Received a Letter from Burness Paull Threatening to pay for an image Copyright from PicRights..

[MTS24]

Hi All
Any advice on this please? I received a letter from Burness Paull today alleging that they had sent another letter previously asking us to pay a settlement fee of over £750 for an image on our website.
Basically, we had built a website using an overseas freelance web developer who had built this website for us which had all images included as part of our web development.

We were never made aware that the image on the website had a copy right as the web developer had told us that it was all part of the fee we paid to them and there is no way we can find him again as he would probably not even bother to answer since he is based on in another country.

So, as soon as I received their letter I simply went on our website and deleted that image and then replied to them stating the fact that our website was built by a freelancer and he had charged us for the entire website and I also said to them that we have now deleted the image.

However, I am not sure what next because Burness Paull has threatened to take legal action alleging we did not answer to their first letter which is a nonsense as we had never received a previous letter.

Furthermore, from my point of view, as soon as they told us that their client PicRights own the copy right, we simply deleted the image from our website.

Any advice on this as there is no way I will pay a single penny and I believe we all deserve the right to be given the opportunity to do the right thing which is to delete the image or pay for it and in this case we simply deleted that image.

Any advice on this please?

 

[Alan]

Your website, your responsibility. Legally you are in the wrong as far as I understand, I'm not a lawyer though. I suggest you negotiate.

...edit... first of all double check it is not a scam and they do actually own the copyright

 

[paulears]

Negotiate the best deal you can and pay it. If you used an image on your site, and deleted it once you realised, then the deed was done and the IP court system historically support the copyright holders, especially when they have attempted to contact the owner of the publishing medium - as in your site. They'll probably come down in price if you negotiate - this is the usual thing. The most prolific company are Getty Images who routinely take people businesses to court and usually win.

You did not exercise due diligence in checking the ownership - what could you use to mitigate in court. Not knowing is not good enough. The courts however do know the value of images on websites, so any ludicrous claims get adjusted for reasonableness - but you did do it? You could let the court make the decision, but perhaps best to talk first.

 

[kulture]

Pay up before it gets ugly. Try to negotiate a lower fee, but in the end you owe them. You could perhaps stall and ask them to prove that they hold the copyright and that this is a genuine invoice and not a scam, but this should be done carefully as it may increase the bill and your end up paying more. Forget about "not a single penny"

 

[Darren_Ssc]

... there is no way I will pay a single penny and I believe we all deserve the right to be given the opportunity to do the right thing which is to delete the image or pay for it and in this case we simply deleted that image.

So what's you're problem?

These posts crop up every so often, always a one post wonder. All too many otherwise sensible people get taken in.

 

[MTS24]

Negotiate the best deal you can and pay it. If you used an image on your site, and deleted it once you realised, then the deed was done and the IP court system historically support the copyright holders, especially when they have attempted to contact the owner of the publishing medium - as in your site. They'll probably come down in price if you negotiate - this is the usual thing. The most prolific company are Getty Images who routinely take people businesses to court and usually win.

You did not exercise due diligence in checking the ownership - what could you use to mitigate in court. Not knowing is not good enough. The courts however do know the value of images on websites, so any ludicrous claims get adjusted for reasonableness - but you did do it? You could let the court make the decision, but perhaps best to talk first.

Thank you for your advice.
I cannot understand that for a simple image they would ask £750+ and as I mentioned, the web developer had purchased this entire theme with the images on them and it is practically not possible or extremely laborsome to get every image checked on a website that a developer builds and lets you believe it is all OK. If for example they came with £10 or £50 then yes, not worth wasting time but 100s I will fight for it I think.

 

[Clinton]

Basically, we had built a website using an overseas freelance web developer who had built this website for us which had all images included as part of our web development.

Do it on the cheap and, yes, it will cost you more.

We were never made aware that the image on the website had a copy right as the web developer had told us that it was all part of the fee we paid to them and there is no way we can find him again as he would probably not even bother to answer since he is based on in another country.

If you were too thick to check that your website was legally compliant that's your problem, not the fault of the person who owns the image.

Furthermore, from my point of view, as soon as they told us that their client PicRights own the copy right, we simply deleted the image from our website.

So?

You used somebody's image without permission. They want to sue your ass. I hope they do.

