Copyright Infringement Notice Help

There is some good advice/ info on this thread, there is also some very bad advice.

The bottom line is that you have infringed somebody’s copyright by downloading and using their work, it doesn’t matter if it was on Pinterest, photographs on the internet although easily downloaded can not then be used in any way that would financially disadvantage the original creator or licence holder, ie a licence fee would be expected to be paid for you to use it on your blog, the chance of it also being fair usage on a blog is very slight but we’d need context for that.

I’m a photographer and I also moderate a press photographers’ FB page where this comes up all the time, there are set processes to follow and if done correctly the photographer or pursuing organisation will always win as copyright infringement is an open and shut case, they also take people to court all the time as the amounts involved fall within the remit of the small claims court, there are quite a few cases where people have ignored these things and it’s got very expensive indeed ( one guy got £29,000 when a club used one of his pics to promote themselves but that’s pretty exceptional). I’m not saying you should settle straight away but if it does escalate don’t ignore it, a typical unauthorised usage will be around three times what the photographer would have licensed the photograph for, check Alamy’s single usage rates for non subscribers and maybe apologise and offer that, if they pursue this.

You say that there is no link to your identity on your blog, if this is the case you may be in luck and they may just move on, a larger company like Alamy may just do this, although Getty for instance are know to pursue infringements relentlessly, if it was the photographer themselves pursuing you and they could establish your identity then it would be best to just apologise and settle for a reasonable fee, some photographers chase every infringement and won’t hesitate to get legal.

I am struggling to understand how a logo could have image rights attached, more so, how an organisation like Alamay could own the copyright. Was it just a logo, or a photograph featuring the logo?

I guess we’ll never know, because this appears to be one of those threads where the OP come on with a massive  woe is me post then just **** off without further comment.  :bye:

^^ In fairness he could just be up to real life stuff.

Up to real life stuff that trumps the initial concern about not being able to pay for an image whose rights have been contravened. Clearly not that worried.

johndoh
Free Member
Up to real life stuff that trumps the initial concern about not being able to pay for an image whose rights have been contravened. Clearly not that worried.

Its a lot of money for many people, most people in fact, I hope he resolves it in a way that’s amicable for himself and any other parties involved.

No-one got murdered, the op doesn’t sound like a hardened criminal and I hope he doesn’t end up paying a punitive amount when it’s obviously going to put him in financial distress.

That’s about it really.

Sorry for no comment on this yesterday.

Had a really busy day – had some work to do, then had to go through my website and then was reading as much about this as I could.

The image in question was of the logo on a building.

The blog was on my website but I have now removed all posts and effectively shut down my blog. I ended up going through my site to ensure there were no more possible violations, All other images were from unsplash etc and I have ensured that all image credits are given as required.

I dont think its a good idea to just ignore this but I will be replying with an offer of the original license cost (£35) x3.

I feel this would be a reasonable offer and think it will be looked upon as being reasonable should this escalate.

I really can’t afford to pay this as I haven’t had any income at all since last November and have been supporting myself with savings, but there is a part of me thinking I just want this to go away. The amount of £500 seems punitive and I suspect if this went to a small claims court that they would be awarded the original license fee that they missed out on. That seems to be the general consensus from the forums I have looked at. The idea is to recoup their losses – not to punish.

This was a really stupid mistake and the stress this is causing is awful.

I probably won’t be able to be back on here until later tonight or maybe even tomorrow.

Thanks for all the comments and help.

So, unfortunately, the image may well have a copyright attached – the licence fee isn’t for using a logo, but someone’s image that happens to feature a logo. I’ve been there myself (using an unlicensed image – it was included in a visual for a website and accidentally was used on the live site). It was a long time ago, but IIRC we argued that we ordinarily paid for licences (we used Getty Images lots back then and it was a genuine oversight). We managed to get the fee halved IIRC. I doubt they will accept just the original fee (otherwise that’s what everyone would do every time) but fingers crossed you can come to an agreement with them.

I have a question.

Someone took a photo of a logo of a building.

Someone else lifted that photo and stuck it on Pintrest.

Someone else again – the OP – saw it on Pintrest and used it on their blog.

How were they supposed to know any different?

Doesn’t help with the claim (and that’s already been covered pretty comprehensively), but is there any way you can take your own photograph of something featuring the same logo and at least get your content back online?

How were they supposed to know any different?

By not using an image found online unless you know for certain that it’s ok. By default, it’s not.

“How were they supposed to know any different?”

As far as I’m aware (and I have only a passing interest/knowledge of this as my work as a teacher gives me a fair bit of ‘fair use’ leeway) it’s on the end user to do their due diligence.

saw it on Pintrest and used it on their blog

Yeah, just don’t do that and you’ll be grand.

hunterst
This was a really stupid mistake and the stress this is causing is awful.

I make far worse mistakes pretty much weekly but luckily, most of the time, there aren’t financial implications.

Keeping my fingers crossed for you that they accept the offer in good faith and keep us updated. <Thumb up>

“How were they supposed to know any different?”

Copying an image without permission (and without checking any license conditions) is *always* dodgy. There are some situations where it’s ok, but as a general rule, you just can’t republish someone else’s work without permission.

