[Help] Breach of Copyright. Help!

[Justice]

A large organisation contacted someone I know as they used a logo on their website, they gave them a time period to remove before any legal action took place. Makes me think this is a scam without any action ever taking place if you don’t pay.

 

[Wozza]

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

Charming. I know this: when a media site uses an image without consent, photographers are advised to invoice for WELL above standard market rate - and they often get it.

Of course, it’s harder for big companies to simply claim it’s a ‘mistake’.

But, still, you can’t reasonably expect to pay ‘rate card’ for any copyrighted material after using without permission. And the ‘evil’ debt collection agency is going to want paying…

 

[Triggaaar]

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.

Like you, I'm a photographer, so my answer may be biased. But the point isn't what I think would be fair, the point is what does the law say, and are Permission Machine trying to get this money to the photographer? It seems that PM are just trying to make a load of profit for themselves. When your images have been used without permission (photos without watermarks, taken from another website that maybe has paid, but hasn't suggested the photo is not free) how much many times over the licence fee have you suddenly been paid?

And to the OP, what happened to the watermark that Alamy put on each image

I suspect there wasn't one (as above, it probably didn't come direct from Alamy). If there was, this would be a more blatant theft, rather than an accident. Reading evidence online, it seems courts care about such details.

However, I do have serious case of copyright infringement on the go at the moment, the first one that I have chosen to pursue.

Good luck with that. Note that there is a difference between someone who's taken the image from somewhere else that made it look like a free image, and someone who's removed watermarks or otherwise done it deliberately.

 

[Triggaaar]

Charming.

It's not my intention to be rude to you. You stated as fact that that they're well within their rights to pursue a significant multiple of the license fee. That's not a fact is it. I don't like the idea that the OP is going to pay a lot of money to a scam company on the basis of an opinion like yours stated as fact.

But, still, you can’t reasonably expect to pay ‘rate card’ for any copyrighted material after using without permission. And the ‘evil’ debt collection agency is going to want paying…

The OP said the license should have been £35. £420 is not a reasonable multiple of that. People have asked this same company (PM) for a breakdown of the costs, and they haven't heard back, probably because there isn't one. Someone mails out these claims to hundreds of people, mostly using automated software, and hopes to get a chunk of cash it return. And I very much doubt that the photographer gets much of the takings.

 

[Triggaaar]

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.

No, because there is a huge difference between caught making a mistake and using one image without copyright, and systematically using all images without paying. The maximum penalty is a very hefty fine and a prison sentence.

 

[Bodian]

I suspect there wasn't one (as above, it probably didn't come direct from Alamy). If there was, this would be a more blatant theft, rather than an accident. Reading evidence online, it seems courts care about such details..

I was also wondering about the Alamy watermark. And that makes any court case really difficult - because if the OP's website editor took the image from somewhere that wasn't actually Alamy direct, then how would Permission Machine actually prove that it was from Alamy in the first place and not from somewhere else? I guess PM's 'client' is Alamy - but actually it's the photographer's copyright (I assume). The photographer would presumably have to prove to the court's satisfaction that the only way the OPs website could have obtained the image was from someone else who had published it. The photographer themself is probably unaware this is going on, and may not want to be bound up in some court case.

I wonder if actually the answer is for the OP to approach the actual photographer (who holds the copyright), and offer them the basic fee. Then Alamy can no longer pursue the matter because on whose behalf would they be acting?

 

[Triggaaar]

I was also wondering about the Alamy watermark. And that makes any court case really difficult - because if the OP's website editor took the image from somewhere that wasn't actually Alamy direct, then how would Permission Machine actually prove that it was from Alamy in the first place and not from somewhere else?

Scenario: website 1 pays for a license from Alamy, and displays image. Forum member copies image from website 1 and puts it on NSC. OP website copies image from NSC, unaware and unable to see where it came from. Then they get a bill.

Websites like the OP's should be aware that images often have a copyright, and should make efforts to ensure they pay when needed. But it is also possible that a website makes a mistake. When that happens, they should pay a fee, but indications online suggest that the fee shouldn't be 12 times the original license fee.

