PA Media infringment

[AndyJ]

Hopefully they understand that they have no hope of getting even the discounted amount as damages in court, and this 'goodwill' gesture is aimed at making enough out of the transaction to count as a profit. If that is their mindset, I would say that you have the upper hand and should stick to your original offer. Let's face it, now that their bluff has been called, the only threat they have left is the court one, but they know that they can't actually use that, firstly because only the copyright owner can start court procedings, and secondly because it will cost the claimant more in legal fees then he can hope to win in damages.

[mdib]

Thanks AndyJ.
So should I respond reiterating my previous offer or simply ignore this?

[AndyJ]

Continue to engage with them and just reiterate your previous offer.

[mdib]

thanks AndyJ

[HammerofPompey]

Hopefully they understand that they have no hope of getting even the discounted amount as damages in court, and this 'goodwill' gesture is aimed at making enough out of the transaction to count as a profit. If that is their mindset, I would say that you have the upper hand and should stick to your original offer. Let's face it, now that their bluff has been called, the only threat they have left is the court one, but they know that they can't actually use that, firstly because only the copyright owner can start court procedings, and secondly because it will cost the claimant more in legal fees then he can hope to win in damages.

Hiya, just trying to get my duck in a row over a similar COPY TRACK missive. I'm trying to establish factually,

• where damages is limited to the loss (ie the licence fee for the image)

• whether admin costs can be reclaimed - in the case of a court ruling

• only the copyright owner can start court proceedings - and what happens if the rights to pursue the claim have been ceeded to the third party, no win no fee scam

Ta

[AndyJ]

Hammerof Pompey,

I've hopefully answered your questions in the CopyTack thread.

[WriterPerson]

Any further updates on this thread? Did ignoring the requests work?

[Disgruntled123]

I didn't ignore them, I just held firm over the value I believed they were owed, having retrospectively purchased the license and offered an additional amount as goodwill, and going round in circles with them plenty of time They eventually went quiet and that was well over a year ago now but their last correspondence did say (paraphrasing) 'we will come back to you in future, this matter isn't closed'...

[Cloud123]

Came across this thread as I was contacted by PA Media as well - twice for two personal blogs. They wanted £800 for the licence of a screenshot from 10 years ago. The first blog I forgot was still active - I immediately deleted the image and the blog. They haven't come back to me about this one BUT now they say the screenshot is on my current blog - yet the it isn't. They have a screenshot of use - old - and link to just my blog but no active proof.

I found the original image on Alamy for £25 for the licence. My personal blog is non-profit, there have been no damages. But I'm stuck about what to do. No way I can afford £800. Should I pay for the licence on Alamy and leave it there? And if they email me again (had two emails so far for the current blog) should I say I paid the licence?

[Disgruntled123]

Definitely don't pay the full amount. Loads of examples across this really helpful site show that being polite but firm and eventually they appear to give up (but often leave a threat of coming back to the issue on the table).

I personally retrospectively bought the relevant license on Alamy (part of the PA Media group) for about £30, and then offered the same amount again for inconvenience and held that position. They ranted and raved a bit but I just held firm that this was a sensible and realistic amount for the true value of the image and that I wasn't prepared to move on this. It's nervy but they're taking the mick with the amounts they're trying to grift.

[Owain]

I've just had PA Media chasing me for a week. Initially they required £3,170 for the use of 4 images on my website (4 x £634 plus 25% admin fee of £634 = £3,170).
The website is about past Welsh boxers. Obviously I was unaware of the copyright issue. After reading the great advice on this forum, and particularly contained within this topic I immediately went to look at what the fee is on Alamy . The license fee there is just £35.99 for use on a website, so I made an offer of £179.96 (4 x £35.99 plus admin fee 25% of £36) also pointing out that the website was not monetised in any way, was not commercial and arguably was for educational purposes i.e. informing of great Welsh boxers of the past. They responded almost immediately rejecting my offer but made a counter offer of 'just' £480. I say 'just' because it is a significant decrease from £3,170.

Fortunately, I can afford £480 and was willing to pay it just to end the uncertainty that would have inevitably have resulted if I had refused to pay and let it drag on. I am aware that not everyone is in that position. My last email to them was to tell them how proud they could be of themselves for badgering an OAP who innocently used their images and to ask how they sleep at night. I'm not expecting a reply.

My main purposes in posting is to highlight just how much they will drop their price and also to thank all the contributors to this topic, as without the knowledge I gained from reading the posts here I would not have known about Alamy or how to argue a case. Thank you all.

[Cloud123]

Thanks all for sharing. They have since emailed me two more times. I've paid the £24 license from Alamy and I've emailed then saying I have a license for the image and politely asked they stop harassing me. I expect they will email again but if this does go further, they have to prove damages surely and justify the £800 license fee.

Also to add, what's strange about this second/third round of emails - not only was the link not showing anything, the screenshot must have taken years ago. And they didn't address me by name, just, to whom it may concern which I thought was strange.

[Cloud123]

Another update. They have contacted me again, this time asking for £96 - claiming that this is in accordance with Alamy's T&Cs. Charging me 5 times the amount the image was bought for - as well as repeating that it doesn't matter that I paid for the image, the infringement occurred prior so I still need to pay.

I have offered to pay £24 - that was the cost of the image - pointed out there was no damages and asked them again to stop harassing me.

Are there any updates from anyone else?

[Incommunicado]

Have received a few of these lately as one of our sub editors inadvertently used one of their images, which I have since removed from the site. Had no intention of using a copyrighted image, glad it was brought to our attention, we've removed it from the article (which has received about 5 hits in 3 months) and that's the end of the matter as far as we are concerned.

I know a shakedown when I see one and we are not falling for this, we have not responded, have no intention of ever responding. Looking through the forum it appears this scam has never reached court and we are confident we could easily defend ourselves if it came to it. Good bye.