If everybody took the attitude you do - that removing the image makes everything better - it would be a disaster.

It's like saying that a burglar is okay as long as he returns the goods if he gets caught. And if he doesn't get caught then good luck to him and he can keep the goods.

Any advice on this as there is no way I will pay a single penny

Your arrogance is breath taking. You stole someone's property ...and now you're taking the moral high road like you were in the right all along?

 

[Mark T Jones]

Welcome to the real world - as a business owner you are responsible for everything!
You can fight them if you have time and budget. They have a big office full of experienced people who do it for a living.

 

[Darren_Ssc]

They have a big office full of experienced people who do it for a living.

I think you're talking to one of them.

 

[fisicx]

...and it is practically not possible or extremely laborsome to get every image checked on a website that a developer builds and lets you believe it is all OK.

Unless the site comes with full details of each image and associated permissions assume you are not permitted to use the images (and any other resource on the site).

If for example they came with £10 or £50 then yes, not worth wasting time but 100s I will fight for it I think.

You will lose.

You should now realise why getting sites built on the cheap is a false economy.

 

[Mr D]

You spend time and effort creating an image.
Someone steals it and uses it.

Of course you want recompense.

Now the person using it has deleted it. But they happily had use of it for a time.

You now get to pay. Can be 750 now. Can be more in court. Face it you did not bother to make sure the images were indeed able to be used without payment. It's not an uncommon problem.

You could take it up with the person you paid to create the site but that's between you and them, nothing to do with what you are being chased for.

Pay up or negotiate and pay up or hold your ground and pay up possibly a few times higher amount including fees and costs.
Your choices are limited when using images stolen from others.

 

[Mr D]

Thank you for your advice.
I cannot understand that for a simple image they would ask £750+ and as I mentioned, the web developer had purchased this entire theme with the images on them and it is practically not possible or extremely laborsome to get every image checked on a website that a developer builds and lets you believe it is all OK. If for example they came with £10 or £50 then yes, not worth wasting time but 100s I will fight for it I think.

Yet still your responsibility to check.
Ideally when getting a website built you provide images you know can be used or get details of what images are used and permissions.
Saves all this hassle.

Now if you think you should only pay a smaller amount, negotiate.

 

[fisicx]

...and you start using swear words?

No they didn't.

You have been given the advice you sought: pay up and then check all the other images on your site. I suspect there may be more than just this one.

 

[paulears]

Copyright sadly ALWAYS brings out indignation. I'll try to diffuse with a related story.

I just got my PRS settlement - PRS, the people who like Getty Images get slagged off endlessly for doing what they are setup to do - provide creators with income.

I got one on the list dated back to 2017. That's a bit odd, so I clicked a bit, and discovered a track I had recorded a few years ago - Don't let the sun catch you crying - an instrumental slower version. I delved further and found the theatre. More Googling on that date and I discovered that the song had indeed been played as the intro to a music show. The band were Gerry and the Pacemakers. I got £6.96, and so did Gerry.

Three years ago, somebody used my 'product', and I got the money I was entitled to. Copyright is what it is - a commodity to be traded.

The image we're talking about here was visible to millions of people for a short period up until it was noticed. A day? A week or a month? How much is that worth until you removed it? I swap images on my website very frequently - but I still used them.

Your anger should be directed to the idiot you paid to design and build the website. It was their responsibility, and they fell short. Remember that every UK college or Uni teaching this stuff normally has a module or at least a few sessions on copyright. You used an OVERSEAS web developer? Did you really expect somebody (and please say it wasn't India - where their internet practices are so widely known to be shabby) to adhere to UK laws?

Seriously - I would recommend you run EVERY image on your site through a reverse image search to check that none of the others are stolen. Getty are VERY active, but take a while to spider everywhere. It's vital that your images are cleared and you keep the sources. Some images on people's websites even have the original owner's details in the metadata. No wonder they get caught!

The only exception I make on image clearance is where I buy a product from a manufacturer, and use their images of the product on my site. This is should formalise, but I don't because their images sell the products. I've never heard of a manufacturer taking action, so this is one I risk.

 

[obscure]

Basically, we had built a website using an overseas freelance web developer who had built this website for us which had all images included as part of our web development.

