ExtortionLetterInfo Forums

ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: dthornton on October 04, 2017, 05:01:19 PM

Title: PicRights.com
Post by: dthornton on October 04, 2017, 05:01:19 PM
Has anyone dealt with PicRights.com? We recently received a letter from them. It appears as though a copyrighted image appeared on our Newsletter which got posted to our 4 websites. It was taken down several months ago, but they have still just now have sent us 3 separate letters (1 with a reference to a different website) asking to pay $224 in each of the instances.

I've dealt with Getty earlier this year on a different instance (that is when I began checking through the website to make sure no other copyright images were unintentionally used on the website and took everything that was not our own work down), but I'm not familiar with PicRights.com. We ended up paying the Getty fee to get them to stop harassing us.

My question is: has anyone else dealt with PicRights.com? I am all for making sure the artist is compensated, but $224 per usage (on the same item) is a bit high for stock imagery--especially when similar images are $10-$15

Thanks

Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: icepick on October 05, 2017, 08:35:48 AM
Are you in the US? A quick scan of their website makes them look like an international operation without a US attorney, yet anyway. And if the copyright holder is in a different country, that usually makes court enforcement much more expensive and difficult for them due to the travel to come to court for the lawsuit like Higbee is finding with the Nick Youngson cases.

If you are in the US I don't believe they can file a suit unless and until the copyright is registered so I would check that out.
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: dthornton on October 05, 2017, 11:21:39 AM
Yes, we are in the US. How can I check to see if the copyright is registered?
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: icepick on October 05, 2017, 11:41:55 AM
This is one way http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First

They will usually let you know if it is registered as a way to try and make you think they are 'serious.' You can either demand to see the registration from them or laugh at them if they try to file a case without registering it.
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) on October 05, 2017, 01:29:58 PM
a suit can be filed, regardless if the image in question is registered. Registering the copyright with the copyright office affords the creator with more options in regards to any monetary rewards.
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: Da Guy on October 05, 2017, 07:25:02 PM
I got a letter from them too via email and follow up letter mail. I never heard of PicRights.com until recently.  The Copyright Compliant officer is Geoff Beal (of Masterfile) acting on the behalf of Agence France Presse. Offices appear to be in Canada and Switzerland. They're demanding $720 for an image we unintentionally used on our blog 11 months ago. Similar images to license are between $12 to $15. I'm still a newbie on this site, but am quickly learning as I go through the forum and other related websites. Bottom line, it sucks! This is the first time we did not check whether the image was copyrighted or registered. It was definitely unmarked, but still not an excuse. However with that said, most companies would send out a cease and desist letter as a warning. I've done the same to small to big companies who borrowed some of my designs to sell on t-shirts without permission. For a little business guy without high paid lawyers, that was all I could do according to my legal attorney at that time. But the company did pull their clothing from the stores as soon as they got the cease and desist letter. The roles are now reversed here, but these copyright trolls have no mercy.     
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: dthornton on October 06, 2017, 08:53:36 AM
How do you plan to respond to them?
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: DavidVGoliath on October 06, 2017, 09:29:56 AM
I've done the same to small to big companies who borrowed some of my designs to sell on t-shirts without permission. For a little business guy without high paid lawyers, that was all I could do according to my legal attorney at that time.


Going off topic here a bit, but that was spectacularly bad legal advice. I can only guess that your attorney wasn't an IP lawyer by trade and had little to no knowledge of how copyrights function in the real world. Your design wasn't "borrowed", it was stolen - and the fact that it was used in a for-profit endeavor would have weighed heavily in your favor.

But the company did pull their clothing from the stores as soon as they got the cease and desist letter.

... because, when notified of an infringement, if they don't C&D, they'd have been inviting very punitive actions if you had pressed them. A good IP attorney would have been able to weigh your case and, in a lot of instances, negotiate a good licensing arrangement out of it, or at least a modest to adequate settlement.

Never, ever think that because you're the "little guy" that copyright laws can't work in your favor when you've been ripped off by a "larger" entity.
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: Da Guy on October 09, 2017, 04:55:18 PM
How do you plan to respond to them?

I have not decided whether to respond or not at the moment. I could ignore it and have them continue to harass me or pay them what they want or offer a fair market value number which they may reject, counter-offer or accept. I have only been notified once via email and hard copy. I'm sure there will be more to come if I choose to ignore it. 
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: Matthew Chan on October 17, 2017, 10:25:40 PM
I am a little late to the party.  But from my online research, PicRights.com shares the street address as Masterfile:

3 Concorde Gate, 4th Floor
Toronto, ON, Canada M3C 3N7

The PicRights website claims that Masterfile, AFP, SciencePhotoLibrary, Loupe Images, Cephas Picture Library, PA Images, Aurora Photos, Jill Greenberg, CartoonStock, and the Associated Press are "clients".

It also lists this business address in Switzerland:

PicRights Europe GmbH
Albisstrasse 14
8134 Adliswil Switzerland

Given the fact that Masterfile has had their Toronto street address for many years, it appears to me that PicRights is leveraging Masterfile's prior and existing office and operations infrastructure for their copyright enforcement letters. It is unclear to me which was created first, PicRights Switzerland or PicRights Canada. Regardless, they appear to be working symbiotically with the Masterfile operation.

