[Help] Breach of Copyright. Help!

[McTavish]

Time to tap the unfathomable depth of knowledge that is NSC.

Mrs McT has a small business and the person who set up the website used some images one of which was (unbeknownst to her) owned by Alamy. The images were not integral to the website so there has been no real financial gain from their use, they were more used for illustrative purposes.

She has received a demand for £420 for unauthorised use of the image which includes an unspecified amount for the time and expertise used to track down the unauthorised use. She has taken down the image (and any others that we were not sure of the copyright status of) and paid the licence fee for the image in question (£35.00)

The company chasing for the £420 has said that they will take that from the first demand and so she now owes them £385.00. This seems like a bit of a scam - whilst she has used copyright material, she has not gained financially from doing so, there is no material loss to the copyright holder and whilst she recognises the mistake and accepts that she should have been more careful, the sum involved seems excessive.

She is inclined to offer an amount - say £50.00 - for full and final settlement just to make this go away.

Any advice?

 

[Swansman]

I had a very similar issue on one of my non-profit blogs a few years ago. I removed the photo etc. but they still wanted money from me. I thought it was all very petty but was incredibly stressed out about it.

Finally I came up with the bright idea to go to UpWork and create $20 task for some legal expert to take a look at it and provide me with an email I could send to the company demanding money from me. In no time I got some very useful advice and a ready-written email and sent it to the company, and they didnt bother me again as they probably realised they couldnt skin me without a fight.

 

[Audax]

Time to tap the unfathomable depth of knowledge that is NSC.

Mrs McT has a small business and the person who set up the website used some images one of which was (unbeknownst to her) owned by Alamy. The images were not integral to the website so there has been no real financial gain from their use, they were more used for illustrative purposes.

She has received a demand for £420 for unauthorised use of the image which includes an unspecified amount for the time and expertise used to track down the unauthorised use. She has taken down the image (and any others that we were not sure of the copyright status of) and paid the licence fee for the image in question (£35.00)

The company chasing for the £420 has said that they will take that from the first demand and so she now owes them £385.00. This seems like a bit of a scam - whilst she has used copyright material, she has not gained financially from doing so, there is no material loss to the copyright holder and whilst she recognises the mistake and accepts that she should have been more careful, the sum involved seems excessive.

She is inclined to offer an amount - say £50.00 - for full and final settlement just to make this go away.

Any advice?

1. I am not an expert in the field, but...

2. There's a few options:

a. If she paid that third party to set up the site, she could try to pass the costs on to the third party.

b. If the company chasing her is not Alamy, find out how to contact Alamy direct, explain the situation, admit the error and offer a compromise amount (as you suggest). Alamy should be more amenable to a compromise than the paid attack dogs.

c. It's possible they're on shaky legal grounds asserting a £420 charge - could try calling their bluff and telling them direct: take us to small claims court and prove your case. If the claim is shaky, they should back off and accept a compromise amount.

I suggest option c in the main because I believe it's not uncommon for a copyright owner to seek an amicable rectification before setting loose a third party company like this. No idea what Alamy's reputation is like in that area, might be worth researching what is considered "normal" in cases like this.

 

[Triggaaar]

I don't know, but I'd think there's plenty of evidence of what usually happens, since this must be a fairly common occurrence. I wouldn't offer any amount until checking what usually happens (which I realise you're somewhat doing here)

 

[cheshunt seagull]

In my previous job at the British Library Business & IP Centre we worked with a legal firm called Briffa who specialise in intellectual property. You can book a free consultation through their website, we had good feedback from people that contacted them.

https://www.briffa.com/

Good luck with this.

 

[CheeseRolls]

Time to tap the unfathomable depth of knowledge that is NSC.

Mrs McT has a small business and the person who set up the website used some images one of which was (unbeknownst to her) owned by Alamy. The images were not integral to the website so there has been no real financial gain from their use, they were more used for illustrative purposes.

She has received a demand for £420 for unauthorised use of the image which includes an unspecified amount for the time and expertise used to track down the unauthorised use. She has taken down the image (and any others that we were not sure of the copyright status of) and paid the licence fee for the image in question (£35.00)

The company chasing for the £420 has said that they will take that from the first demand and so she now owes them £385.00. This seems like a bit of a scam - whilst she has used copyright material, she has not gained financially from doing so, there is no material loss to the copyright holder and whilst she recognises the mistake and accepts that she should have been more careful, the sum involved seems excessive.

She is inclined to offer an amount - say £50.00 - for full and final settlement just to make this go away.

Any advice?

You mentioned the person who set up the website, rather than the company. If this was in any way a commercial agreement, I would be playing merry hell with the web developer's company.
Check with Alamy that this company is authorised to act on their behalf and then as you suggest make them an offer.

 

[Triggaaar]

Read this:
https://copyrightaid.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3072&sid=c4f1d8050c7915f1401ca878f12b3622

 

[Vin]

Time to tap the unfathomable depth of knowledge that is NSC.

Mrs McT has a small business and the person who set up the website used some images one of which was (unbeknownst to her) owned by Alamy. The images were not integral to the website so there has been no real financial gain from their use, they were more used for illustrative purposes.

