the one which features in the PicRights claim are different, and one is not just a crop of the other, then you should point this out to PicRights and ask for evidence that they are authorised to act on behalf the photographer of the second image featuring Barnier and Junker. However if neither image has been used since 2018, you can firmly rebut thieir claim on the two separate grounds, namely their original claim was based on an error in identifying the image and there no grounds for the second claim since there has been no further use or the sort the allege.
Since both of these errors operate independently of each other, I would be inclined to point out that their procedures are clearly at fault and the claim is groundless. In view of this you might wish to say that you require their written confirmation that they have retracted this erroneous claim.

[NatalieH]

Hi Andy,
Thank you so much for your reply.
Please see link as to the image pic rights are representing:

https://www.afpforum.com/AFPForum/Searc ... cck=a1aff2
The image we have used on our website is on the below link:

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view ... ajaxserp=0

After paying the fee in 2018 the image was not removed from our website. Subsequently this was removed as soon as we received the second alleged infringement.
The image was definitely not sourced from AFP. So, would the picrights have a valid infringement if it is not the actual image in question.
Many thanks

[AndyJ]

Hi Natalie,

It looks to me as if the Barnier + Junker photo (which incidentally the Express credits to Getty*) is a composite which includes the Barnier image. In other words the Barnier image looks identical in both photographs, except in the one where it's just him, Junker's shoulder does not appear in front of Barnier's sleeve. If I am right then it is quite possible that the Barnier image by the AFP photographer was used by the Express to make its montage shot.
But since you didn't make the montage (which would be a called an adaptation or derivative image) I don't think PicRights' claim is valid, because the image you used was clearly a different image to the one at the heart of their claim. When the second image was creeated by montaging two photos together (if that was how it was done) then a new image was created which has a separate existence which may or may not also have its own copyright. To put it another way, if you had legitimately sourced your image from Getty, you would not have infringed the AFP copyright; the fact that you didn't do it with a valid licence in this case is immaterial - it is a different image. If AFP's complaint is that their photographer's image had been used in a composite without their permission, then that is a matter they need to take up with the person responsible for making the montage, not you. However, I am not aware of any caselaw regarding a similar situation so I think you would need to tread carefully, and if necessary get you own legal opinion on this.


* A search on Getty brings up 88 images of Barnier and Junker, but not the image which appeared in the Express.

[marko P]

I have a similar situation and the paper letter reached me coincidentally not long after a cyber attack on my website.
The letter made me look into my website and see if something was wrong and I found around 150 new spam blog posts.
I then set about deleting them all permanently.

I am a bit hesitant to open any links from the PicRightsUK people for fear that they may be viruses etc.
I spoke with Jim from picrights and said these images are nothing to do with my business activities of hypnosis and coaching and he agreed.
He advised me to register a crime report with Action Fraud.

They want £700 from me which seems ridiculous and pretty fishy.
When I looked at the screenshot of my website with the image in question it just looks like a webpage with my URL and there is no navigation bar on the left.

My instinct says this is a scam and really dodgy.
Picrights says all the details of their client is in the letter.
Any advice on this one as I can't work it out and as its a paper letter to start it I thought to myself "that's a sophisticated scam with a paper letter"

[AndyJ]

Hi marko,

I'm not entirely clear about how the image which is in dispute got onto you website.

Are you saying that the image was posted by a user commenting on your blog? If that is the case and you removed the posting in an expeditious way, then you will not be liable for any infringement since you were not responsible for placing the images on the site. The relevant law on this comes from Articles 14 and 15 of the EU eCommerce Directive, which although we are no longer in the EU still applies in the UK because the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 (SI 2013/2002) are still part of UK legislation.

Similarly, if you are saying that the disputed material was placed maliciously on your site by a hacker, without your permission or knowledge, then the same exemption from liability would apply, although you may face some difficulty in persuading PicRights of this if the image appears to naturally form part of your site.

Obviously if you mean that the disputed image was put on you website by you or someone working on your behalf, but at the same time someone who was not authorised by you gained access to your site and uploaded a load of spam, then I can't see how the allegation about hacking can assist you with the PicRights claim. Nevertheless, if your site has been hacked, it would be sensible to report the fact to Action Fraud, even though this may not assist you in your dealings with PicRightsUK. As I understand it, you are not alleging that PicRights are somehow responsible for the hacking, even though you seem to have concern about the authenticity of their email.

Since you have been speaking to someonenamed Jim whom I assume you are reasonably sure is a representative of PicRights, I'm not clear why you might think their email is a scam.

[marko P]

Thanks Andy

This is how my blog looks with sidebars.

I have removed this page.
https://outstandingresults.co/category/ ... ed/page/50

The photo grab of my site is using firefox which I don't use. So I have no idea if my website actually looks like the screen grab.

If any help I could send the images to you but have no idea how to here.

This content is clearly nothing to do with my web activities and I was hacked which I told Jim.

Perhaps Reuters has picked up on this really quickly as I never knew and it is in fact legitimate but they have no idea I have been hacked and I am actually a victim too.

Is there a way to appeal to their better nature away from picrights?

Where would I stand on that as a victim who has also been used?

I was also going to send you the login but then realised everyone else on here could log into picrights with that info.

[marko P]

I have just sent this to Jim at pic rights UK.
Can you believe they want £700 to resolve this?

Hi Jim.

I just looked at the images and screen grab on your website there.
I was a bit hesitant to go in as the whole thing has gotten out of control.
Really what seems to have happened is that hackers got into my website which I never updated for a while and placed in all these rogue spam blog posts which I removed.
Reuters software picked it up and took action and involved yourselves.

It seems that Reuters and myself are indeed both victims of cyber fraud operators.
When looking at the post info it is obvious to see that the written content has nothing to do with my business activities.
I would like to appeal to Reuters directly and ask them to remove me from this as an unwitting victim.
How do I do that?

Or can you do that using logic here yourself to see that this is very unfortunate?

This has already cost me web design money. I couldn't afford to sort it out.

I really hate injustice and dishonesty myself and they are a high ticket trigger for me.
So, I am appealing to you to see that this is unjust and baseless as I am an innocent party here in all of this.

Or, should I approach Action Fraud directly if it is out of your hands so to speak?

[AndreiPoppovv]

I've reported there solicitors Burness Paull to the SRA on what they've sent and the actual so called evidence is flaky at best let alone the practice they've used and there are some other things that seem to be of a underhanded nature, I didn't think to contact action fraud I might report the solicitor firm too, the technique used by these companies is akin to a doorstep scam using intimidating wording, whether they're legit as a company or not and they're not exactly clear on what the actual infringement was except it must be commercial and they want we'll above the cost of the image, unreasonably might I add.
The more people report them the liklihood of them changing the policy of shoot first ask questions later will change, I wonder how many people have been pulled into paying without actually being required to.


I for one am going to let them track me down properly if they can and then if somehow they get this to court I'm gonna fight them as I've today had confirmation of something important which I cannot post publicly.

[marko P]

He has told me this:

Hi Mark,

Thank you for your email,



I will reach out to the client and come back to you in due course, no action is required by you at this time, I will be in touch once I hear back.


Hopefully this will be an end to it. If not I will go to my actual police office and report it to them rather than action fraud. I have no intention of paying a penny being as I am a victim of malicious spamming where the spammers used his clients images and thats how they must have happened upon my website.
It is really clear by the spam blog posts it has nothing to do with my business activities.