We were never made aware that the image on the website had a copy right as the web developer had told us that it was all part of the fee we paid to them and there is no way we can find him again as he would probably not even bother to answer since he is based on in another country.

Unfortunately you are responsible for your business and for making sure that the people you hire are abiding by the law. If they don't you are free to sue them to recover any money you lose as a result of their actions.

Equally the owner of the image is free to require payment for he infringement of their rights.

So, as soon as I received their letter I simply went on our website and deleted that image

But you have already use the image and the copyright owner is allowed to recover any money lost as a result (as well as costs and possibly other penalties).

 

[Accounting Controls]

Another stance is to go back to the web developer who used the picture on your site. It was he who chose this and he who should have either checked or he may well have paid for permissions to use it? Check with the developer who built your site. If he billed you for the website development then it is he who has the responsibility. You paid him for his expertise in developing your site.
Jane

 

[Mr D]

Another stance is to go back to the web developer who used the picture on your site. It was he who chose this and he who should have either checked or he may well have paid for permissions to use it? Check with the developer who built your site. If he billed you for the website development then it is he who has the responsibility. You paid him for his expertise in developing your site.
Jane

That would be a different issue from dealing with payment or non payment for the picture on this claim.
OP may not even find it worth chasing developer for lost money.

 

[johndon68]

He indicated in his original post that, in his opinion, chasing the developer wasn't an option:

"there is no way we can find him again as he would probably not even bother to answer since he is based on in another country."

John

 

[paulears]

Negotiating the price down is your only possible path - sorry.

 

[kulture]

Negotiating the price down is your only possible path - sorry.

Or just pay in full and spend your time chacking all your other images to avoid further similar invoices.

 

[billybob99]

I had this as well about 8 years ago.

Had several images, I know this because I copied them myself.

Had 2 emails from a very fancy named lawyer.

I replied saying my business don't even make what you earn in an hour, in year.

Never heard back.

I did change the images to something else just in case.

 

[Darren_Ssc]

I had this as well about 8 years ago.

Had several images, I know this because I copied them myself.

Had 2 emails from a very fancy named lawyer.

I replied saying my business don't even make what you earn in an hour, in year.

Never heard back.

I did change the images to something else just in case.

Remove images
Block archive.org in robots txt (this will result in total deletion over time but you can also request immediate removal).
Knock up a simple screenshot with another image swapped for original (ask a 9 year old with some basic html knowledge if you can't do it yourself) and send it back to them as 'proof' you never did nothing...
Then ignore everything, especially the odd sock puppet posts on forums that are planted to make it sound oh so scary if you don't pay up.

I appreciate some people are posting advice with good intentions but...really, come on?

There are sufficient resources at one's disposal theses days when it comes to sourcing rights free images but, then again, this doesn't always protect you...

Getty Images Sued Yet Again For Trying To License Public Domain Images

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...-trying-to-license-public-domain-images.shtml

 

[billybob99]

Then ignore everything, especially the odd sock puppet posts on forums that are planted to make it sound oh so scary if you don't pay up.

I think these people have good intentions, their brains can only really compute 2 options, pay or don't pay.

There is no middle ground.

I know not everyone here is onboard with the I'll have some of that mentality, especially mine.

I've copied pages of text from a competitor and they didn't notice for 6 months, until my site ranked 1st on Google, pushing them into 2nd place.

I got an email with something about the Millennium Dome Digital Act 2893 or some bollox and they'll be taking me to court and blah blah but at the very bottom, they gave me 14 days to change the text.

Was more than enough time to get a freelance copywriter in to spin some words.

Receiving a letter from a lawyer is not as scary as its made out to be.

 

[bodgitt&scarperLTD]

Love it. Nice one guys.
Getty et al are profiteering vultures.

 

[obscure]

Remove images
Block archive.org in robots txt (this will result in total deletion over time but you can also request immediate removal).
Knock up a simple screenshot with another image swapped for original (ask a 9 year old with some basic html knowledge if you can't do it yourself) and send it back to them as 'proof' you never did nothing....

I would like to describe exactly how bad this advise is but I promised myself that I wasn't going to swear this week.

You are seriously suggesting that, having committed copyright infringement the OP should now add fraud (and potentially perjury) by creating false evidence to avoid having to pay a fine or license fee?