Along with PicRights.com, ArtistDefense.com also shares Masterfile's street address.

In addition to sharing the street address, what they have in common are the names of the worker bees like "Geoff Beal" who previously operated as "Geoffrey Beal" years ago.  A familiar name "Michael Hilsheimer" who I remember was with Masterfile years ago now works for PicRights.com.

Has anyone dealt with PicRights.com?

Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: Da Guy on November 01, 2017, 07:32:10 PM
Well, I got my second email from Picrights. Basically the same letter with a revised date demanding the same amount. Still debating whether to ignore or respond. 
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: kingkendall on November 02, 2017, 01:48:18 PM
@ Tuna Guy

Responding to them, in my opinion, is a big mistkae1  It tells them your scared and that's not what you want them thinking of you. 
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: Da Guy on November 09, 2017, 11:57:57 AM
I hear you on that. That's why still haven't responded so far. However, I just got another email this morning from Picrights. It's essentially the same email / letter, but this time it's from Dan Pollack, General Counsel, stating: "Unless you contact us within 14 days, we will withdraw our proposal to resolve this claim and we may refer this matter may be referred to outside legal counsel to pursue other options." It wasn't written well.  So, I guess this guy is probably Geoff Beal's boss?  Pollack is apparently a lawyer who works for MF as well. Anyone, received similar email / letters from this him?
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: Matthew Chan on November 12, 2017, 01:28:21 AM
One can respond to show that they are not afraid to acknowledge and confront the issue.  And one can be very firm and state their position. As a a general rule, I prefer to respond and state my position and back the hell out of it. But that is simply a personal choice. I don't like being accused of not attempting a resolution.  If there is no agreement, one can simply go back into the cave and sit it out.

Again, this is not necessarily advice. The only point I am making is that responding does not automatically equal being fearful or cowering. Sometimes, it is simply a statement of respect and confidence.

So much of of HOW people respond comes down to people's individual personalities. For some, going dark is the easiest, best solution. It is efficient and saves time.  But the downside of that is there is no closure for 3 years.  People have to pick their poison.


@ Tuna Guy

Responding to them, in my opinion, is a big mistkae1  It tells them your scared and that's not what you want them thinking of you.
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: jahir3819 on January 06, 2018, 10:08:47 PM
I am wondering whether you have got any response after this.
Title: See the legitimate connection for PicRights
Post by: Copywriter on January 08, 2018, 06:57:33 AM
If PicRights claims to have formal, official connections with people like Getty Images and Agence France Press, you must demand to see documentation of this fact. Anybody can claim to be working for another in order to cheat and scam. Paypal is clogged with such imposters. You must also demand to get letters from PicRights' lawyers and check them out to see if they are real and valid. One last safeguard is the 'Cease and Desist' requirement - an official notice sent to offenders to get them to remove unlicensed images before any further action/ financial demands are made. I believe that PicRights avoids doing this, which makes them suspect as scammers. Finally, there needs to be a connection between the uniqueness of the image and the sum demanded as compensation. It is ludicrous to demand $1200 for a photo priced at $20 in an image bank, simply because 'they can get away with it.'. Every step of the way has to be proven and justified. These are your protections against scammers masquerading as legitimate businesses.
 
Title: Re: See the legitimate connection for PicRights
Post by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) on January 08, 2018, 09:44:10 AM
One last safeguard is the 'Cease and Desist' requirement - an official notice sent to offenders to get them to remove unlicensed images before any further action/ financial demands are made.

There is NO requirement to send a cease and desist, it's more of a common courtesy that trolls don't have.
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: Matthew Chan on January 09, 2018, 01:16:52 AM
If they could collect money faster, they would bypass the demand letter process.  However, lawsuits without warning is just bad business and asking for trouble.  This is what RIAA and Righthaven learned the hard way. Righthaven got put out of business for recklessly filing lawsuits. They were assaulted from every direction for taking such actions.

Lawsuits, as a matter of good policy, is a measure of last resort. And sometimes filing a questionable lawsuit is just inviting trouble.
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: nickrotunno on January 12, 2018, 01:35:32 PM
I just Received an email, followed by a letter from PicRights.com reperesenting Stockfood. They gave me an image catalog Number,00665229, and when I search StockFoods website no image appears with That number.Also, they provided me with a Copyright registration number, but i can't seem to find out what images it covers. I see most of similar images sell for $25 and they are asking for $600. Letter was from Michael Hilsheimer. I have already removed from my site. Trying to figure what to do next...
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: Matthew Chan on January 15, 2018, 06:04:16 PM
The copyright registration database is just plain shit and outdated. No one can easily check anything.  People may have copyright registration certifications but there is no easy way of verifying them.  It is a problem that the US Copyright Office needs to fix.