Another point to make is that most amateurs will happily allow non commercial use of their pics if you ask. I wrote a blog about an attempt on the Cuillin Ridge in a day.  I used 2 really  good pics that weren’t mine which I had seen on other blogs/websites. I emailed both photographers and asked them then credited the pics. One by an unknown photographer, Alexis Gilbert  another by Simon Caldwell.

A quick google shows Alexis has quite a few on Geograph.

The reality is that most people think that if a picture is in the public domain, ie on the internet then it’s fine to use for whatever purpose they see fit, the vast majority of people have no real concept of copyright theft where pictures are concerned as millions of pics are shared and re shared on a daily basis, it’s only really when professional photographers work is used that troubles occur and is often the first instance where people realise that what they have done is illegal.

Just suppose – can you use an image and manipulate it, does it then still remain copyright or is it now mine?

Say, IDK, I got a picture off say an album cover of a guitarist, cropped the image to show only them, recoloured it to make it a recognisable but silhouette outline (IDK again, maybe they are well known for playing a Fender Jag) and then got that printed onto a t-shirt.

Just suppose – can you use an image and manipulate it, does it then still remain copyright or is it now mine?

@theotherjonv that is where you get into the more murky areas of derivative works. The high level summary is ‘probably not’ particularly in your example.

Section two on the link below explains it best but the key message is “Legally only the copyright owner has the right to authorise adaptations and reproductions of their work – this includes the making of a derivative work.”

https://copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p22_derivative_works

one of them was about the history and evolution of the logo of a long established brand.

What about contacting that company direct. Explaining you are doing a study on their brand and ask if it is ok to put their logo on your blog.

As long as it is nothing nasty about the company, and not for commercial purposes, they might well agree.

Then mail Alamy and tell them you have the company permission. Obviously saying when you got that permission doesn’t need to come into it.

Pinterest is just image theft protected by the power of venture capital money.

I think that people forget that publishing an image on a website is like copying a movie and putting on the notice board of every house on the planet.

From what I’ve heard, agencies like Alamy are happy to settle for a reasonable amount that matches an ordinary licence fee. Infuriatingly, the photographer is very unlikely to see any percentage of the monies collected! The agencies consider their work in chasing down copyright infringements so onerous that they have to keep all the money for themselves. Another way hypercapitalism makes life more shit.

Then mail Alamy and tell them you have the company permission. Obviously saying when you got that permission doesn’t need to come into it.

Again, the image file itself is copyrighted, irrespective of its content. The creator owns the rights to that image, even if it contains a logo.

I really can’t afford to pay this…This was a really stupid mistake and the stress this is causing is awful.

You must not worry about this. It’s like the supermarket sending you a “penalty charge notice” for overstaying in the car park. No-one is going to arrest you or seize your home.

Before offering to pay – how about just replying to say “thank you for your email. I don’t understand all of this but I have deleted the image completely, thank you, goodbye”?

I think I would 100% do the above. If there is no longer any evidence of the image being used by you online, and of course it was never for commercial reasons, I can’t see there is much chance of it being pursued. I’d then let them know it has been permanently removed.
I would wait for a reply on this before making any offer. Or just remove it (as you have) and wait to see if you hear any more.
I had this a few years back after accidentally using an image on a website. We removed the image immediately and forgot about it. Never heard anything more.

Anyone remember this… from 2019!?

Copying an image without permission (and without checking any license conditions) is *always* dodgy.

So presumably the original authors of photos like the Distracted Guy meme are rolling in royalties?

I understand what you’re all saying, as a (shit) photographer myself I have a vague handle on copyright.  But lifting images is normalised, stuff on the Internet gets copied, forwarded and posted with gay abandon.  It’s not difficult to see how the OP got caught out.

Photographer of distracted guy photo has said he’s not interested in taking any action.

Which took me all of 30 seconds to google, BTW. There’s a lot of information readily available on the internet for anyone who wants to find out stuff.

Question.

If a user or contributor sends a picture they say I can use on my website (I’m asking for permission if you like) and it turns out to be lifted from say Alamy or just random from the net. Who is liable? How far can you check, or just never use images ever, to be on the safe side ?

If a user or contributor sends a picture they say I can use on my website (I’m asking for permission if you like) and it turns out to be lifted from say Alamy or just random from the net. Who is liable? How far can you check, or just never use images ever, to be on the safe side ?

Strictly speaking, yes, you would still be liable.

Although in that case ‘Oh, I’m sorry, {someoneelse} informed me the were the copyright owner and provided me with permission to use the image. I’ll take it down right away, and forward on the details of {someoneelse}” would probably be enough for most companies. Moreso if you then ask about licensing the image for continued use.

Quickest way to check is a reverse image search on anything you plan to put online. If it brings anything up other than the person who gave you permission at the very least clarify.

Highsmith v Getty

This seems to be the norm for the massive photograph outfits.

I photographed an image/etch from an old encyclopedia from the 1930’s. Quite liked it as an image when made totally B&W.

Did a search on it and Alamy or Getty one of them had the exact same image, claiming it as theirs.

