We are a small company. One of our clients (artist) used some hardware/software that we sell, and had some of her sculptures displayed in a park. She wrote a news article. We asked if we could write our own news article / case study for our website, which then shared on our socials. She agreed, and supplied text and images.
18 month later PicRights says we didnt buy a licences for the image which the artist herself supplied. Therefore we owe £900.
Going down the rabbit hole, we finally discover the image is on AP Newsroom, with a note "This item is not available to license online." It links through to Alamy which has various licencing pricing. "Team Editorial licenses" and "Team Commercial licenses" appear to be £170 for a single asset.
We honestly thought as the artist herself gave written approval to use the image, all was good. We did not delve further into compyright infrigement as never come across this before - so that is on us.
However we have since removed the image. We have gone back to PicRights with the following:
"We have reviewed the image on AP's own Newsroom platform. It is listed there as not available to licence directly, with users directed to Alamy for all other uses, including website use. Alamy therefore appears to be AP's own designated channel for licensing this type of use, rather than simply a comparable third-party distributor.
Alamy's published pricing for the relevant category - a standard editorial licence covering website use, for a single project - starts at £80, with an enhanced editorial tier available from £170. Our use was limited to a single case study, published on our website and shared to our own social media channels as part of that same case study - not a broad advertising campaign, ongoing usage, or use across multiple unrelated projects. Alamy's standard editorial licence for a single project explicitly covers both website and social media use together, and our use falls within that single-project scope. Given that this is AP's own nominated route to market for this image and use type, we are unable to reconcile the £450 "standard licence fee" cited in your correspondence with the rate that would actually have applied had a licence been sought through the channel AP itself directs users to. We would ask that you clarify the specific basis on which the £450 figure was calculated, given this discrepancy.
Separately, and as raised previously, we do not accept that the further £450 in PicRights' own administrative or enforcement costs forms part of a legitimate claim for infringement, as this reflects the costs of pursuing the matter rather than any loss arising from the use itself."
They have come back this morning with:
"The image in question is only available for editorial use not promotional websites, your use of my client’s imagery is promotional and as such the license you are referring to would not apply, Alamy also charge up to x5 the license fee for any unauthorised use of the Content-please see below:
https://www.alamy.com/terms/uk/#Miscellaneous-terms
17.2. Any use of Content in a manner not expressly authorised by this Agreement may constitute copyright infringement, entitling Alamy to exercise all rights and remedies available to it under copyright laws around the world. You will be responsible for any damages resulting from any such copyright infringement, including any Claims by a third party. In addition, and without prejudice to Alamy's other remedies under this Agreement, Alamy reserves the right to charge, and you agree to pay a fee equal to five (5) times the applicable Alamy Licence fee for the unauthorised use of the Content.
You have been provided with the full breakdown of the fee and uplift of this matter.
The principle is this: damages put the copyright owner in the position they would have been in without the infringement. If there had been no infringement, the copyright owner would have licensed the images through proper channels at the standard licence fee. That's the baseline.
But that's not what happened here. The infringement forced our client to incur additional costs to identify and resolve it. These aren't optional overheads; they're direct costs are caused by your breach.
Your position requires the copyright owner to absorb 100% of those enforcement costs and recover nothing. No professional licensor operates on that basis.
The £450 is documented, direct cost flowing from the infringement itself. It's recoverable as part of what we're claiming to put the copyright owner in the position they would have been in without infringement.
Without the copyright owner approval is considered as a copyright infringement (Copyright Design and Patents Act of 1988) and entitles AP to seek compensation for infringing uses."
quick Google shows what a awkward company they are. I really hate their chasing tactics, but cannot justify their costs.
Is there any advise we should do next, or should we find a solicitor?