Right now as I see it, Picrights and Stockfood are largely harmless claims.  As such, I would probably just lay low for the time being.
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: sue.marshall@desang.net on January 17, 2018, 08:44:26 AM
Hi I just wanted to add in my experience of this company. I was sent a letter over the Christmas holidays when the office was closed, demanding a reply in 14 days. It said I'd been emailed (I had not). I have called the number on the letter head and left x2 messages, no one has called me back. They are referring to an image that I used in June 2012 about a diabetes charity event. The news item was supplied by the charity along with the image.  I have no recollection of being asked to pay a license fee to Press Associatioin Images , there are other charities that use AP images and charge a fee for them (as a small company I can't afford to pay repeated fees, so I just run the news as text with no image) but I do not think that was the case in this instance. I also am concerned as to whether this company is legitimate -- why wait 5 years to contact me? Also, I have recontacted the charity but they say it's so long ago they can't confirm what was supplied back at the time. It's the fact they they do not seem to be contactable that is really bothering me.
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: Ryjayzangab on January 19, 2018, 06:47:47 PM
I too have received a letter from Picrights, one in December and today received my second. They are demanding 910.00 for a picture I used on a blog which somehow became linked to my website. How this happened I’m not sure. They sent me an address, which interestly when I clicked on it, gave me error of no such address. I am perplexed how all this happened or even became linked to my website.

I have removed the photo from my blog.

So your advice is to simply lie low. I have no intention of paying this nearly $1000.00 to this company.

Any other suggestions would be appreciated.
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: Ryjayzangab on January 19, 2018, 06:53:51 PM
I also meant to mention they say on the letter notified via email and mail. I too never received any emails.
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: sxboxer on February 07, 2018, 12:22:49 PM
I received a letter from Picrights.  It was in regards to an image I used on my website.  I did some research and I indeed used an image that was copyrighted by Getty.  I took the image down and Picrights wanted $600 to settle the unauthorized use of the image.  After doing some research, I discovered the image in question was being sold for $175 on Getty's site.  I wrote a nice email stating the $600 was too high. They countered back at $450.  I offered $300 after showing them the image was being sold for $175 and they accepted.  The emails were cordial and they were very cooperative.  Prior to replying to them, I received 3 emails, followed by a physical letter.  I paid the amount and avoided any future headaches. 
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: kingkendall on February 07, 2018, 03:24:03 PM
@sxboxer

You're headaches may not be over.  If you paid once what makes you think they won't try for two?
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) on February 07, 2018, 06:36:16 PM
or 3, maybe 4 lots of trolls out there trying to collect on easy marks, that simply roll over, instead of fighting back. This case never would have gone to court, they "settled" for 300.00 which is less than the filing fee.. Not trying to be insulting, I can why some people would rather just make it go away, i'm just not one of those people I guess.
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: sxboxer on February 07, 2018, 09:37:23 PM
or 3, maybe 4 lots of trolls out there trying to collect on easy marks, that simply roll over, instead of fighting back. This case never would have gone to court, they "settled" for 300.00 which is less than the filing fee.. Not trying to be insulting, I can why some people would rather just make it go away, i'm just not one of those people I guess.

Why would you suspect they would go for 2,3 or 4? I used one image without paying and I made it right by paying for the 6 years of use. Considering I paid $125 more than what the image is selling for I’m comfortable with that. By you saying this will not go to court, are you suggesting that it’s Ok to use someone else’s work and not compensate them for it?
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) on February 08, 2018, 01:09:36 PM
not saying that at all, mine were a different set of circumstances, where I actually purchased the image in question in good faith, but Getty came at me anyway. If you are confortable with the amount all is good.  The reason why I suggested they may come back for more, is simply because most users here, don't know anything about copyright and simply grab images from google searches thinking "they are free to use", which generally leads to more than one instance. By your response , you are probably not one of those uneducated image grabbers.

Based on the fact you used the image for 6 yrs and paid 300.00, if I were in your shoes I would have likely paid it as well, but don't come at me demanding 1500.00 for an image that I purchased in good faith, and when the image is a 20.00 royalty free image that is offered on many stock sites...yeah I'm gonna fight back on this scenario everytime
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: sxboxer on February 08, 2018, 01:39:55 PM
Understood. Different circumstances different actions. I can see the “extortion” part of your circumstances. Sorry to hear that.
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: Matthew Chan on February 22, 2018, 01:44:04 PM
It is entirely possible that website owners can more than one extortion letter. It can come from different parties.  But it can sometimes come from the same party.

This is why when people receive even one extortion letter, they need to take that as a good warning and go to their websites and CLEAN IT UP of ANY images that come from undocumented or questionable sources.

Why would you suspect they would go for 2,3 or 4? I used one image without paying and I made it right by paying for the 6 years of use. Considering I paid $125 more than what the image is selling for I’m comfortable with that. By you saying this will not go to court, are you suggesting that it’s Ok to use someone else’s work and not compensate them for it?
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: Matthew Chan on February 22, 2018, 01:46:32 PM
You did a great job here resolving your own case.  I have to keep reminding people that the printed amount is almost never the settlement amount. However, it does take a certain gumption and determination to fight back and contest the amount. And you did your research on the image in question.

In my view, a negotiated $300 settlement isn't bad at all. Kudos to you for handling it to a reasonable resolution.

I received a letter from Picrights.  It was in regards to an image I used on my website.  I did some research and I indeed used an image that was copyrighted by Getty.  I took the image down and Picrights wanted $600 to settle the unauthorized use of the image.  After doing some research, I discovered the image in question was being sold for $175 on Getty's site.  I wrote a nice email stating the $600 was too high. They countered back at $450.  I offered $300 after showing them the image was being sold for $175 and they accepted.  The emails were cordial and they were very cooperative.  Prior to replying to them, I received 3 emails, followed by a physical letter.  I paid the amount and avoided any future headaches.
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: dragonus on March 08, 2018, 08:48:23 PM
This article is about PicRights' fraudulent enforcement: https://mmjdoctor.com/picrights-fraudulent-copyright-enforcement/  .

