Letter from photographer similar to Getty issue

[grkblood]

Hey guys, I'm new to the forum and just wanted to share my current isutation. From everything that I've read here my issue seems to be exactly like the issue with Getty, except mine is from a photography and the penalty is much smaller than stuff I've seen reported here: Here is a copy of the letter I received with personal info removed:

Mr. foobar,

It has come to my attention that you have made use of one of my copyright photographs on your website, www.mysite.com per the following instance, a copy of which I have retained on my own computer.

www.mysite.com

The sole licensor of this photograph to date is foobar.com, and it can be viewed on their website at the following link

www.foobar.com

Furthermore, this image is available for licensing from my online image archive at the following link

www.foobar.com

As I do not have any record of issuing you with a licence to use this image. I would be grateful if you would provide me with any evidence that you have been issued with a licence by myself, or my agent, for such use as detailed above
Absent such license, it appears that my copyrights have been breached and I require you to remove the image immediately, and will also be requiring payment for use of the image to date, being a total of £92.64, or approximately $145.34 at current exchange rates, which can be effected via wire transfer or PayPal as suits.
The fee due is calculated per the context, duration and size of use the photograph. A receipt for payment can be furnished upon request, either via email or postal mail, to address removed or such address as you cite.
Should you like to make use of my images in the future, such use would only be permitted subject to separate additional licensing and payment of fees at my rates.
You may be aware that copyright infringement is a strict liability tort, therefore liability exists regardless of whether you knowingly infringed on my works or not. If pursued via legal channels, the penalties for infringements can be between $750 ~ $30,000 per image. In cases where wilfulness can be proven, the per-infringement damages can be up to $150,000 under Title 17, Section 504 of the US Copyright Act.
With this in mind, I trust that you will find my request to simply be made whole for my lost license fee to be more than reasonable. Failure to respond to this message in a timely manner and/or refusal to settle the sum due will be interpreted as a wilful breach of my copyrights and will be referred to my copyright attorney's office for further action at their direction. I would far prefer that settlement can be made directly. 

Sincerely,

name of photographer

I have already removed the image from my site and I'm not sure what to do next. The amount seems to be in the range where I should just pay it but the amount that the guy asking for is less than the revenue in its entirety has brought in since it's existed.

[Moe Hacken]

This is strictly my opinion, and I'm curious what others think as well.

I would verify the copyright belongs to the person making the claim, then verify the person's identity. I would also ask for his agent's identity. If it all checks out, it's a very reasonable claim for an infringement and the photographer's approach seems very civilized.

I would not choose PayPal to make the payment. A wire transfer would be better because the person would have to disclose their bank information and again verify their identity. I doubt someone would try to commit identity fraud for $150 and give you their real bank account information.

In the future, be more careful about where you get an image. This would be a very inexpensive lesson when you think about it.

[SoylentGreen]

Yeah, I agree with Moe.

I always get a chuckle over the 'Brits and their "strict liability tort", though.  You know, before it's actually a "tort".
I can't wait until Getty starts using that term... you know... without even offering any proof of their claim.

S.G.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

If the photographer has registered this image with the US Copyright office and you verify this it sounds reasonable to me too. But I find it interesting that he is quoting multiple currencies. Where is he located, where are you located and where is the image registered?

[Moe Hacken]

Jerry's questions are right on the money. The specifics of the situation are rather intriguing. I was treating the matter as a hypothetical question when I offered a suggestion.

 Sometimes the devil is in the details, so I would like to clarify that my suggestion was as general as the question.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I agree with everyone else, this isn't an extortionate amount by any means, and it seems fair, IF everything checks out.. Do your homework before paying!