She has received a demand for £420 for unauthorised use of the image which includes an unspecified amount for the time and expertise used to track down the unauthorised use. She has taken down the image (and any others that we were not sure of the copyright status of) and paid the licence fee for the image in question (£35.00)

The company chasing for the £420 has said that they will take that from the first demand and so she now owes them £385.00. This seems like a bit of a scam - whilst she has used copyright material, she has not gained financially from doing so, there is no material loss to the copyright holder and whilst she recognises the mistake and accepts that she should have been more careful, the sum involved seems excessive.

She is inclined to offer an amount - say £50.00 - for full and final settlement just to make this go away.

Any advice?

Happened to me a while ago. Had some pictures up that belonged to another company (complete error on my behalf). I was told unless the other company can prove I profited out of those particular pictures, the company claiming wouldn't be entitled to anything. I replied to their lawyers stating this and didn't hear anything else back. I never engaged with my own lawyer due to unnecessary costs.

Wouldn't pay them a penny.

 

[Triggaaar]

What is the name of the chasing company?

 

[Triggaaar]

Happened to me a while ago. Had some pictures up that belonged to another company (complete error on my behalf). I was told unless the other company can prove I profited out of those particular pictures, the company claiming wouldn't be entitled to anything.

Useful. Who told you that?

 

[Happy Exile]

Was the person who set up the website paid, and was there a contract either from them or you? Check that first if so. I often work with third parties to provide content and the contract (written by someone far cleverer than me) puts liability for the intellectual property clearance of the content on the supplier, so in the event of a situation like the one you describe they are responsible if they've delivered something to me that is in breach of someone else's copyright.

If there was no contract, I'm probably in the minority, but I'd pay it. Alamy are a big company who will do this kind of thing all the time and I'm not sure would necessarily back down, but looking at it from the other perspective as someone who has worked as a photographer a lot of their photographs are from independent, freelance photographers where the licence fee contributes to how they make a living. I'd imagine they won't get any more than the standard licence fee out of it and Alamy will pocket the rest but it's part of why you upload a photo to Alamy in the first place, your licence and copyright is protected when they distribute it so you don't lose income. The amount they are asking for is steep and a bit of a sickener and seems unfairly punitive, but maybe whoever made the website can contribute as they were the ones at fault.

 

[Gabbafella]

Would any copyright infringement not be the fault of the web designer she hired? I'd have thought they should be doing checks to see if they could legally use images.

 

[beorhthelm]

general point, saying there's no gain from their use or no loss to the copyright holder are not valid defenses. copyright law is very simple and very well established, use anything without permission its a breach (there's no fair use exemption either, unlike in US).

the person setting up the site may have had a licence to use the material, or indemnity insurance to cover claims. at least if they are remotely professional they should do.

 

[beorhthelm]

Would any copyright infringement not be the fault of the web designer she hired? I'd have thought they should be doing checks to see if they could legally use images.

their fault certainly, but if its your website, you're the one publishing that material and responsible for the infringement.

 

[Triggaaar]

general point, saying there's no gain from their use or no loss to the copyright holder are not valid defenses.

Indeed there is a loss to the copyright holder - the loss is what the standard fee for the image was.

As others have said, check who exactly made the mistake - I'd taken it as read that it was Mrs McT.

 

[Vin]

Useful. Who told you that?

15 min free consultation with Solicitor (over phone) and backed up by someone else I trust.

 

[McTavish]

Thanks for all your replies.

The company chasing is called Permission Machine and they have included a letter from Alamy allowing them to act on their behalf.

There was a commercial contract to set up the website but it is a one man band and a very nice guy so whilst she could try to drag him in, she would prefer not to and ultimatelt she is responsible for what goes on the website.

I will follow up on all the suggestions.

Thanks again.

 

[beorhthelm]

the link above to copyrightaid seems to cover the bases, same company. short version, offer the licence fee plus a admin fee and tell them to take or leave it. they dont seem to follow up (yet?).

 

[The Albion Roar]

Thanks for all your replies.

The company chasing is called Permission Machine and they have included a letter from Alamy allowing them to act on their behalf.

There was a commercial contract to set up the website but it is a one man band and a very nice guy so whilst she could try to drag him in, she would prefer not to and ultimatelt she is responsible for what goes on the website.

I will follow up on all the suggestions.

Thanks again.

I've used photo libraries before, and for the most part, they allow image use mostly for 'illustrative purposes' or 'editorial purposes'.

However, what comes across is that your wife's site is there for promotion and/or commercial purposes, and that the licensee doesn't allow that, and hence wants full recompense.

Maybe.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I had a very similar issue on one of my non-profit blogs a few years ago. I removed the photo etc. but they still wanted money from me. I thought it was all very petty but was incredibly stressed out about it.

Finally I came up with the bright idea to go to UpWork and create $20 task for some legal expert to take a look at it and provide me with an email I could send to the company demanding money from me. In no time I got some very useful advice and a ready-written email and sent it to the company, and they didnt bother me again as they probably realised they couldnt skin me without a fight.

Well done for fighting. This sort of shit freaks me out too