[Help] Breach of Copyright. Help!

[Bodian]

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

That was a fascinating read - thanks for posting.

It's interesting this isn't it. I have a small local history website, and often 'pinch' things found elsewhere (but mainly old things - so not presumably a worry). I try and credit where they came from, but sometimes I can't remember, or they themselves haven't any acknowledgements. I have also reproduced quite a number of old postcards and prints - and the copyright around these seems to be really hazy.

On the other side of the coin, quite a few of my own photos have ended up on other people's websites. I did recently contact the National Trust and pointed out that it was a bit cheeky for such a large organisation to be pinching my photo and not crediting me. They immediately apologised and put my name on it. My favourite was a photo of mine I spotted on a CD cover. The publisher was most apologetic and offered me a free CD.

You can probably guess why I turned down their offer!

 

[marlowe]

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.

Here are a couple of legal advice links with respect to Permission Machine.

The attitude and advice given of each lawyer are somewhat at variance with each other...

https://www.justanswer.co.uk/law/gfx7g-received-letter-permissions-machine-image.html

https://www.justanswer.co.uk/law/i97za-letter-permission-machine-stating.html

 

[Wozza]

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?

I don't think its enough for a business to claim they have "not gained financially" from the use of the pics.

The website is presumably selling goods or services, and copyrighted images are being used for marketing.

As mentioned above, using images for marketing is a level above simple editorial use (or, indeed, misuse), so images command a greater fee.

Whether they're amateur or professional, if the person setting up the website doesn't understand basic copyright law, they shouldn't be making websites for businesses.

The fact that Alamy has deployed a specialist agency suggests to me that this will go all the way, I'm afraid.

PS I'd be careful about throwing around the word 'scam'.

 

[shingle]

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.

As an Alamy contributor.....This

 

[Bozza]

They are copyright trolls - pure and simple - therre is a lot of it about and it does scare me a little bit as people on here embed all manner of photos - from games and the like - that will have rights attached to them.

There is some legitimacy to their claim - an image was used that was not licensed appropriately - but the sum being demanded is not just.

The thread linked to - https://copyrightaid.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3072 - is a good read as it shows these are charlatans just going through the motions, knowing that sufficient number of people will just cave and pay up to make it go away.

It's a shame that there aren't really any "end game" reports from those who received these demands, but I'd take that as indicative of "no news is good news" - the problem went away for no/minimal expense and people just got on with their lives.

 

[shingle]

I don't think its enough for a business to claim they have "not gained financially" from the use of the pics.

The website is presumably selling goods or services, and copyrighted images are being used for marketing.

As mentioned above, using images for marketing is a level above simple editorial use (or, indeed, misuse), so images command a greater fee.

Whether they're amateur or professional, if the person setting up the website doesn't understand basic copyright law, they shouldn't be making websites for businesses.

The fact that Alamy has deployed a specialist agency suggests to me that this will go all the way, I'm afraid.

PS I'd be careful about throwing around the word 'scam'.

and this. I am though, sympathetic to the OP and my first call would be to the chap who set up the website.

 

[Bozza]

The fact that Alamy has deployed a specialist agency suggests to me that this will go all the way, I'm afraid.

I'm not sure it's a case of "deploying" anyone at all.

They're picking up shit that Alamy can't be arsed to deal with, and have promised to give Alamy a decent cut of everything they get back. Alamy get to step away from the bully-boy quasi-legal bullshit as someone else does that.

Alamy, and the work they represent, absolutely deserve fair recompense, but what is being asked is way beyond that.

 

[Wozza]

I'm not sure it's a case of "deploying" anyone at all.

They're picking up shit that Alamy can't be arsed to deal with, and have promised to give Alamy a decent cut of everything they get back. Alamy get to step away from the bully-boy quasi-legal bullshit as someone else does that.

Alamy, and the work they represent, absolutely deserve fair recompense, but what is being asked is way beyond that.

Well they're deployed in the sense that there's clearly an agreement between PA Media (parent company of Alamy) and Permission Machine, with the latter doing the legal work.

As for fair recompense, if the photo would cost £50 to licence from Alamy, they're well within the rights to pursue a significant multiple of that (plus fees).

If the charge, post-misuse, was also £50, no business would ever licence a photo - they'd just use it and wait to see if they're caught.

They are copyright trolls - pure and simple

Well, Alamy/PA aren't - they're a struggling British media agency employing 100s of content creators who need to be paid.

 

[Triggaaar]

The company chasing is called Permission Machine

I thought it would be. They're the company mentioned in the link I gave you. Reading that suggests you'll just get repeated standard templated replies to messages you send them.

Don't offer them anything until you're really sure you owe something.

 

[Triggaaar]

On the other side of the coin, quite a few of my own photos have ended up on other people's websites. I did recently contact the National Trust and pointed out that it was a bit cheeky for such a large organisation to be pinching my photo and not crediting me. They immediately apologised and put my name on it. My favourite was a photo of mine I spotted on a CD cover. The publisher was most apologetic and offered me a free CD.

Wow, what a piss-take. I think perhaps using your image on a commercial CD was worth a bit more than nothing (which is what the CD was worth to you).

 

[Triggaaar]

The fact that Alamy has deployed a specialist agency suggests to me that this will go all the way, I'm afraid.

There are plenty of examples of Permission Machine making the same kind of claim against people, but not following up claims and no evidence of them taking anyone to court. It seems more like they scatter these claims about, and make a living on some people paying.

The advice here: https://www.justanswer.co.uk/law/gfx7g-received-letter-permissions-machine-image.html?
matches what someone did from the earlier thread I linked to - namely, ask the company to specify what the charges are for. They appear to be made up.

