Picrights and unlicensed use of The Associated Press Imagery

[apiedpiper]

I received a Picrights email quoting unlicensed use of The Associated Press's (AP) image on my website etc.. and that this could be resolved for the sum of £922. After reading so many really helpful posts on here, I replied confirming the image had been removed and I asked for proof of copyright ownership/registration.

Got a response within hours containing several attachments showing AP represent the image and AP authorise Picrights to act on their behalf, with a reduced settlement fee of £645, to be paid within 5 business days. (They say it is due for escalation as pending since December - I did not receive any email about this prior to January!)

I had also previously made contact with AP directly to gather info on cost of editorial licence - for which I got a response from Shutterstock - saying that they represent AP in the UK. Single image editorial licence £159. I replied to Picrights stating my understanding that Shutterstock represent the image in the UK and could they prove that they are instructed to provide copyright compliance in the UK on behalf of Shutterstock. I also made a counter-offer to settle for the same fee as the licence on the basis that if it went to court that would be the fair market value.

Not heard a thing back from them! Does anyone now whether the Shutterstock/UK thing I have found may mean they wouldn't actually be able to escalate this to a law firm/small claims track anyway?

[AndyJ]

Hi apiedpiper and welcome.

If we assume that AP are the owners of copyright in the image (probably due to the photograph having been taken by one of their staff photographers) they (AP) then licence Shutterstock to market the photograph. The role of PicRights is just to seek out instances of alleged infringing use of the image. To do this I presume that they have some sort of relationship with Shuttertock otherwise they wouldn't be able to check who had been provided with licences to use the image legitimately. However PicRights will be acting on behalf of the copyright owners, not the the licensee Shutterstock, because licensees on their own have no right to pursue infringement claims.

You have done exactly what we advise in these cases, by offering to settle at the market rate for a licence. It's difficult to say why you haven't heard back from PicRights, but they do tend to drop claims which aren't economically worth the trouble of pursuing. If anyone was to sue you it would be AP, which again I think is unlikely, because they know that it would be very hard to win damages above the market price of the licence they lost out on.

The PicRights business model only works when the user pays something approaching the initial demand. Anything below their 'reduced settlement fee' would mean it's costing them money to keep going with the claim since they have to split anything they receive with the copyright owner.

[apiedpiper]

Thanks for the reply Andy J

I guess I just sit tight for now - do you think its worth me following up my counter-offer email with PicRights early next week, or best to just wait and hope they have dropped this one?

[AndyJ]

Since you have made your counteroffer to settle, the ball is in their court. I would be inclined to wait for their response.

[apiedpiper]

So, I have now had a reply to my counter offer and query about Shutterstock representing the image in the UK. I have been told...

Please note that The Associated Press and Shutterstock are affiliated entities and share some images on their distribution platforms. In my previous email, I attached the Letter of Authorisation issued by The Associated Press for your perusal, confirming our representation.

They also say the use on my website was 'business' and so the editorial licence fee I quoted was too low. However they have now reduced it to £532 if I pay in the next week. Think that's probably as good as it will get - and I really don't want it escalating. Any other thoughts?

[AndyJ]

Hi again apiedpiper,

The relationship bewteen AP and Shutterstock not immediately relevant here.

As for whether you were offered the wrong licence or not, that depends on what terms attach to the various licences which Shutterstock offer and how they apply to your specific use of the image concenred. I can't comment on that, other than to say that the jump from £159 for the licence you found and £532 of the revised offer appears to be unjustifiably large. I assume that PicRights didn't actually mention the cost of the 'correct' licence through Shutterstock. It is therefore hard to see the basis for the figure of £532, other than some amount plucked out of the air which means that PicRights can still just make a profit on the deal.

Similarly I can't comment on the decision about whether to accept their revised offer. That would depend on your appetite for risk and your eagerness to get the matter resolved in the short term.