Picrights UK

[FX Len]

Hello.

As a new member here - and publisher for the past 32 years - for the first time ever, I have been accused by PicRights of infringing PA Images copyright on an image.

Firstly, the image in question was used on my website, and although I did check as much as possible that it was not copyrighted and in the public domain, it transpires that it is owned by PA Images. No excuses my end - I've used a copyrighted image without a licence and hold my hands-up.

My issue is this. Looking on the PA website, I am able to purchase a lifetime licence of the image for £35 standard, and £50 enhanced for print usage, so I'm struggling to understand why PicRights are asking for £450. I was always advised legally by our solicitors that if on the rare occasion an infringement of copyright occurred whereby I have inadvertently used a copyrighted image without a licence - which has never happened BTW - provided the correct fee was paid to the agency/photographer, ensuring that they were not financially disadvantaged, then that is all that is expected of me.

Is this still the case, or have I missed something as what PicRights are asking for is bordering extortion!

[AndyJ]

Hi FX Len

If you take a look at some of the other threads here involving not just PicRights but the other companies who operate the same sort of operation, you will see that you are right and any damages should be directly related to what the copyright owner has lost because the correct licence was not obtained at the outset. The inflated demand you have received is because PicRights want to make a fat profit out of the deal. You are not obliged to help them with with this aspiration.

[ladydruce]

Hiya

I've had a letter from PicRights too about an image that was once on my website, but has not been on it for a few months. I know this because I moved to a new website host at Easter when I rewrote the site and changed all the images to my own!

The PicRights letter turned up after I'd done this - which is what I was miffed - as there was no image up at that time. I now understand there's technology to take a snap of the history of the web at any one time...

Obviously I shouldn't have used the image. I know that now. And am certainly more than happy to compensate the photographer - who they claim is Ian West for PA Media. On the Alamy site the photo is £35 plus VAT for editorial.

But not like this...

I wrote to PicRights to ask them for proof of copyright and they have sent me a Confirmation of Rights Holdership letter for PA Media photos.

However, I found the original image in my files and it's from a different photographer - David Fisher - Shutterstock. Have checked their site and editorial use is £159.

I have not admitted liability. The PicRights bribe to avoid infringement is £450.

My next move was going to be to ask them for a breakdown of this cost, but now I just think - why the heck am I doing anything here apart from contacting David Fisher and Shutterstock!

What would you suggest?

The reason I'm pushing through with this is that the original photo was actually part of a collage of 9 celebs who'd used reflexology (I'm a reflexologist) and was meant to be entertaining and interesting. I wish I hadn't put it up at all. What I'm concerned about now is they'll come for all 9 photos and I'll be dealing with PicRights for years! It's been demanded that I pay up by 1st July 2024...

I tried pro bono with the law society but they said the financial demand is too low for them to get involved, but that they know this issue is on the rise. I have the opportunity to speak with an IP lawyer for 45 minutes at £225.

Not sure what direction to take with all of this.

I understand there could also have been tens of photographers at the shoot - all taking shots at the same angle - so how can PicRights prove this is their photo anyway (which in this case it isn't)!

Thanks for any steer you can give me.

[AndyJ]

Hi ladydruce and welcome to the forum,

As you have identified it is critical to correctly identify the copyright owner of the photograph you used, because if you are sure that PicRights are representing a different photographer, obviously their claim is not valid. In other words you need to be 100% certain that the image you used was created by David Fisher and not Ian West. This is not just a visual comparison. You need to look for any metadata embedded in the image itself. Metadata is also referred to as EXIF data. With luck the metadata, if it is there, will identify the photographer, the date the image was taken, details of the camera, lens, aperture setting and other technical details. There is a chance that if the image has been subject to post processing in Photoshop all these details may have been erased; nonethless certain other details will remain and may help pinpoint differences between the Fisher and West images. These external details include the image size (for instance X pixels x Y pixels), pixel density (for instance z pixels per inch) and the amount of file compression, assuming the image is a jpeg. To find all these details you need either a program like Photoshop, or to use an online image examination website, such as https://exifmeta.com/.

That is the first step. If you are able to easily show that the image you used was the one taken by David Fisher*, then you should present these details to PicRights and tell them that they are mistaken. Obviously you do not need to mention whether or not you hold/held a licence from Shutterstock for the Fisher image. PicRights aren't representing Shutterstock and so it is none of their business.

If on the other hand it turms out that the image you used was indeed the West image, then the starting point for your negotiations with PicRights is the Alamy £35 licence since this represents the actual market value of the licence you would have obtained. You can read how we suggest you go about making a counter-offer in the other threads here.

Since PicRights only appear to be interested in the single image, I would not worry about the collage at this stage. It may become relevant later to know whether you made the collage yourself, or if you found it in that state.

* or indeed a completely diffferent photographer not so far mentioned.

[ladydruce]

Hiya - Thank you that's very helpful. I've run the image through the site and it is David Fisher.

Given they've got this wrong, how much information do you think I need to provide PicRights with? I'm concerned they'll turn around and just send me another letter saying they're representing Shutterstock!

Can I just say they're mistaken, I have checked the original image via efixmeta and it wasn't taken by Ian West. Or will I need to prove it to them with name of the photographer and technical details etc.? Surely if they have access to the original web page they could just check this themselves?

I don't want to give more information than I need to.

[ladydruce]

For example, would this be enough:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Demand for Payment for Alleged Unlicensed Use of Image

Thank you for sending the Confirmation of Rights Holdership for catalogue image no. 18271507. An image by Ian West for PA Media.
And, also for your statement of authorisation to act for PA Media.

