PicRights.com

[Matthew Chan]

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.

[dragonus]

This article is about PicRights' fraudulent enforcement: https://mmjdoctor.com/picrights-fraudulent-copyright-enforcement/  .

As I can see, Picrights is a scammer for sure.

[SEO Lady UK]

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.

[opfor]

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?

[Rook]

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.

[runningbombtech]

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?

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Getty should have a model release, if they don't I don't think they can use the image..

[DavidVGoliath]

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

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

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.

[runningbombtech]

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.

[DavidVGoliath]

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

[runningbombtech]

Here's another question: Since my website is for training and teaching purposes, does it fall under fair use?

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

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/

[runningbombtech]

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?

[Ethan Seven]

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.