Copyright infringement notice

[wheel man]

Hi,

Does anyone have an experience of copyright infringement notices sent from companies outside of the UK (USA)? There was one small category image on our website which apparently infringed their copyright. This was a genuine oversight and the image was removed immediately. I think I might have made a mistake by replying to the email to inform them that the image had been taken down.

Although the company is based in the USA, the infringement notice email came from their UK office. They are asking for a certain amount of money for 'amicable resolution'.

Any advice would be appreciated.

Thank you.

 

[DontAsk]

I would tell them to whistle for it. You took down the infringing image as soon as you were notified.

Ask yourself is the amount worth their while suing you, with no guarantee of success?

 

[Paul Kelly ICHYB]

Do as mentioned, but:

• Work out how that image was used
• check all other images.

 

[DontAsk]

This case https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d6c71e76-9dae-4c03-9980-391ea85d5174 is interesting BUT involved a flagrant breach and 21 images. The sum awarded for the 21 images was £300

The real question is did you profit from using the image?

Did the owner lose out? If you don't market or sell in their territory I doubt that very much.

 

[ctrlbrk]

@wheel man there are a few threads on here about this topic.

If you look them up they may help giving you a fuller picture.

 

[wheel man]

I would tell them to whistle for it. You took down the infringing image as soon as you were notified.

Ask yourself is the amount worth their while suing you, with no guarantee of success?

Thank you for taking the time to reply. That's pretty much what I'm starting to think.

 

[wheel man]

Do as mentioned, but:

• Work out how that image was used
• check all other images.

Thank you. It was only used in one vehicle category. I've removed all category images for now whilst I review things.

 

[wheel man]

This case https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d6c71e76-9dae-4c03-9980-391ea85d5174 is interesting BUT involved a flagrant breach and 21 images. The sum awarded for the 21 images was £300

The real question is did you profit from using the image?

Did the owner lose out? If you don't market or sell in their territory I doubt that very much.

Ironically, we didn't sell anything from the category that the image was used in, so no, we certainly didn't profit from using the image.

 

[DontAsk]

Ironically, we didn't sell anything from the category that the image was used in, so no, we certainly didn't profit from using the image.

If you want to continue corresponding, ask them for a breakdown of the sum they are requesting and proof that they suffered a loss due to your infringement. Point out that you gained no benefit in the time the image was up.

If you want to negotiate, offer them 50p as a token gesture

 

[ctrlbrk]

Ironically, we didn't sell anything from the category that the image was used in, so no, we certainly didn't profit from using the image.

@wheel man out of interest. Are you:

1. an LTD company
2. in profit

I ask because I suspect these are copyright trolls that would not bother if the details of a business are not public and they are not profitable.

If yes to both, what they are probably doing is trying to exploit you for an easy buck.

 

[wheel man]

@wheel man out of interest. Are you:

1. an LTD company
2. in profit

I ask because I suspect these are copyright trolls that would not bother if the details of a business are not public and they are not profitable.

If yes to both, what they are probably doing is trying to exploit you for an easy buck.

It's yes to both. Does it make any difference if it was a stock image sourced through Google images and they are saying it was their intellectual property?

 

[fisicx]

What do you mean ‘sourced through Google images’?

If it’s a stock image it should have been purchased from a site selling such stock images or from a Creative Commons site.

Have you determined the letter came from the copyright holder?

 

[ctrlbrk]

It's yes to both. Does it make any difference if it was a stock image sourced through Google images and they are saying it was their intellectual property?

Thanks for confirming.

As for whether it makes a difference, I don't know.

Google images likely crawls all sorts of places to show you the results. The image you used could be owned by anyone.

It is not unheard of that some copyright trolls actually don't even have a client who complained.

 

[wheel man]

What do you mean ‘sourced through Google images’?

If it’s a stock image it should have been purchased from a site selling such stock images or from a Creative Commons site.

Have you determined the letter came from the copyright holder?

I searched for a free image of the vehicle we needed. I wasn't aware there was a copyright as I understood it was a free image. I've never heard of a Creative Commons site.

I think the letter has come from the copyright holder. The amount of money they are asking for seems a little bit excessive to me.

 

[DontAsk]

It is not unheard of that some copyright trolls actually don't even have a client who complained.

Nor any rights to the image at all.

 

[ctrlbrk]

I've never heard of a Creative Commons site.

Is the image you used protected under Creative Commons?

If so, care to share the Creative Commons version it is protected under ??

 

[wheel man]

Is the image you used protected under Creative Commons?

If so, care to share the Creative Commons version it is protected under ??

As I said, I'm not familiar with Creative Commons.

 

[fisicx]

I searched for a free image of the vehicle we needed. I wasn't aware there was a copyright as I understood it was a free image.

Oops. Just because an image is on Google doesn't mean it's free or can be used without permission.

I think the letter has come from the copyright holder. The amount of money they are asking for seems a little bit excessive to me.

Might be excessive to you but it's not your image and you have no idea about provenance. It could have been part of a million pound marketing scheme.

 

[DontAsk]

Might be excessive to you but it's not your image and you have no idea about provenance. It could have been part of a million pound marketing scheme.

That's largely irrelevant unless the rights holder can demonstrate loss due to the infringement.

 

[ctrlbrk]

As I said, I'm not familiar with Creative Commons.

If you have access to the original image (e.g. if it is on Wikipedia), then you should be able to retrieve the specific CC version it is licensed under.

The more details you have, the more leverage you can have IMO.

 

[wheel man]

Oops. Just because an image is on Google doesn't mean it's free or can be used without permission.

