Copyright Claims

This is a warning which will probably not affect most people, but I wanted to put it out their in case anyone loses money through it.

On public forums, community websites, Facebook, Instagram etc, people often post pictures which they have downloaded from the internet. Quite often nobody thinks about copyright issues when doing this. However, there are organisations that actively search for evidence of this and then demand money from individuals, organisations, companies for copyright infringement. One example of such a company is PicRights http://www.picrights.com/ but there are others.

They often target small community organisations, charities, non-commercial websites, forums etc and issue legalistic documentation demanding payment. The amounts are often affordable (a few hundred pounds) so that the targeted organisations are discouraged from using their insurance to defend claims. The law is on their side as we are all subject to copyright legislation, whether we like it or not. Web designers are particularly at risk since they may be sent images to put on a website, without knowing who owns the copyright for them.

I often see pictures on here that have obviously been downloaded from the internet. The chasing companies use the Image Search facility on the internet in an automated way, to find all occurrences of an image that they own. If they find one on someone else's website, they then demand money from them for infringing copyright. This could leave a poster on here, or the administrators of the site, with a financial penalty. There's simply nothing you can do about it apart from pay up.

Here's an actual example https://www.extortionletterinfo.com...ter-forum/extortion-letter-from-picrights-uk/.

Anyone else had any experience of this?

 

Definitely something to be mindful of. I know I'd be pissed off if one of my shots was used on a random site without my permission. Saying that, it seems this company is acting as an intermediary for rights holders and will no doubt make a healthy profit from people responding.

I bet in 99.9% of cases where people ignore it they do not bring action. I would not want to fall into that 0.1% though. I'd fancy anyone's chances in court if they posted something on here such as a scenic image of a city or something - would be fairly easy to prove that the infringing post wasn't intended to make any financial gain etc. but it may be more problematic if the image was used in a negative way or altered somewhat? Posting images to a business website however is a different kettle of fish and asking for trouble.

Best to carefully study sites offering free stock images. It doesn't cost much to buy images from shutterstock/ istock etc. and give photographers the credit they deserve, though.

 

Sounds very much like the 'legal letters' you got for file sharing a few years ago.

Hamster bedding.

 

I agree to a certain extent but if someone posts to a business page and the rights holder has the funds to defend the infringement I wouldn't be surprised if they pursue it.

I'd have thought most of their income is from people caving to letters, though.

 

I had a bit of an issue with Kanye West.

 

What with, sample clearing?

 

Used to post on a board that fell foul of the above situation . It ended up shutting down then reformed on a new domain with only links and your own pictures allowed .

 

It really isn't. These companies' sole means of income is pursuing these claims. That's all they are, they're a business set-up to extract money from copyright claims. They don't let it go, that's what they do.

 

You could say the same for the businesses who used to send out infringement demands to filesharers. Friends of mine received them and ignored them, never heard anything back. I think they will pursue some but surely the exception rather than rule.

As I've said previously a lot of people will pay up without court action so it will viable for them to employ this strategy.

 

This is some ********. Google are the ones that provide images people search for, your computer/phone/tablet gives you an option to save photos.. People are being blamed and punished simply for using features that are available to them.

 

I'm afraid it's not ********, it's real. People are frightened into paying up. I just wanted to prevent anyone on here (including @Gally) from falling foul of it.

 

But they cant actually sue you.

Only the owner of the copyright can or appoint someone to undertake this on their behalf..

Its a giant fishing exercise.

 

That's exactly what's happening...

 

Not at all. People are being blamed for using images without permission. If you didn't take the image and it is not specifically stated that you have permission for use, you don't have permission. It really is as simple as that.

Google is not providing any images, merely indexing and directing to images on other websites.
It's a small but important clarification.

My phone provides me the ability to take a photo of anything, you can still be punished for using that camera illegally...

 

Remember as well, even though you took the photo, legally you need permission of the people in the photo (the subject(s)) to actually use it for anything - including post it online

Thats why so many reality shows have pixelated people in the background - they didn't have the release from the person.

 

Not necessarily. It’s actually not illegal, it’s just easier to ask then blur than to get 1,000 law suits.

If it was illegal to distribute photos of people, paparazzi wouldn’t exist. No matter who the subjects are, the copyright is the sole property of the photographer.

 

That's what's happening DT.

 

These aren't photographs where the copyright is owned by an individual. Stock image companies who own the copyright of millions of images who have employed these companies to track infringements on their copyright. It isn't a fishing exercise, it's real. The law is on their side because it is infringement on their copyright. The only slightly grey area here is that these companies are unscrupulous and go after individuals, charities, anyone. Where as in the past the owner of the copyright might have looked at each case individually and not set out to sue those not intending to profit from the images, merely asking them to desist from using them, these new companies really don't care and pursue the case to conclusion, which is always that they win and afforded damages.

 

The reupload of the magazine cover could potentially land you in hot water.

The taking of a photo on your phone would more than likely be ok. Most concerts have a policy of no SLR cameras unless prior consent. I've never seen any tickets that say all photography prohibited but accept that some recent tours of standup shows for example have provided pouches to lock away phones.

No issues with taking selfie of Kylie in public place. You can film or photograph whoever you want in a public place, common misconception that you can't. If you were filming or photographing children then some questions might be asked. If you want to use shots of people for stock imagery they will request model release forms but other than that you can snap away.