Unfortunately, you are mistaken about the image.

I have checked the EFIX data of your image against the alleged unlicensed use of image and the two are different.

The Ian West photo image size is 323x512, with Megapixels 0.165, subsampling YCbCr4:4:4 (1 1).
The alleged unlicensed image size is 306x423, with megapixels 0.129, subsampling YCbCr4:2:0 (2 2).

I hope this helps clear up the matter.

Yours faithfully,

[AndyJ]

Hi ladydruce,

You may have a struggle on your hands. Unfortunately the EXIF data only shows that the two images are not identical, but I can't see any positive proof that the author of your image is David Fisher, that is to say his name is embedded in the EXIF. The differences you have found could be attributed to someone editing the West image which led to the changes. Have you actually run the Fisher image as obtained from Shutterstock through the same EXIF analytic program, rather than the image you have? If the Fisher image and your image match then you are on much stronger ground. Ultimately you don't have to prove anything, just throw enough doubt into the mix for them to back off. If the matter went to court, this first thing PAMedia (not PicRights) would have to do is prove that their image was the image which you had used (a screenshot wouldn't cut it), and you would be able to adduce evidence which, at the very least, threw doubt on their assertion. In a civil matter the standard on proof is the balance of probabilities, so you would be likely to get the benefit of the doubt - enough at least for any lawyer to advise PAMedia not to proceed to court.

I think it is unlikely that PicRights will change tack and claim to represent Shutterstock.

Good luck

[ladydruce]

His name is also embedded in the data so I know they've got it wrong. I just wondered how much to declare about it all.
Thanks for your help.

[AndyJ]

Ok that's excellent. As I say, you don't have to prove anything. You just tell them that you have the evidence that the image you used was by Fisher, and it's up to them to join the dots. They will look extremely stupid if they try to take things further after that, because you can threaten them with harassment procedings.

[Camdengirl20]

Good Morning

Jumping on this thread on behalf of a friend.

Just trying to clarify the 6 year limitation period for copyright infringement. My friend used an image of a singer and his wife at a red carpet event, on her instagram page. She is a makeup artist and had made the wife up for the event. The image is from November 2016 and was on her instagram page until she was contacted by Picrights recently, claiming copyright infringement and has now taken it down. They are apparently acting on behalf of Alamy.

They are claiming £440. The image on the Alamy website is £35.00 but I have also found that the image is also sold by Getty images for £150. Getty images also quote the name of the actual photographer.

How do we know who has the rights to the image and as the image is from Nov 2016, and Picrights have only contacted her last week, does this fall into the 6 year limitation rule?

Many thanks in advance for any advice/information you can offer.

[ladydruce]

Thank you AndyJ. You have been so helpful. I've felt very alone with this. I'll write to them and see what happens next.

[AndyJ]

Hi CandenGirl and welcome to the forum,

The Limitation Act applies to the time that the infringing act occurred, not when the image was made. Since the image was on your friend's instagram page until recently, infringement did not end until recently, so the limitation period is not applicable, since it only began once the infringing act ceased. What might possibly assist in your friend's defence is something called laches, which is an equitable principle that states that if the tort (the legal wrong) should have been known to the copyright owner during the 8 year period the image was on instagram and they did nothing about it until now, the rights owner loses the right to take action now. However it would be hard to show that the copyright owner must have, or might reasonably be expected to have, known of the infringement, prior to PicRights using their software to find it.

On the other issue of ownership, unless you can find evidence, as LadyDruce has done, that there may been more than one photographer at the event who produced very similar images, I think you have to assume that the author is the person that PicRights have named. However for the purposes of making a counter offer to settle the matter, the lower Alamy fee should be used, since that represents the true market value of the image licence. It is possible that Getty were offering a higher resolution image intended for press publication, hence their higher fee.

[Camdengirl20]

Hi Andy

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my email, it is very much appreciated.

Picrights aren't representing the photographer as such, but copying in 'Alamy' on their emails.
Getty website credits a 'David M Benett' on their website, for the image in question, but their are no details on the Alamy website. I have tried to reach out to Alamy directly but they have stated they can't discuss individual cases due to data protection. They do state the following:

"We work with several copyright protection agencies, and we manage the infringements for several organisations including PA Media and the Associated Press as well as Alamy."

I will advise her to offer the figure quoted on Alamy's website.

Thank you again for your help

[ladydruce]

Hi Andy
I sent a letter stating that I have evidence the photo was not by Ian and I trust the matter will now be closed and they've followed up asking for proof with a copy of the image and its metadata otherwise it's considered as non -authorised.

I have the photo but am not sure how to proceed with this. Am feeling so harassed by this. Any thoughts? I haven't given them any of the details as of yet.

[stansteel]

Hello, yet another Picrights post though different, my case is 14 years ago I worked as a subcontractor for a special effects company I created the rain effects for George sampson for a video and photographs in question seen in both photographs and for a loreal makeup shoot a few years later. Picrights contacted me in july with the usual infringement letter, stating I need to show copyright proof of ownership from splash news /shutterstock, I am in correspondence with Shutterstock, who is investigating the claim, Picright are asking me for £3000, these pics were used to illustrate only the rain effects I created and not for selling or profit, my company was closed this year and no longer has a website all pic are removed as i have retired form the business, the two letters are made out to my old company name and not to me, however I was a sole trader. And this amount seems rather steep, I'm now a carer for my mother and only get £80.00 per week from the government so do not have the money to go to court. I am currently waiting of shutterstock to sort out this mess directly. Any extra advice.? Phil