Might be excessive to you but it's not your image and you have no idea about provenance. It could have been part of a million pound marketing scheme.

It turns out it was from a stock image website, so I doubt it was part for a million pound marketing scheme.

 

[fisicx]

It turns out it was from a stock image website, so I doubt it was part for a million pound marketing scheme.

In which case you just need to show your receipt and it’s all good.

 

[ctrlbrk]

It turns out it was from a stock image website, so I doubt it was part for a million pound marketing scheme.

Stock image websites can be aggressive in their approach to copyright.

Getty is notorious for litigating, and so are others.

@fisicx seems to imply you purchased the image prior to use, but you didn't did you. You thought it was free, didn't you?

 

[fisicx]

If they didn’t pay and it is someone like Getty they will persue and won’t give up.

There was a procedure posted by now lapsed member that would mitigate the costs. I’ll try and find it. But @wheel man the chances are you will have to pay if you used the image without permission.

 

[cjd]

What is the name of company?

If you can find the image again, find what it costs to use it.

 

[Ozzy]

I get at least one of these notices every week, and I ignore them.

I used to research the image and look into its use and each time found it was a copyright troll, because every image I checked had been purchased from ShutterStock or used under Crown Licence. I knew that anyway, I buy the images, but I still used to check.

Now these emails just get instantly deleted so if a legitimate one was to ever turn up, unlikely, they'll need to knock on my door and serve court notice before I'll see it.

 

[cjd]

We got one for an image on a blog from years ago - long forgotten.

They were demanding something of the order of £2,500 for licensing and costs. It was still for sale for £10. So we offered them £10 for the image plus £5 for their trouble. We got a snotty demand back which we ignored and we never heard from them again.

If you google the name of the company, you'll find whether they're the usual scammers or somebody serious like Getty.

 

[wheel man]

Stock image websites can be aggressive in their approach to copyright.

Getty is notorious for litigating, and so are others.

@fisicx seems to imply you purchased the image prior to use, but you didn't did you. You thought it was free, didn't you?

That's correct @ctrlbrk I didn't purchase the image prior to use because I thought it was free.

 

[wheel man]

What is the name of company?

If you can find the image again, find what it costs to use it.

@cjd the company trades as izmostock.

 

[wheel man]

I get at least one of these notices every week, and I ignore them.

I used to research the image and look into its use and each time found it was a copyright troll, because every image I checked had been purchased from ShutterStock or used under Crown Licence. I knew that anyway, I buy the images, but I still used to check.

Now these emails just get instantly deleted so if a legitimate one was to ever turn up, unlikely, they'll need to knock on my door and serve court notice before I'll see it.

Thanks @Ozzy.

 

[ctrlbrk]

@cjd the company trades as izmostock.

Found a case they brought which was partially dismissed.

Izmo, Inc. v. Roadster, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-06092-NC | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Izmo, Inc. v. Roadster, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-06092-NC, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

web.archive.org

https://media.taftlaw.com/taft/files/fileuploads/5d56bbbafac2e800201dd6f2/A%20District%20Court%20Split%20On%20Curing%20Copyright%20Timing%20Defects.pdf

 

[fisicx]

@cjd the company trades as izmostock.

Who has send the copyright infringement letter?

Did you see this (on the izmostock site):

"All documents, webpages, photographs and images, logos etc are the property of the izmostock or its respective business partners or its respective business associates. Permission is required to copy, download or use any text, photographs or image files."

If you just downloaded the images without permission you may need to grovel and/or pay the fine.

 

[ctrlbrk]

If you just downloaded the images without permission you may need to grovel and/or pay the fine.

Yes but it comes down to whether the fine is reasonable or not.

If I used an image without permission, never made any money because of it, the image costs £20 and the fine is £50-200 I might consider it.

But the fine is £3,000, then it's unreasonable to pay.

@wheel man do some research, both on this site and on Google. I remember cases of people who either ignored the copyright claimants or curbed the fine significantly.

Google something like "image copyright troll".

 

[fisicx]

Agree. We don’t know what @wheel man is being asked to pay.

 

[DontAsk]

@cjd the company trades as izmostock.

You say you found the image through Google images, but what was the URL you actually downloaded from? Did you just save the image from the search results or did you click through to another site?

Is this the company you got the image from, or the company demanding payment, or both?

Is the image actually on their site?

 

[cjd]

@cjd the company trades as izmostock.

They look legit

izmostock — Digital Media Licensing Association (DMLA)

www.digitalmedialicensing.org

If you've told them you've taken it down - and you have - you'll just have to hope they go away.

 

[wheel man]

You say you found the image through Google images, but what was the URL you actually downloaded from? Did you just save the image from the search results or did you click through to another site?

Is this the company you got the image from, or the company demanding payment, or both?

Is the image actually on their site?

From memory, I saved the image directly through Google images. I seem to remember clicking on the image and I think it was from a leasing company. It definitely wasn't from the stock image website - I didn't know they existed until last Thursday.

They certainly there wasn't any watermarks or trademarks on the image.

The filename they referred to in the cease and desist letter doesn't actually match the filename on their website. I'm not sure if that makes a difference.

 

[fisicx]

File names can be changed.

The problem you have is using an image without permission. The leasing company had permission, you didn’t.

How much money are they demanding from you in compensation?

 

[DontAsk]

File names can be changed.

It's still a point to dispute.

The leasing company had permission, you didn’t.

How do you know that?

 

[fisicx]

It's still a point to dispute.

Not really. It's the image that is in dispute not what you call it.

How do you know that?

True. But even if they didn't it still doesn't give @wheel man permission to use the image.