As I can see, Picrights is a scammer for sure.
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: SEO Lady UK on March 09, 2018, 06:24:33 AM
UK chipping in here.

I run a website marketing service and one of my small businesses had this letter in January 2018.
After scanning Google and reading the Overclocker forum I advised the client not to respond and to expect a 2nd and 3rd letters.

February 2018, a follow up letter and email. Again, binned. 

Yesterday 8th March came a 3rd letter, detailing the bank details and a UK contact for £109. Compared to other people's amounts this is pretty low. I feel this is an indicator that they are trying wekly with no master plan.

Created an account for this forum just to document my process. I'll come back and update as and when.

Also, the link about detailing the scam is very reassuring.
Reading when people have proof of licence and have responded asking for their proof of ownership has led to no response to that specific question.

As for now, we are on the 'ignore and bin' plan.
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: opfor on March 12, 2018, 07:02:44 PM
Add me to the list as well. Had an image on our website that we did not realize was protected. Received first email and letter month ago, removed image next day, received second letter few weeks ago. This is what led us to research this online and luckily we found this forum. Want to thank Matthew for setting this up and all who have chimed in. First, have taken your advice and been reading up and educating ourselves the best we can on this, watched all of your videos while we worked today, learned a great deal from Oscar and Robert, thanks to them as well. I have to say I have mixed emotions with regards to how to approach this.

My first reaction was to remove the image and learn more when I had the time which is now. Normally I would respond via email however I have not and part of my reasoning seems justified by the fact that pic rights is asking for $1090 for one image that was on my site for two maybe three months at max. Next I see and hear all the others on here explaining their dealings and it does come across as just see who will cave in and pay.

I've read in some post where you should question them to prove that the image is protected but then I read in another that the system is so outdated there is no way that even this is a sure way to tell, so I guess my question is why even bother asking them this to begin with? So far I have not replied to anything and feel as if doing so would be like a fish nibbling on the bait, then they will really pull in to set the hook. Third letter I'm sure to arrive soon. Have folks that ignored them been receiving letters for three years?
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: Rook on March 23, 2018, 04:54:45 AM
Hi all, interesting thread and I loved the article above, it certainly makes you think about what's going on on-line.

However, and I am sorry to have to tell you all, this company are legit. I work for AFP, and have checked this out for somebody who was worried they may have infringed. At first I was suspicious of them, and their methods do seem to be a little amateurish, but  I checked with head office, and they are being used to chase copyright infringers.

I can only presume the other companies they claim to be working for are also accurate.

Hopefully, armed with this correct info you can all choose your approaches from this point on.

I think you need someone expert in copyright law tbh,

good luck.
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: runningbombtech on August 15, 2018, 12:06:34 PM
Hey Everyone - I guess I just joined the Picsrights club. I first found this page a month ago when I saw the picsrights URL creeping my web page (I run a training business as a side hustle).

The pic they're using to shake me down is of me!

No joke. This picture was taken during my first OIF deployment during 2008 and was given to me by the photographer. I forwarded the email to a lawyer friend, but after reading I'm wondering if I can just revoke my permission from Getty to use the image of me at all.

Would that be possible?
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) on August 15, 2018, 12:55:05 PM
Getty should have a model release, if they don't I don't think they can use the image..
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: DavidVGoliath on August 15, 2018, 01:17:11 PM
Getty should have a model release, if they don't I don't think they can use the image..

It's not that cut and dried; without a model release, photographs can't be used for commercial/advertising purposes but almost always can be used in an editorial (news related) capacity.

It gets even trickier when you consider that some states and countries don't have personality rights laws at all, so they could theoretically use an image of anyone in any circumstances... and challenges can be expensive (see https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/fenty-others-v-arcadia-others1.pdf as an example)

And lastly - as odd as it may seem - even if a picture is of you personally, you have no automatic right to make use of it without permission and/or payment to whomever did take the shot.

To runningbombtech: if you did get a copy of the shot from the photographer, then your best and only chance is to get a written statement from them (email is fine) saying that they're okay with how you used the picture. In the event that you can't get that (or if they don't want to give you permission based on how you used it) then you're likely still on the hook. Well-known and highly respected copyright attorney Ed Greenberg lays out why here http://thecopyrightzone.com/?p=163
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) on August 15, 2018, 02:18:11 PM
I figured as much in regards to the model release, I would think that if one was standing on a public street and I snapped a picture with some pedestrians, I would not need a model release either..I never got into the model release thing, I prefer to not shoot people.
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: runningbombtech on August 16, 2018, 07:36:35 AM
Bummer.

I did get the original (is that term in the digital world?) from the photographer back in 2008, but like you said, I doubt a verbal agreement will carry any water.

Ok. I'll reach out to him and hope for the best.

In the meantime, should I take it down? I'm still holding to that verbal agreement, but thinking taking it down now will somehow paint me in the wrong.
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: DavidVGoliath on August 16, 2018, 09:15:39 AM
I did get the original (is that term in the digital world?) from the photographer back in 2008, but like you said, I doubt a verbal agreement will carry any water.

