I have recently received a letter from Solicitors Burness Paul who are acting on behalf of Picrights for a sum of £506 for copyright Infringement
of an image I have used on my company website.
Previous to this I received a letter from Picrights for the same amount and requesting the image be taken down immediately, which I did.
The image is owned by PA Images and was taken on 26th October 2006 by photographer Sean Dempsey and currently resides in the archive section of their website.
I understand that ignorance is no defence for Copyright Infringement and neither is whether the use of the image generated any clients or income for you.
The fee of £506 is in PA Images Commercial Rate Card as the fee for 1 year for the Usage category Commercial Collateral Web.
The image was displayed for less than 1 year before it was removed and there is a rate for 6 months for the same Usage at £375.
I have read some of the past topics regarding Picrights and also some relating to court proceedings at the IPEC. I would appreciate any advice regarding the next step with the claim made by Picrights/Burness Paul.
As part of the Settlement process Picrights/Burness Paul want a Settlement and Release Agreement to be signed. Is this a requirement that must be undertaken or can it be refused?
Thank you for your help with this matter.
Kevin
Picrights and unlicenced use of PA Images Image
Re: Picrights and unlicenced use of PA Images Image
Hi Kevin,
Welcome to the forum.
To take your last post first, there is no legal requirement for you to sign a settlement agreement, but obviously if Burness Paul make it a condition of the settlement then it seems unlikely that they will settle without a signed agreement. Whether this would then mean that they would pursue the matter through the courts is a separate issue.You may well have read the explanations on other threads about how it is not economically sensible to go to court over a sum of £500 where the claim is going to be robustly defended as it would inevitably cost more in legal fees than the total amount of the damages being claimed, and legal costs cannot be recouped by the winning party in the IPEC Small Claims Court.
I think it would not be unreasonable to pitch a counter offer somewhere between the £506 and the £375 figures based on the length of time the image was on the website. When communicating with Burness Paul it might be helpful to indicate that you understand your position if the matter were to go to court and say that your defence against paying the full amount being demanded, even if this represents PA's licence fee, would be based on the user principle. In brief terms the argument goes like this: had you been shopping around for a licence to use an image similar to the one you actually used, you would have had in mind the whole marketplace and would not have bought a licence from PA when a similar image could be licensed from an agency like Alamy or Shutterstock for a tenth of the price of the PA image. It's not a strong argument, but one which is at least worth running. See this article on the user principle in operation: https://www.albright-ip.co.uk/2021/05/h ... e-damages/ (if you have limited time, just scroll down to the paragraph which starts "The hypothetical negotiation of General Tire ... )
I hope you will come back and let us know how you get on. However if you do sign a settlement agreement you may find that it will include a non-disclosure clause which will prevent you from telling us about the outcome. Obviously Burness Paul do not wish it to be known that they routinely settle for less than the original figure being demanded.
Welcome to the forum.
To take your last post first, there is no legal requirement for you to sign a settlement agreement, but obviously if Burness Paul make it a condition of the settlement then it seems unlikely that they will settle without a signed agreement. Whether this would then mean that they would pursue the matter through the courts is a separate issue.You may well have read the explanations on other threads about how it is not economically sensible to go to court over a sum of £500 where the claim is going to be robustly defended as it would inevitably cost more in legal fees than the total amount of the damages being claimed, and legal costs cannot be recouped by the winning party in the IPEC Small Claims Court.
I think it would not be unreasonable to pitch a counter offer somewhere between the £506 and the £375 figures based on the length of time the image was on the website. When communicating with Burness Paul it might be helpful to indicate that you understand your position if the matter were to go to court and say that your defence against paying the full amount being demanded, even if this represents PA's licence fee, would be based on the user principle. In brief terms the argument goes like this: had you been shopping around for a licence to use an image similar to the one you actually used, you would have had in mind the whole marketplace and would not have bought a licence from PA when a similar image could be licensed from an agency like Alamy or Shutterstock for a tenth of the price of the PA image. It's not a strong argument, but one which is at least worth running. See this article on the user principle in operation: https://www.albright-ip.co.uk/2021/05/h ... e-damages/ (if you have limited time, just scroll down to the paragraph which starts "The hypothetical negotiation of General Tire ... )
I hope you will come back and let us know how you get on. However if you do sign a settlement agreement you may find that it will include a non-disclosure clause which will prevent you from telling us about the outcome. Obviously Burness Paul do not wish it to be known that they routinely settle for less than the original figure being demanded.
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: Picrights and unlicenced use of PA Images Image
Hi Andy
Thank you for your reply, it has been very helpful in determining what I do next.
Kevin
Thank you for your reply, it has been very helpful in determining what I do next.
Kevin