Messages

1

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: PicRights.com

« 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!

2

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: PicRights.com

« 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.

3

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: PicRights.com

« 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.

4

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: PicRights.com

« 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.