The very first thing the lawyers did before emailing the OP was take copious screenshots of his website. They also probably contacted the copyright owner, who did the same thing. These lwayers are very experienced in people trying to get away with infringement. If the OPs site suddenly disappeared from archive.org they would simply contact/subpoena the site for a copy of the request which is ample proof

I appreciate some people are posting advice with good intentions but...really, come on?

Yea how bad can it be....
Photographer awarded £2,123 plus interest, - http://www.epuk.org/news/harlots-shame
Photographer awarded £20,000 - http://www.epuk.org/news/infringer-who-originally-offered-150-forced-to-pay-20000-in-settlement

Since the introduction of the IPEC (small claims court for IP) it is really cheap and easy to take legal action for infringement.... and the court are well aware of the stupid attempts infringers make to try and wriggle out of paying.

Getty Images Sued Yet Again For Trying To License Public Domain Images

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...-trying-to-license-public-domain-images.shtml

Actually it is perfectly legal to License public domain images because they are in the public domain - which means you can do whatever you want with them. You could use one for free in your business.... but equally you could set up a business selling them to dumb people who didn't realise they can get/use them for free. Oh yes and Carol Highsmith lost the case (and CixxFive won't win theirs).

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

Tell em to F££k off that's what I would do

Whats the matter with you lot these days

 

[fisicx]

Tell em to F££k off that's what I would do

Whats the matter with you lot these days

I can scrape everything off your site and create my own. Change the contact details and wait for the enquiries. When you complain I can just tell you to feck off.

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

I can scrape everything off your site and create my own. Change the contact details and wait for the enquiries. When you complain I can just tell you to feck off.

Dont you make me come around there and I think you told me to feck off once already

 

[paulears]

Why is it shoplifters are the scum of the earth, yet copyright theft is perfectly OK? I just don't get it, but there again, I suppose some people believe anything that isn't an actual physical item should be pinchable?

 

[billybob99]

Why is it shoplifters are the scum of the earth, yet copyright theft is perfectly OK? I just don't get it, but there again, I suppose some people believe anything that isn't an actual physical item should be pinchable?

A bit like robbing a bank the traditional way with a banana and getaway car is just old school vs sitting in your bedroom with fellow cyber crims and shifting the cash from one account to another.

Non-physical things just feel a bit different, hardly any emotion or remorse.

Have to move with the times - and I know its gonna be very hard for the thumbs up army on here but that's just life.

 

[Mark T Jones]

Why is it shoplifters are the scum of the earth, yet copyright theft is perfectly OK? I just don't get it, but there again, I suppose some people believe anything that isn't an actual physical item should be pinchable?

Principles are funny things. And often quite fluid.

 

[billybob99]

Principles are funny things. And often quite fluid.

Especially when the gov doesn't have any.

 

[Paul Norman]

The legal realities are that if, indeed, these people do own the copyright to the image, and if they do, indeed, want to pursue it in law, they will most probably win.

Removing the image is the correct first step.

Trying to negotiate, as suggested above, is obviously worthwhile - as is checking they really do have the copyright.

And remember, some all website companies are not equal, and some do use images where there are copyright infringements.

But I don't recommend just ignoring it until you have done a few checks. You are allowed to do those - and even to ask them to prove the copyright.

 

[The Byre]

Don't bother folks!

Our brave OP has gone off in a huff when he didn't hear what he wanted to hear. Stealing is after all just a game and we should not be penalised when we get caught!

Clinton I think you are sick!
How dare you talk to people like this? How did you even make it on this forum?
Genuine businesses come on the forum to seek advice and you start using swear words?
I truly think you need to see a specialist.

Brilliant - but unbalanced!

 

[Financial-Modeller]

Hi All
Any advice on this please? I received a letter from Burness Paull today alleging that they had sent another letter previously asking us to pay a settlement fee of over £750 for an image on our website.
Basically, we had built a website using an overseas freelance web developer who had built this website for us which had all images included as part of our web development.

We were never made aware that the image on the website had a copy right as the web developer had told us that it was all part of the fee we paid to them and there is no way we can find him again as he would probably not even bother to answer since he is based on in another country.

