Visual Rights Group Demand for Hotlinked Image

[DBeckhamWannabe]

Hello,

Thank you to everyone who has commented on this forum, I've read through past posts and the information has been very helpful.

I recently received a letter from Visual Rights Group demanding a settlement of £310 for an image displayed on my UK-based and UK-hosted site.

The image is hosted on Amazon and is displayed on my page via a plugin called AAWP ( https://getaawp.com/ ) via hotlinking/framing. I didn't choose the image, it was automatically generated by the plugin.

If I right-click the image and select "open image in new tab" the image appears and the Amazon url is visible in the address bar.

I have never downloaded this image to my computer and to my knowledge it isn't stored on my server.

As I am based in the UK, I assumed that the display of this image wasn't in breach of copyright law but alas, the demand letter is sitting on my desk as I type.

Am I correct in assuming that they have little chance of successfully making a claim in the UK courts?

Also; I have past experience with Permission Machine (the previous incarnation of Visual Rights Group) with regard to an entirely different image where I offered £20 to settle the case but refused to compensate beyond the cost of the unpaid license. After several threatening letters, they gave up and I haven't heard from them for 18 months. My question here is more about AAWP/hotlinking/framing and copyright law, I know how these copyright trolls work in general and that offering to pay an amount equal to the unpaid licence (and not much more) is generally the best approach.

Thank you.

[AndyJ]

Hi DB,

As you are probably aware since you have read through the posts by others in a similar situation, under EU caselaw (which applies in the UK courts because it came from a time when we were still in the EU) if your website is not commercial in nature, then the fact that image is merely linked to by your site is insufficient to make you liable for infringement. The relevant case is called GS Media v Sanoma.
However if your website is commercial in nature and it is relatively clear that the presence of the image contributes to your profits, then you are under an extra duty to satisfy yourself before activating the link that the image is hosted with the necessary permission on the hosting site. The Court of Justice of the European Union did not spell out what would constitute sufficient diligence on your part, assuming that your site was profitting from having the image displayed on it.

However your case has introduced a new element, where you say that the plugin was responsible for generating the link. I think that this then puts you at one remove from the situation envisaged in GS Midea, since there was no deliberate decision on your part to use that particular image. But as this is a somewhat novel development, I have no idea how the courts would view the matter. I think it is clear that the onus would be on you to demonstrate that the plugin was working autonomously, by perhaps providing a copy of any description provided by its makers or supplier, of how the plugin is designed to operate. You will probably need to supply much the same information to Visual Rights Group in order to convince them to back off. However, as I am sure you know, they don't tend to let you know whether they have dropped a claim.

I hope this gives you sufficient information to draft your reply to VRG.

[DBeckhamWannabe]

Thank you, I'll update this thread if anything of interest happens.

[Lligmot]

Our small company accidently used a photo of a street sign on a info web page that has had a total of 48 views before an email from visual rights group on behalf of alamy. They wanted over £400. We took down the image, swapped for correct one from canva and offered then the licence fee and a bit extra £50. They said no and continue to offer the 400 settlement and threaten to take us to court. Not really sure what to do next. Any advice would be great. Thanks

[AndyJ]

Hi and welcome to the forum.

You have posted this in the wrong thread as you case does not seem to involve a hot-linked image. It's not a big deal but you do need to read the main thread here: Copyright infringement via Permission Machine, acting on behalf of Alamy. Don't be put off by the title, Permission Machine is the earlier name used by the Visual Rights Group - different name, same company, same tactics.
Read through that thread and then come back with any follow up questions if you want, but hopefully you will find all the answers you need there and in the similar thread involving Pixsy.