That is very different to when someone knowingly steals an image from somewhere like Alamy.

 

[Wozza]

The OP said the license should have been £35. £420 is not a reasonable multiple of that.

I wouldn't disagree. But it's equally not reasonable to expect to pay say £50 to brush the media theft under the carpet.

I've no doubt the dept collection agency take a large chunk for doing the admin.

And I very much doubt that the photographer gets much of the takings.

If Almany/PA didn't pursue copyright theft, it wouldn't exist. Then photographers really wouldn't get much...

 

[Triggaaar]

I wouldn't disagree. But it's equally not reasonable to expect to pay say £50 to brush the media theft under the carpet.

Well I think suggestions were more like £35 + £50, so that's £85. Honestly if I hadn't looked it up, I wouldn't really disagree, but reading online it seems that that is a reasonable payment in situations like the OP describes.

If Almany/PA didn't pursue copyright theft, it wouldn't exist. Then photographers really wouldn't get much...

Yes I completely agree that people should be chased for copyright theft. But see Bozza's link (and I've seen others) where a court has called PM out as copyright trolls.

There are two sides to this story.
Yes, an image has been used without permission, and a fee should be paid (and it has been). Whether or not there should also be a fine is not clear, because there's legal advice online that says not, in simple accidental cases.
The other side to this story is that the debt collection company are massively overcharging people and using scare tactics in order to make a tidy profit, much like clamping companies.

Just because the image has been used without permission doesn't mean that the debt collection company should be able to get away with what is practically a scam.

 

[Bozza]

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.

I can paint Alamy as the bad guy, but I haven't and I'm not. As I say, I'm well aware this is a big problem - there's very possibly no easier "theft" than that of online imagery.

And I also don't know what the solution is, but I'm.a bloke sitting on his sofa, not a large corporate (that they may be struggling has nothing to do with this) who will have teams of people dedicated to running an efficient business.

You seem to think that attempting to charge an exhorbitant sum post-violation is acceptable as it acts as some sort of deterrent. It won't though. There will still be numerous websites out there, unknowingly making use of copyrighted imagery and the first they'll know about it, if they ever do, is when one of these scam charge emails arrives in their inbox.

And each case will likely go one of two ways...

- The punter is scared and pays up to make it go away.
- The punter does a bit of searching and realises that, although they've made a mistake that they're happy to try and address, paying 10 times, or more, the original licence fee is not what they'd have to do if this ultimately ended up in court, which it almost certainly won't as that's the last thing the copyright trolls want.

 

[McTavish]

I was also wondering about the Alamy watermark. And that makes any court case really difficult - because if the OP's website editor took the image from somewhere that wasn't actually Alamy direct, then how would Permission Machine actually prove that it was from Alamy in the first place and not from somewhere else? I guess PM's 'client' is Alamy - but actually it's the photographer's copyright (I assume). The photographer would presumably have to prove to the court's satisfaction that the only way the OPs website could have obtained the image was from someone else who had published it. The photographer themself is probably unaware this is going on, and may not want to be bound up in some court case.

I wonder if actually the answer is for the OP to approach the actual photographer (who holds the copyright), and offer them the basic fee. Then Alamy can no longer pursue the matter because on whose behalf would they be acting?

To answer a few questions:

There was no watermark on the image.

The website designer is not 100% sure where the image came from (it was a few years ago) but generally uses images that are free so either he made a mistake or someone else misrepresented the image.

Mrs McT has paid the license so the photographer will be paid - I recognise the argument that there should be some sort of extra disincentive for mis-using copyright material but had she known that the material was subject to copyright she would never have allowed it to be used. There are very similar images available for nothing or for a couple of pounds (it was a picture of a local landmark) so there was absolutely no reason to use it and breach copyright other than ignorance and oversight. She would also be happy to pay an extra amount for the breach but £380 in this instance seems excessive.

She has asked for the photographers name and details and will possibly address this directly with him or her.