You're right on that front: getting permissions in writing is always best practice, if only from a cover-your-ass standpoint. Always ask yourself "If the person allowing me to do [X] were hit by a bus tomorrow, how can I prove I had permission to do [X]?"

In the meantime, should I take it down? I'm still holding to that verbal agreement, but thinking taking it down now will somehow paint me in the wrong.

Not if you phrase it along the lines of "Thanks for your message: I had verbal permission from the photographer ten years ago to use this image and am currently seeking confirmation of those permissions in writing. As a good-faith gesture, until I receive an affirmative written reply from them, I will temporarily remove the photograph. Please expect my more fulsome reply in due course"

The above may be more formal sounding than your own regular tone, so adapt it to suit :)
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: runningbombtech on August 16, 2018, 12:08:24 PM
Here's another question: Since my website is for training and teaching purposes, does it fall under fair use?
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) on August 16, 2018, 01:40:10 PM
I don't think it matters what the "site" is about...the court would only deal with the image in question, not the site as a whole. Fair Use is solely up to a judge to determine and can sometimes be a very grey area.. see link below:

https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: runningbombtech on August 16, 2018, 05:07:14 PM
Hi Robert and DavidVGoliath - your advice was stellar. I sent the email and already got a reply stating they can't track verbal agreements. They consider the matter now closed. I've taken the pic down and won't put it up until I receive an email from the photographer.

Thanks again for your help. I sincerely appreciate it.

If I donate to the paypal link will y'all get a commission?
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: Ethan Seven on August 17, 2018, 02:11:19 AM
If the article or web page is not about the particular photo or the photographer, it is probably not fair use under the news reporting, commentary or education prongs of fair use.   Don’t confuse the subject matter of the photo with the actual photo.
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: kingkendall on August 17, 2018, 10:25:23 AM
If the article or web page is not about the particular photo or the photographer, it is probably not fair use under the news reporting, commentary or education prongs of fair use.   Don’t confuse the subject matter of the photo with the actual photo.

I've seen this argument also about it's only fair use if one is writing about the photo itself and not the subject matter associated with a photo.  I've always had a problem with that.  Especially when it comes to bloggers using an image from an actual news story.  If a blogger uses an image of a news event Eg: Bad guy robs bank caught by cops.  Mom and Pop blogger uses the image of the bad guy who robbed the bank.  How is that not fair use?  He's the one who robbed the bank.  The image was found in a news report.  The copyright law allows for fair use in the context of news reporting and that's what Mom and Pop blogger did.  Mom and Pop blogger is not trying to screw the photographer who took the photo.  They're trying to do the right thing as far as they read the law.  Did they have to go to law school in order to read the law as lawyers instead of as laymen trying to comply with it? 
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: DavidVGoliath on August 17, 2018, 02:53:35 PM
If a blogger uses an image of a news event Eg: Bad guy robs bank caught by cops.  Mom and Pop blogger uses the image of the bad guy who robbed the bank.  How is that not fair use?  He's the one who robbed the bank.  The image was found in a news report.  The copyright law allows for fair use in the context of news reporting and that's what Mom and Pop blogger did.  Mom and Pop blogger is not trying to screw the photographer who took the photo.  They're trying to do the right thing as far as they read the law.  Did they have to go to law school in order to read the law as lawyers instead of as laymen trying to comply with it?

If the scenario you cited were to play out writ large, then no news reporting agency would ever license editorial imagery; they would just take photographs from any source they saw fit and never have to pay a dime in licensing fees. So, yes, there are case precedents where it's been successfully argued that the newsworthy item must be the image itself.

Here's an example that's easy to understand: when Daniel Morel took photographs of the aftermath of the earthquake that hit Haiti, and his Twitter account was the only means of getting those images out owing to all other communications infrastructure being damaged or overwhelmed, Getty and AFP thought those shots were free for the taking. We all know how that played out a few years down the line.

in reporting on Morel winning a $1.2M damages award, many websites around the world would have used one of Morel's pictures to illustrate the case result in a "This is one of the pictures that Getty/AFP infringed on" capacity, and these uses would likely have fallen squarely under fair use exemptions.

So: Getty/AFP (and other outlets who settled directly with Morel) taking pictures of his from his twitter feed = infringement.

Using same pictures to report on Morel's court victory against Getty/AFP = fair use*

(* If the country has such fair use exemptions. As a contrary example, UK law does not allow the 'fair dealing' of photographic works for news reporting)
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: Ethan Seven on August 17, 2018, 07:36:29 PM
DvG nailed it.  That is a good textbook answer on fair use.  Fair use is much narrower than what most people think.  Kingkendall is right that it is easy to misinterpret the language, but ignorance of the law is seldom a defense to any violation.
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: Matthew Chan on September 08, 2018, 04:08:42 PM
This response is not directly at Robert but his post compelled me to state my position.

I declined speaking to someone and promptly refunded the money (after they paid for an ELI Support Call) because I discovered that that person wanted to spend most of their time discussing the ins and outs of a fair use defense.

I generally cringe when people want to use a "fair use" defense. It doesn't mean they cannot do it. It just means, generally speaking, I want nothing to do with it because most of the examples I see really doesn't meet my threshold for a solid fair use defense.

