Hello
I used a cut-out pic on a blog post of Donald Trump, Pic Right sent an infringement notice a couple of weeks ago with a referenced pic on Reuters. The pic I have now seems to be a cut-out of that image (it's a famous one with him pointing up, used all over the place). That same cut-out image is on PNGimg.com and covered by Creative Commons & various other places. They first asked for £500, I uploaded the link to the cut-out image & a PDF of the Creative Commons Copyright page, thought that was OK, but in an email on Thursday Pic Right claim that I hadn't yet responded to them with a long email about using images from the internet, and have temporarily dropped the fee to £300 (special offer, act with the next week). I replied to the email straight away (Thursday) with the same link to PNGimg.com & a PDF of the Creative Commons license, querying that I had already uploaded it. So I am now waiting for a response. Should I stand my ground, should I call them & try to speak to someone? It is on Reuters as per the link they sent me at £101, but does the Creative Commons cover me?? Pic ref: https://pngimg.com/image/29325
Hoping you can help!
Pic Right Reuters & Creative Commons
Re: Pic Right Reuters & Creative Commons
Hi and welcome to the forum,
Is the image you used identical to the one on pngimage.com and did you comply with all the attribution aspects of the CC licence? That is to say, did you supply details about the CC licence used on the original? If you didn't do this then you have breached the CC licence. That said the licence says that attribution is required, yet the source doesn't give any details of the copyright owner so you can't provide a proper attribution. On that basis, assuming that you attached the licence details (Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)) that should suffice, and you can legitimately claim to be covered by the CC licence.
But even if you have breached the CC licence, it still doesn't mean that you are liable for the full amount being asked for by PicRights, whether that is the original £500 or the new £300 figure. Clearly if the image is legitimately being made available at no cost with a CC licence then neither £500 nor £300 represents the true market rate for an image licence.
The problem you face is that however much justification you have for your use of this image, if PicRights aren't listening to you, then you have to be prepared for a long period of being hounded by PicRights as they alternately try to wear you down and scare you with threats. My gut feeling is that this is yet another case of an image is being available via a CC licence for use in non-commercial contexts (such as your blog), and in parallel via a high priced news picture agency site (Reuters) where the intended use is commercial, for example in magazines and newspapers. Unfortunately no one has told PicRights to only go after the commercial users, and they are probably too fixated on making money to understand the issue anyway.
Is the image you used identical to the one on pngimage.com and did you comply with all the attribution aspects of the CC licence? That is to say, did you supply details about the CC licence used on the original? If you didn't do this then you have breached the CC licence. That said the licence says that attribution is required, yet the source doesn't give any details of the copyright owner so you can't provide a proper attribution. On that basis, assuming that you attached the licence details (Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)) that should suffice, and you can legitimately claim to be covered by the CC licence.
But even if you have breached the CC licence, it still doesn't mean that you are liable for the full amount being asked for by PicRights, whether that is the original £500 or the new £300 figure. Clearly if the image is legitimately being made available at no cost with a CC licence then neither £500 nor £300 represents the true market rate for an image licence.
The problem you face is that however much justification you have for your use of this image, if PicRights aren't listening to you, then you have to be prepared for a long period of being hounded by PicRights as they alternately try to wear you down and scare you with threats. My gut feeling is that this is yet another case of an image is being available via a CC licence for use in non-commercial contexts (such as your blog), and in parallel via a high priced news picture agency site (Reuters) where the intended use is commercial, for example in magazines and newspapers. Unfortunately no one has told PicRights to only go after the commercial users, and they are probably too fixated on making money to understand the issue anyway.
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: Pic Right Reuters & Creative Commons
Thanks. I don’t think I attributed it, but I’ve taken it down now anyway. Do you think I should pay the £300 if they demand it? Obviously I can’t go to court etc and they said that the £300 was non negotiable.
Re: Pic Right Reuters & Creative Commons
No, you shouldn't pay either the £500 or the £300. In civil cases the complainant is only entitled to damages equivalent to what they have lost by the correct licence not being purchased in the first place, so even if the Reuters licence was the appropriate one (and I don't think it is in this case) then what has been 'lost' is the £101 standard Reuters fee. You rightly say that you don't want to go to court, but that is what the court would award Reuters.
However it seems clear that the same image is being offered in two separate markets, one for 'amateurs' where if you comply with the CC licence there is no fee, and the other for commercial purposes where the £101 fee applies. If you want a quick resolution to the matter and don't feel ready to engage in a long battle with PicRights, then you could make a counter-offer based on the £101 fee.
However it seems clear that the same image is being offered in two separate markets, one for 'amateurs' where if you comply with the CC licence there is no fee, and the other for commercial purposes where the £101 fee applies. If you want a quick resolution to the matter and don't feel ready to engage in a long battle with PicRights, then you could make a counter-offer based on the £101 fee.
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: Pic Right Reuters & Creative Commons
Thanks! They’ve said the £300 is non negotiable. But at the moment it’s with them so will hang on for a reply for a couple of days. I have also asked about an image on Alamy that is a rendered version of that image- with some additional poses that I bought to replace it- but if the bot is searching for the silhouette then that will also fall into the same trap! It does make you feel a bit helpless- bullied!
Re: Pic Right Reuters & Creative Commons
Unfortunately I'm freelance and this was my portfolio site so they are counting me as a commercial user.
TBH these free-to-use sites feel like honey traps - Reuters don't even come up on a reverse image check. I'm wondering how many people get caught out with these ubiquitious images, and why Reuters, if they are so protective of their copyright, don't stop these sites sharing these images.
TBH these free-to-use sites feel like honey traps - Reuters don't even come up on a reverse image check. I'm wondering how many people get caught out with these ubiquitious images, and why Reuters, if they are so protective of their copyright, don't stop these sites sharing these images.
Re: Pic Right Reuters & Creative Commons
Your portfolio would not normally be considered commercial. Yes, it is designed to get you work, but it is not commerce in the sense that you are directly making money from charging people to access your portfolio, or selling images directly to the public. It is rather like the argument that is some thimes heard, that if someone has adverts on their website, use of an infringing image automatically makes that commercial use. This is not the case and the plaintiff would need to show a direct causal link between the image and the additional income generated for the site by having it there. So, say before the image was on the site you received 30 hits a day, but after the image was added the numbe of hits went up to 2000, and your income from the adverisers was directly based on the number of daily hits, then that might just be enough to convince a court that the use was commercial. The problem here is that in the publishing industry, 'commercial' means something completely different to what it means in terms of intellectual property law, and when it comes to deciding if infringement has occurred, it is the latter which the courts will turn to.
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: Pic Right Reuters & Creative Commons
Thanks! I have said that I’m freelance and don’t earn any income from the site- I’ll try plugging away at them! these ubiquitous Trump images must be a huge asset!
Re: Pic Right Reuters & Creative Commons
Just to let you know I'm not winning [final offer / 200].
I'm angry at Reuters. That image has been in their library for nearly 10 years. Why didn’t they ride that wave of ubiquity and mitigate the poaching by providing their own accessible version of that image? They could have made millions? It makes no sense. TBH it feels very neglectful on their part to have lost control of the image and rely on threats and 'fines' of copyright infringement. Maybe they're now making millions in 'fines' with the new AI bots scraping the internet.
I'm angry at Reuters. That image has been in their library for nearly 10 years. Why didn’t they ride that wave of ubiquity and mitigate the poaching by providing their own accessible version of that image? They could have made millions? It makes no sense. TBH it feels very neglectful on their part to have lost control of the image and rely on threats and 'fines' of copyright infringement. Maybe they're now making millions in 'fines' with the new AI bots scraping the internet.