 

[Bozza]

Well they're deployed in the sense that there's clearly an agreement between PA Media (parent company of Alamy) and Permission Machine, with the latter doing the legal work.

As for fair recompense, if the photo would cost £50 to licence from Alamy, they're well within the rights to pursue a significant multiple of that (plus fees).

If the charge, post-misuse, was also £50, no business would ever licence a photo - they'd just use it and wait to see if they're caught.

They can attempt to charge whatever they want. And some will pay. They know that.

But if this gets to court "making them pay more because if we don't do that, everyone will take the piss" doesn't come into it. The law will attempt to put right the loss suffered, and that will be nowhere near what these utter wankers are trying to stiff people for.

To be clear: I have no issue at all with people being properly recompensed for their art, including the taking/editing of photos. And I readily concede the internet has made it a very difficult landscape for that to happen. But using trolls like Permission Machine, just churning out boiletplate pseudo-legal bollocks trying to scare people is not the right solution to this problem.

 

[Triggaaar]

As for fair recompense, if the photo would cost £50 to licence from Alamy, they're well within the rights to pursue a significant multiple of that (plus fees).

No they're not, you're just making that up (or please provide evidence that they a right to pursue a significant multiple).

If the charge, post-misuse, was also £50, no business would ever licence a photo - they'd just use it and wait to see if they're caught.

That's not the case, because if businesses are dodging copyright deliberately as a matter of course, then they'll be in a lot more trouble that one that accidentally uses one image.

 

[Bozza]

From a quick search I see that Permission Machine were expressly called out as copyright trolls in the Belgian court and, it's pure coincidence I'm sure, have just changed their name to "Visual Rights Group".

Wankers.

 

[Bozza]

No they're not, you're just making that up (or please provide evidence that they a right to pursue a significant multiple).

The Belgian court saw right through them...

the Corporate Court of Ghent now decided that Permission Machine is indeed abusing the cessation tool. The purpose is financial gain and not the effective protection of copyrights.​

https://jazz.legal/en/copyright-trolls/

 

[shingle]

No they're not, you're just making that up (or please provide evidence that they a right to pursue a significant multiple).

That's not the case, because if businesses are dodging copyright deliberately as a matter of course, then they'll be in a lot more trouble that one that accidentally uses one image.

The amount being asked for does sound excessive, but using Wozzas example of a £50 license fee for an Image use, what would you consider a fair amount to pay for those who are caught 'stealing' photographer's images? I would be interested to know. And to the OP, what happened to the watermark that Alamy put on each image, you do need to have a word with your website chap.

Personally, I have opted out of the chasing of copyright infringers as have many contributors to Alamy, because we don't sell our images exclusively with Alamy. However, I do have serious case of copyright infringement on the go at the moment, the first one that I have chosen to pursue.

 

[Brovion]

...

If the charge, post-misuse, was also £50, no business would ever licence a photo - they'd just use it and wait to see if they're caught.
...
.

That is actually a very good point. When I first started reading this (and the linked Copyright thread) my sympathies were entirely with the OP and the other targets of Permission Machine. But if offenders are just going to say something along the lines of "It's a fair cop, here's the forty quid licence fee and a fiver for your troubles", then as you say undoubtedly some/most businesses will chance it. ("Don't bother wasting time searching for the copyright, if it is then we'll just pay the licence fee later along with a tiny 'slapped wrist' penalty - if anyone spots it").

Permission Machine are indeed like those private parking companies that issue 'fines' and then use a load of pseudo-legal bollocks to pressurise people to pay up, but IMO being asked to pay ten times the licence ex post facto is fair. I just wish it was going to the right people and not a bunch of jackals.

 

[sully]

Just for some perspective, a well known company used one of my images to promote their new brochure without getting permission first. The lawyer I employed got $8,000 from them.

Obviously, the company in question would have expected a bigger income from their advert than your misuse of a copyrighted picture, but it could have been a bigger bill initially.

I’d haggle the sum, but unfortunately you’ve used an image from a company who can prove how much they charge, which I couldn’t. Good luck, but be more careful in future.

 

[Wozza]

But using trolls like Permission Machine, just churning out boiletplate pseudo-legal bollocks trying to scare people is not the right solution to this problem.

So what is the right solution for PA? Employ a huge team of polite admin staff to send out 100s of lovely little letters each week?

No, they've outsourced it to a specialist 'dept collection' company - who may well be a bunch of schusters, but that's what they do.

Earning money from media is what PA Media (owner of Alamy) does. You can paint them as the bad guy but they're a struggling British instituation - and, btw, one of very few image libraries not agressively bought out by Getty over the past few years.

The person who has f**ked up here is the web designer - either amateur or professional - who thinks he can steal copyrighted images. He may have done it 100s or 1000s of times. But apparently he's a "nice guy" so that's ok.

 

[sully]

So what is the right solution for PA? Employ a huge team of polite admin staff to send out 100s of lovely little letters each week?

No, they've outsourced it to a specialist 'dept collection' company - who may well be a bunch of schusters, but that's what they do.

Earning money from media is what PA Media (owner of Alamy) does. You can paint them as the bad guy but they're a struggling British instituation - and, btw, one of very few image libraries not agressively bought out by Getty over the past few years.

The person who has f**ked up here is the web designer - either amateur or professional - who thinks he can steal copyrighted images. He may have done it 100s or 1000s of times. But apparently he's a "nice guy" so that's ok.

Exactly this. The general attitude to the theft of intellectual property by the general public is appalling. The biggest problem being how simple it is now because capturing images off the likes of Facebook and Instagram is too easy and people thinking “if it’s on Facebook, it’s fair game.” Unfortunately, my experience has led to me not sharing my work as widely as I used to.