 

[sully]

Scenario: website 1 pays for a license from Alamy, and displays image. Forum member copies image from website 1 and puts it on NSC. OP website copies image from NSC, unaware and unable to see where it came from. Then they get a bill.

Websites like the OP's should be aware that images often have a copyright, and should make efforts to ensure they pay when needed. But it is also possible that a website makes a mistake. When that happens, they should pay a fee, but indications online suggest that the fee shouldn't be 12 times the original license fee.

That is very different to when someone knowingly steals an image from somewhere like Alamy.

The simple fact is that you shouldn’t use someone else’s image without checking the original source and at least asking permission to use it. There is always a copyright issue unless you get it from somewhere that specifically states that it is royalty free.

 

[Triggaaar]

The simple fact is that you shouldn’t use someone else’s image without checking the original source and at least asking permission to use it.

Have you got the permission to use the photo in your Avatar?

And no one is saying that you shouldn't anyway. The OP has paid and isn't averse to paying an extra fee, as long as it's reasonable and not a scam.

 

[Bozza]

The simple fact is that you shouldn’t use someone else’s image without checking the original source and at least asking permission to use it. There is always a copyright issue unless you get it from somewhere that specifically states that it is royalty free.

That's not entirely true either.

1. The "somewhere that specifically states that it is royalty free" may be mistaken themselves. You take them at good faith, but could still find yourself on the receiving end of one of these scam charge claims.

2. Some royalty free imagery still needs accreditation and some copyright trolls pursue for this. The claims go along the lines of "The image was free to use so long as you accredited the photographer. Sadly, you didn't. Pay us £400 please."

 

[sully]

That's not entirely true either.

1. The "somewhere that specifically states that it is royalty free" may be mistaken themselves. You take them at good faith, but could still find yourself on the receiving end of one of these scam charge claims.

2. Some royalty free imagery still needs accreditation and some copyright trolls pursue for this. The claims go along the lines of "The image was free to use so long as you accredited the photographer. Sadly, you didn't. Pay us £400 please."

That’s why I said you need to check. Accreditation is often all that you will be asked for if you ask nicely.

 

[sully]

Have you got the permission to use the photo in your Avatar?.

I’ve had avatars turned off for years, so will have to check when I get home. It probably dates from long before I understood copyright on images, so will replace it. Thanks for pointing this out.

 

[Bozza]

That’s why I said you need to check. Accreditation is often all that you will be asked for if you ask nicely.

When it reaches the point of a copyright troll sending you pseudo-legal bollocks, there is no "nice" way out as that doesn't fit their business model.

The only solution that appeases them is the payment of their made-up exhorbitant fee.

 

[Triggaaar]

I’ve had avatars turned off for years, so will have to check when I get home. It probably dates from long before I understood copyright on images, so will replace it. Thanks for pointing this out.

That's a no then. I'm working for the owner (honest), you need to pay me £420.

People don't have permission to post all their memes on forums, but I'd imagine in most cases the copyright owners don't mind, because it's often doing advertising for the owner.

 

[Bodian]

To answer a few questions:

There was no watermark on the image.

The website designer is not 100% sure where the image came from (it was a few years ago) but generally uses images that are free so either he made a mistake or someone else misrepresented the image.

Mrs McT has paid the license so the photographer will be paid - I recognise the argument that there should be some sort of extra disincentive for mis-using copyright material but had she known that the material was subject to copyright she would never have allowed it to be used. There are very similar images available for nothing or for a couple of pounds (it was a picture of a local landmark) so there was absolutely no reason to use it and breach copyright other than ignorance and oversight. She would also be happy to pay an extra amount for the breach but £380 in this instance seems excessive.

She has asked for the photographers name and details and will possibly address this directly with him or her.

Good stuff. It will be interesting to know if the photographer actually knows any of what is going on!

 

[Wozza]

You seem to think that attempting to charge an exhorbitant sum post-violation is acceptable as it acts as some sort of deterrent. It won't though.

Well, whichever way this all goes, I'm fairly sure this particular web designer will take the issue more seriously in future...