So, as soon as I received their letter I simply went on our website and deleted that image and then replied to them stating the fact that our website was built by a freelancer and he had charged us for the entire website and I also said to them that we have now deleted the image.

However, I am not sure what next because Burness Paull has threatened to take legal action alleging we did not answer to their first letter which is a nonsense as we had never received a previous letter.

Furthermore, from my point of view, as soon as they told us that their client PicRights own the copy right, we simply deleted the image from our website.

Any advice on this as there is no way I will pay a single penny and I believe we all deserve the right to be given the opportunity to do the right thing which is to delete the image or pay for it and in this case we simply deleted that image.

Any advice on this please?

The infringement is binary and in this case proven, so it comes down to whether you think you can successfully argue that the value derived from that infringement is lower than they can.

 

[Financial-Modeller]

...there is no way we can find him again as he would probably not even bother to answer since he is based on in another country...

This is rubbish!

If you send him an email asking if they would like to build another website for your next venture and will get an immediate reply!

This sounds like you are trying to make a feeble excuse for paying for web development without agreeing terms. If you had agreed terms it would be much more likely that you could identify which of you was at fault and pass any costs awarded against you to the developer.

 

[WeddingsInWales]

I can see this is a problem using overseas freelancers whom you do not have full contact details for or truly know, who may promise what you want to hear, but then cannot 'deliver'. I had a similar problem in the days before I designed my own websites when a former hotel owner who had done well with his own self-created hotel website, agreed to design my first hotel website. By today's standards it was very amateurish and as I did not have enough of my own pics back then, he took some pics off the internet. A coupleof years later I got a demand for £500 or so for some photo he had stuck on the website that belonged to someone else. I think they asked for a bit more orginally but our legal chap verified it was a genuine claim, and negotiated it down to about £500 which we duly paid. We told the website developer and he deducted the £500 from his fees. His fault, he paid us, but as it was our website, it was our responsibility to pay the copyright owner. Luckily we knew the website designer and he was still working for us, so it was simple enough to sort out between us.

It wasn't even a pic we needed, it had no value to us, no value to the site, and like the original poster, we thought someone was trying it on at first. But it still cost us £500 and this was 15 years ago. Now of course we have sufficient of our own images and of course, we always credit our wedding photographers when we (very liberally) use their photos. This suits them fine as they then get business from our Couples for their weddings. But the copyright thing, yes, you do have to take it seriously, it is just one of those things that if you get wrong, can cost you a pretty penny.

 

[DavidWH]

Same story as the guy we took to court, after his overseas web designer used a photo from our website on theirs, and didn't take it down, buried his head in the sand.


It landed him a CCJ of over £1300

 

[obscure]

so it comes down to whether you think you can successfully argue that the value derived from that infringement is lower than they can.

The value derived from the infringement is generally irrelevant. While a copyright owner can make a request for actual profits earned by the infringer the fact that no money was earned won't reduce the amount of a normal award.

Copyright infringement is about the fact that you have denied the copyright holder their right to copy... or edit or license. You have denied them the money they would have earned if they had licensed the image as well as additional rights such as the right of attribution, the right/revenue from an exclusive license (which they can no longer grant as the image has been used). Just because the infringer was incapable of properly using the copyright work to generate income doesn't lessen the damage caused to the copyright holder.

I remember the classic case a while back where an internet marketing agency and their client were sued for infringement and lost and then publicly complained saying the the image (they selected) was rubbish and that no one read the blog post it was attached to.

 

[Ian J]

Why is it shoplifters are the scum of the earth, yet copyright theft is perfectly OK? I just don't get it,

Shoplifting is a deliberate act to deprive someone of something that is rightfully theirs whilst the copyright theft as laid out in the opening post was something that was done in all innocence with no intention on behalf of the thread starter to deprive anyone of anything.

It's all well and good calling the OP an idiot and lousy businessman and all the other things that he has been labelled here but when I started out on my own many years ago I knew nothing about copyright theft and it never occurred to me that anyone who I had paid to produce me a website would have included anything in it that might land me in trouble in the future.

I wonder how many of the people on their high horses have installed software without paying for it or ripped CDs or DVDs that contravened copyright or indeed any other contravention of copyright in the entertainment or software industries.