It is a very "soft" defense, very subjective, and very much a grey area which I agree with Robert.

I tell people that they can use any defense they want because it is THEIR CASE. They get to choose.  But that doesn't mean I have to be onboard with it or want anything to do with it. And if they strongly stand by it, they should go consult with a lawyer who is very knowledgeable about fair use defenses.  It ain't me.

And many people still don't get it. Most of these copyright extortion operations don't want to file lawsuits. And so people are desperately looking for an absolute legal defense to shut things down. Unfortunately, I have been following this for a decade. There are very few airtight defenses in most of the situations I see. There are generally only "practical" and "soft" defenses available which are have been well covered here over the years.

An example of a "practical" defense would be someone living that committed an infringement on a personal hobby non-commercial website in their parent's basement and has no meaningful assets and income. A divorced woman who lives on government assistance and has 3 children who was trying to make a few extra bucks with the unintended infringement.  The law makes no distinction about infringements.

But if a pursuing lawyer knows and can verify the facts of the situation of the accused, I am fairly certain they are not going to be that motivated to go full steam ahead on any lawsuit against such parties. It isn't "practical".  Generally speaking, filing lawsuits against broke or impoverished people is not a good use of resources.  But copyright collections are not mind-readers.  Someone actually has to communicate it so they don't think the worse.

That is why I am not a big fan of just "going dark" without some consideration of the pros and cons of such an approach. Lots of factors at play.

"Fair use" defense is something YOU will have to stand by but it is generally very "soft" in my view.

I don't think it matters what the "site" is about...the court would only deal with the image in question, not the site as a whole. Fair Use is solely up to a judge to determine and can sometimes be a very grey area.. see link below:

https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: Matthew Chan on September 08, 2018, 04:10:20 PM
Agreed.

Fair use is much narrower than what most people think. 
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: JohnR on September 25, 2018, 10:20:31 AM
I also have a Picrights email about a singe image on my blog. I have removed the image and done some research, but have not yet responded. The image (on Masterfile, of course) costs $370 for use on a website secondary page; rather pricey, but Picrights wants $1400! It seems to me that to demand anything beyond the listed price constitutes punitive damages, and they can only be imposed by a court and only for egregious, willful actions by the subject. This is especially true, it seems to me, because Picrights is acting as agent for the rights owner, sort of like a collection agency. A collection agency tries to get the bill paid and then takes a commission; the agency cannot simply demand four times the amount owed so he will make more.
Is my logic flawed? Would a court be likely to be sympathetic to this view? If so, it would limit extortion demands to licensing fees alone.
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: Matthew Chan on September 25, 2018, 07:10:30 PM
People assume way too much when they assume their case will go to any court.

I have said it many times.... Statistically speaking, most small time cases never make it to court. Or if they do, they get settled out because no one wants to "go all the way".

And if people do want to assume that their case is going to court and "all the way" then, start ponying up $400/hour for that assumption. It is an expensive and flawed assumption.
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) on November 06, 2018, 11:50:43 AM
I'm going to sound like a dick here, but, if you received Getty letters in the past, why on earth did you either not vet all of your images, or why did you continue to use images you had no license for? I'm having a hard to drumming up any sympathy, but I digress. Your options are largely the same as with a getty letter, take a chance and ignore it, or respond, try to settle for less.
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: picrightsugh1 on November 06, 2018, 03:46:21 PM
It goes something like ..if you want something done right, you gotta do it yourself.. So yes, everything was "checked" as being license free after getting the Getty notices. Obviously there were a couple missed or added without proper vetting after the fact. Fortunately at the time we received the Getty mailers, there was a whole lot more info online to help us decide how to proceed. I don't see that same volume of info with Picrights, so I'm having a tough time making that call.
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: rafhelp on November 09, 2018, 02:23:08 PM
I also got an email from picrights they said they are acting on behalf of Press Association Images for some photo of cast of suicide squad that I might have used on a personal blog.

I always source images from Royalty free sites or using Google's "free for reuse" or "free with modifcation" settings on Google Images.

They have sent 2 emails and now demanding £109 to settle the matter for using an image in the past.

I have not replied as tbh.

I had read many people saying they are scammers / phishers / or just bullies trying to squeeze money from anyone who responds.  Some people say they are legit company.  Some users have responded to similar emails and actually paid, others say they ignore them.

Their address on the email is a PO Box 61182 address from Anne Sinclair, on companies houses their uk office is not even registered in London, but the PO box is in London.

Has anyone ignored the emails and what happened?

What would be the best advice in this situation?
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: DavidVGoliath on November 09, 2018, 06:00:53 PM
Their address on the email is a PO Box 61182 address from Anne Sinclair, on companies houses their uk office is not even registered in London, but the PO box is in London.

From beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/11172740

PicRights UK Limited, 4 Imperial Place, Maxwell Road, Borehamwood, England, WD6 1JN

Borehamwood is within the M25 circular that bounds the Greater London area so, though it doesn't have a London postal code, you're kinda splitting hairs to claim they're "not in London"  ;D
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: rafhelp on November 10, 2018, 05:59:21 PM
People assume way too much when they assume their case will go to any court.

I have said it many times.... Statistically speaking, most small time cases never make it to court. Or if they do, they get settled out because no one wants to "go all the way".

