PicRights.com

[Copywriter]

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.
 

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

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.

[Matthew Chan]

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.

[nickrotunno]

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...

[Matthew Chan]

The copyright registration database is just plain shit and outdated.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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[Ryjayzangab]

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.

[Ryjayzangab]

I also meant to mention they say on the letter notified via email and mail. I too never received any emails.

[sxboxer]

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. 

[kingkendall]

@sxboxer

You're headaches may not be over.  If you paid once what makes you think they won't try for two?

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

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.

[sxboxer]

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?

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

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

[sxboxer]

Understood. Different circumstances different actions. I can see the “extortion” part of your circumstances. Sorry to hear that.

[Matthew Chan]

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?