Now, the question is, is mine and theirs just a photograph of the same old image from a book. The actual original image is years out of copyright and inside the public domain.

But I guess the action of taking a new photograph of an old thing (image) makes only a new photograph, irrelevant of what the content is? But the new image of the old thing is a new image. Albeit, that you cant tell the difference about the content when they are side by side 🙂

Would they come after me, because I took a picture of the same etch, same as someone else has done and submitted it to one of dubious stock image firms. Just because they £££££££££££

But I guess the action of taking a new photograph of an old thing (image) makes only a new photograph, irrelevant of what the content is? But the new image of the old thing is a new image. Albeit, that you cant tell the difference about the content when they are side by side 🙂

Not all photographs attract copyright.  It is not the content that matters, but the intellectual creativity that goes into making the photo.  But you will require deep pockets to challenge that, so it is not really practical.

Logos will probably have copyright protection themselves,  but the brand owner is likely to be more relaxed about this type of use (that is  not use in relation to selling goods and services) than a photographer for whom use of images is the basis of their income. And the argument that the use is covered by a defence becomes a bit clearer.  So taking your own photo is a good idea, but will not necessarily get you off the hook, it all depends on the context in which the image is used.

Which took me all of 30 seconds to google, BTW. There’s a lot of information readily available on the internet for anyone who wants to find out stuff.

Maybe you could use it yourself to better understand what a random example is.

My point was, there are many thousands of images that have been doing the rounds on a near-daily basis for years.  People post and forward them constantly, perhaps with slight tweaks.  Side-eye girl, hell yeah baby, triggered woman, nope/yep dude in the hat, etc etc and indeed etc. (NB for the hard of thinking: just more random examples.) I’ve seen my own photograph posted to a group by a complete stranger, we had a bit of a chuckle about how bizarre that was.  No-one intends to commit copyright theft, chances are that without threads like this it wouldn’t have crossed most folks’ minds.

If someone who uses an image of a building on a personal website can get an invoice for £500, the photographers of these images must be millionaires by now.  Right?

Why not?  Is perhaps the law more nuanced than “YOU USE PITCHER GEIF MONIES NOW!!”?  I know that legally ignorance is no defence but it seems mad to me that a private company can issue what is clearly a punitive fee for people using copyrighted images by accident.  Why stop at £500, why not £5,000, £50,000?  Because the former is a figure people are likely to roll over for and the latter something which will definitely be challenged?  Parking companies got stood on for this, but are allowed an increased charge as a deterrent; where’s the deterrent here when the OP was oblivious until the snotty email?

I’m all for artists being paid.  But I can’t help think this could be resolved more civilly.  “Dear sirs, you probably aren’t aware but you’ve used one of our images.  The licensing fee for this image is £35, alternatively we must request that you remove it from your website.”  It feels like a racket.

there are many thousands of images that have been doing the rounds on a near-daily basis for years.

….. and how are “we” supposed to know/find out who owns the copyright to a certain image if it isn’t stated?

“Maybe you could use it yourself to better understand what a random example is.”

And maybe you could have worked out the answer to your question(s) quicker than posting them.

What the relevant articles make clear is that yes, if your image is regularly used and you didn’t specifically licence it for general use, you could potentially sue multiple people for copyright violations, and you could get rich as a result. Unless you’re actively selling/licensing the image, however, you’ll struggle to demonstrate any loss.

Copying and republishing an image doesn’t happen “by accident” any more I cut and pasted your words “by accident”. (and that is indeed a potential copyright violation on my part, but I’ll claim fair use if STW tries to come after me for it – I presume they claim copyright on all material posted here, but I haven’t checked T&C).

I don’t think you have any general right to know who owns the copyright. You can’t copy and republish stuff without permission. If you can’t get permission, don’t copy. It’s really not very complicated.

Assume all images / movies / music / books are copyrighted unless otherwise stated. People seem to think photography is different because unauthorised usage is so widespread. Doesn’t change the fundamental rules though.
Royalty free images from a library are incredibly cheap now, so no, photographers are not millionaires. Ignore the headline price the libraries quote if you see an image you’d like to use, they’re always available at a fraction of that cost if you ask or buy a cheap credit pack from someone like iStockPhoto.

Is it not kind of like brinkmanship though?

I mean if it ended up in court would the copyright holder not have to prove damages /lost income.. Otherwise what are they suing for?

In the case of the OP there’s probably no provable damages, as opposed to someone selling prints of an artists work… The artist is selling their own prints so there is a clear damage /loss there?

Nope all they have to prove is that they own copyright and it’s licensable, if you’ve used it without a licence being granted ( your responsibility to prove you have one) then the copyright holder will win as a licence fee is owed. You can’t just use copyright covered material without permission for free.

And maybe you could have worked out the answer to your question(s) quicker than posting them.

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of a discussion forum?  You can probably google that whilst you’re looking up how examples work.

I don’t think you have any general right to know who owns the copyright.

Then how am I supposed to ask permission to use an image?

Genuine Q

Maybe you can’t. Like I said, if you don’t have permission, don’t copy (republish). That’s all you need to know.