And if people do want to assume that their case is going to court and "all the way" then, start ponying up $400/hour for that assumption. It is an expensive and flawed assumption.

So of the people that get the 14 day threatening email for picright and ignore it, what happened to them after 14 days?
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: kingkendall on November 12, 2018, 05:58:50 PM
Nothing 95% of the time.  It becomes a question of percentages and case specifics. 
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: picrightsugh1 on November 14, 2018, 11:24:00 AM
How about if you start receiving calls from the designated lawyer like Higbee's office? That seems like more of an escalation. Is that correct?
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: kingkendall on November 14, 2018, 12:41:31 PM
That's part of the procedure they follow. 
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: Jafer on January 22, 2019, 08:00:53 AM
Hello all,

I have just received a letter claiming that I have infringed on copyright laws that has been sent from PICRIGHTS on behalf of Agence France-Presse (AFP). I have contacted them(Picrights) where they referred me to their website and mentioned that my company was using images from Getty which led to their immediate removal from my website. I removed the photo as the price of paying for the images is rather high as I searched on getty images where other images were being sold for 385 pounds. I have tried to clarify this with all the agencies involved, who have repeatedly forwarded me to an email. After suspecting that this was a fraudulent letter I researched this and this thread has led me to believe that Picrights who have contacted me is simply a scam.

The line at the bottom was suspecting which was addressed from Anne Sinclair which is what some other users here have also received. As there is no registration within the UK of this company I have difficulty believing this is a genuine claim. I believe my two options are to contact AFP to see if there is an actual ongoing dispute or to simply ignore the letters from Picrights. The first letter I received today led to me contacting picrights who were requesting monetary compensation which I am unwilling to do at this point. Could anybody who has ignored similar letters confirm if further action was taken before I contact Agence France Presse. I am hoping that my removal of the images from my website is sufficient to not warrant any further action. Any advice regarding this would be greatly appreciated and I am able to provide further information about this if required. I am currently under the assumption that if I ignore them they will not pursue this further but I feel that simply ignoring them is likely to have severe consequences which is the main reason for my post.

Thanks and any advice whatsoever would be appreciated. Also, it may be worthy to note that a letter of "Cease and Desist" was not sent by them and the first contact they made was the demanding of payment rather than a warning, which further increases my doubt.
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: Keeping It Real on January 22, 2019, 03:50:53 PM
Jafer

I'm still a newbie on here also, but not new to the extortion game having dealt with several myself.  You asked if you should ignore them? My answer is yes in my opinion since it worked well for me in all my circumstances.  And trust me they got pretty aggressive, including phone calls and snail mail. I ignored all of it.  Removed the images and went dark. 

The only problem that you may have is you didn't actually ignore them since you stated you contacted picrights from the first contact.  That is not truly going dark.  Now they know you have received their demand and know you are concerned no matter how you slice it.  You gave them the bait to continue to pursue you and they more than likely will.  Will it go anywhere if you stay dark from here on out?  Probably not, but the key to going dark is to never respond. 

Remove the offending image and ignore all else.  That is my best advice having dealt with similar over the past few years.  All went past the SOL and am currently waiting out another, but they have already gone over 3 weeks since the last weekly emails I was getting for a month before the holidays.  I actually held the license on mine but iStock either lost the license or deleted it once the company sold to Getty.  Not all is what it seems in all cases.  Ultimately, you'll need to decide if you have the guts to go silent and ride out the harassment. 

Best luck
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: Jafer on January 23, 2019, 07:50:45 AM
Hello there,

Appreciate the response thank you so much for the advise. My issue is that they will proceed to take this matter further and if in the unlikely event it is a genuine letter I may be better off dealing with the issue sooner than later. Given your experience with dealing with similar extortion letters would you be able to identify if it is genuine or not based on the following details about the company demanding the payment and my situation:

Picrights appears to be working on behalf of a legitimate company called Agence Frances Presse which has the address of 11,13 Place De La Bourse, Paris, 75002, France (note I am in the UK so this is a foreign address and the letter was received via Air Mail but with a return address of JE1 1JP which falls outside both jurisdictions). However, the address for picrights itself is disputable but I have obtained details from company house that states the company that is registered in the UK Borehamwood WD6 1JN despite a different address on picrights website which lists Switzerland, Canada and only a PO Box in London  which is a different postcode to the registered company. Also it has one person (only) listed who is a French national by the name of Anne Quiliet and a capital valuation of 100 GBP which indicates this may be an illegitimate company only setup to extort money.

If it helps the following should be noted:
1. Somebody else organized my website for me where they mentioned there was a variety of sources for free images which was used, rather than copyright protected images which picrights is claiming.

2. The bank details provided has been on various documents I have researched which involve copyright disputes from other firms not just Agence Frances Presse, that uses the exact same bank details which is rather suspicious (NATWEST  SORT CODE 50-00-00 ACCOUNT NUMBER 29729785 PICRIGHTS). However, this could be genuine if picrights receives all the money on behalf of the company they are representing.

As there are conflicting addresses and two different names used within the claims I am struggling to figure out if this is a genuine claim as I do not want to put my company in a predicament that will result in further legitimate claims. However, I will not give in just yet given the nature of the scams reported on this thread so any response from you or anybody else who has dealt with similar issues would help alot and provide me with peace of mind. If I do choose to ignore them and go dark from here on out would there be any consequences given my initial contact with them?

Again, thank you so much for taking the time out to consider my issue and providing a response.
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: Keeping It Real on January 23, 2019, 11:13:33 AM
Jafer,

Why would you want to give away your money even if the address or letter is legit?  All of mine were legit contacts and I stayed dark.  The layout of the letter is the same standard tactic these agencies use.  Yours is not special.  They all demand payment, they all show the image to make their claim.  Remember this is a claim by someone, not a legal order or judgment against you. 

In regard to someone else designing your website, doesn't matter, you are the owner of the site which makes you responsible party.  Not to be disrespectful, but the tone of your letter has a great deal of worry emphasized.  Perhaps you are unable to withstand their aggressive tactics to scare you into paying when you aren't even sure if they actually represent the image holder. 

If you are uncomfortable or the events give you a gut ache, then by all means pay it.  Just remember when you do something like that, you play into the hands of these image trolls.  You are a number and it is a numbers game.  If you succumb, then you were part of the low hanging fruit for them to go after.  I just heard from my troll again today after her not sending anything for over 3 weeks.  To give you an example of how you are just a number not worth notating important facts, in her latest letter to me she states the image in question is still up, yet in her letter dated first week in January, she states the image is down, but I still owe the $300.00.  I am no one to them but an easy mark if I were to give in. 

Plus the kicker is I owned the image in question purchased through iStock, but they sold to Getty and my license for this image mysteriously disappeared along with a few others.  What you should realize is the images may have been Royalty Free or not, can't say, but as has happened with me what was once a Royalty Free image became magically a Rights Managed image returned to the private party that may or may not have had a beef with Getty taking over iStock and decided to remove the licensing they had with them.  Who knows, but I won't be a pawn in their extortion game.

As in the past with these trolls, the letters get further apart as this one did and they will continue to do so, I am confident.  The dollar amount they are seeking is less than it would be to hire a legal rep, travel to my jurisdiction and file a lawsuit.  It is about weighing likelihoods with critical thinking.  Do your research as you have been doing and then decide what you can handle and cannot handle.  If you lose sleep over this stuff, then pay.  If you can gut it out and await the next troll letter and simply store copies without responding, then do that.  It is really about you and only you can decide what makes you sleep at night.

did some editing with time frames, not to mislead, but to not place exact dates due to this site is known to be monitored by these image trolls.
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) on January 23, 2019, 06:47:54 PM
Good advice KIR, well said.. to the op, the letter is real, and everyone "pays something" sometimes it's money if  like KIR stated, you can't take the pestering, sometimes its simply time waiting out the SOL.. Remember this is a CLAIM, not a judgement.. I'm fairly sure if I claimed you owed me some amount of cash, you wouldn't just pony up..don't be the low hanging fruit..
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: Jafer on January 28, 2019, 09:09:29 AM
Thanks for the update I appreciate the feedback.

1.Currently they have offered a 20% discount so assumed it would be best to further this discount to see where it goes but I will cease contact after viewing this thread.
2.If there are court summons, do I have the chance to settle just before it actually goes to court?
3. It was unintentional, so image has now been removed. I am able to withstand their tactics but just so I am well aware & prepared I am just following it up


As you actually purchased the image you are probably in  stronger position to refuse any of their demands as you have legitimate grounds to base your views on.
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: Keeping It Real on January 31, 2019, 10:42:41 AM
Hi Jafer,

You are on the right track with ignoring them.  Just hang in there once they realize you didn't fall for their discount offer, they will get pesky since you have had initial contact with some negotiating.  They have not shown proof they actually represent the artist or that it was not available before as a Royalty Free Image.  They have not proven you did anything wrong. 

As I stated in my last comment to you, mine began as a Royalty Free image and reverted to rights managed.  It also does not matter that I purchased it.  The license is gone after the Getty image takeover of iStock.  So without proof of my license then I am in same boat as anyone else that receives these extortion emails.  That is why I never respond but make sure I am not using an image they make claim to that is has become rights managed.  I have also learned a lesson in this and that is "to copy all of my old licenses" to prevent loss again.  Example, Fotolia was just purchased by Adobe and I will not continue with them as they are too expensive for imagery.  They have all of my licenses but disclaimer states, they won't promise to maintain them in the future.  So now I have copies of everything.

I recommend this to anyone that purchases images.  Never rely on the company to maintain your data of purchase.  Good Luck and hang tough!
Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: Jafer on February 05, 2019, 07:36:05 AM
Alright so as far as it seems I feel that ignoring them may solve the issue in the hope that they give up but could I ask if anybody reading this has ever had a lawsuit that has moved in the direction of actually going to court? (From Picrights preferably) If so, what were the steps in involved and how likely is it the court will accept their view rather than mine?

I appreciate all the feedback given as it has reassured me a great deal!

Title: Re: PicRights.com
Post by: kingkendall on February 06, 2019, 10:33:11 AM
The last thing a copyright troll lawyer wants is to see the inaide of a court room at trial.  That's not the business model.  They want the law hanging fruit, the people who get freaked out and pay up because they're so afraid of getting sued.  They want people who are fearful.  Which one do you wanna be?  Stop panicking read the forum and learn.