Copyright infringement

[BusyCee]

Oh bugger. I teach a course for pregnant women. I started last year so I'm a new business and small. I have a website and FB page. I've had about 5 clients since I started 12 months ago.

In May 2014 I re-posted on my blog feed an Internet meme featuring a famous Hollywood actor and some words. Today I got an email showing a screen grab of the image on my website and saying I had infringed copyright by showing the image in my website without a license. I've been instructed to remove the image immediately (which I have) and to pay a settlement fee of £342.

Obviously I have infringed copyright, albeit without malice. Is there anyway out of paying the settlement fee? I'm such a small business I'll struggle to pay it - it's far more than my profit from last year.

Is there an effective negotiating tactic I could use?

How do I know they're who they say they are and this isn't a scam? They are August Image Licensing, Bayham St London.

Thanks in advance

Probably once a month for clients I send out cease and desist letters . In most cases my clients are happy that the material is taken down rather than insisting the fee is paid.

Perhaps try writing back along the lines of "I have removed the material to which you refer, although I do not agree I have breached any rights". They may well leave it at that.

In theory they can choose whether to sue for the royalty they would have charged for use of their work or to seize the profits (and if they sue they can also recover lawyer costs if the claim is over £10k and court fees in any event).

Where is a meme? Did you copy words or music or did you just give a link?

A meme is an Internet trend - in this case a still image (subject to copyright) and copy overlaid onto the image (generated by some wag). It's usually a cat (grumpy cat) or a famous person (Sad Keanu). I copied the pic from Facebook and pasted it into my blog. The tone of the image/copy was positive and sympathetic to the famous actor in question, not unpleasant, malicious or unkind.

FWIW, it was used in a positive way, supportive of pregnant women, to give them confidence, rather than trolling or commercial. Although I appreciate that will probably cut no ice.

Am now quietly shitting myself. But will hope there's some latitude and acknowledgement of scale (I have about 10 visitors to my site per quarter!)

It's almost certainly a scam. How do they suggest you should send them the money? And what's the full address - is it 101 Bayham St?

It is indeed 101 Bayham st - how did you know?

I've just spoken to them and they are definitely pursuing me. I talked a bit about proportionality - the low traffic volume to my site, and the fact that I teach barely 5 couples a year for low profit income and that I've removed the image immediately - but they aren't budging On the amount. They say they want to work with me to solve it amicably, but from their point of view the image was used and they want paying...

Any thoughts on how I could negotiate with them to reduce the amount obviously I'd rather pay nothing but got myself into this mess albeit inadvertently and so have to get myself out

It's the same address as an outfit called Getty Images who are infamous for this kind of thing. Write to them (by post), tell them that you have removed the image in question but to pursue their claim you will need proof that they actually hold the copyright for the image in question.

There's some good advice here plus googling for "getty image extortion" will get you lots of suggestions for how to deal with this.

Scam scum

Just loathsome - if you google there's loads of stories about them

Sigh. Thank you, All.

This is totally off topic, but couldn't have come at a worse time; we've just been ripped off by some builders and having left our house in v early Jan for a building project that was supposed to take 6wks, a very close and much loved relative has just died; we still aren't home and are sofa surfing with 2 DCs round family and friends; my poor DCs are suffering; I'm pregnant; we're due to get married this summer. Feeling just a touch persecuted...

Yes, do they own the photo? Is that what they're saying they have copyright for? Or copyright for the whole meme? If you reposted it did you have a link to the original source?

I too would say you've removed it and let them make the next move

I highly doubt it's worth their while taking you to court where the lawyer and preparation is going to cost a fortune!

By the way it is not a scam if you are a photographer and people steal your work and don't pay you which is what happens to Getty Images all the time - a very reputable company. It is no different from smashing and window and stealing cash.

In my view if you just say you have taken down the material and that is the end of the matter they will not sue you. If you do you can settle at that point. Getty Images rightly sue in some cases and that is very wise of them -p if you let people steal your stuff you are an utter mug. However they pick and choose carefully as it's expensive to sue and I would assume here it is unlikely the owner of the copyright would issue a court claim. So just call their bluff, perhaps don't even reply any more. There is no legal obligation on you to reply to their letter. The risk is they sue and also claim their court fee from you but I doubt they will unless you would be a good case example. Owners of rights find suing a leading police man or head master a good deterrent to others so might well sue someone like that but not someone else.

Getty are the world's largest photo agency. They hold (either as owner or licensor) millions of photographic assets and are duty bound under the terms of their licences to protect the rights, and apart from that, their entire business is built on licensing copyright. you've taken their asset and are using it to promote your own business for free - to those who say it's a scam / extortion, you don't understand the licensing business.

In terms of the settlement fee - how is that calculated? if it's the annual licence charge for that image (you've been using it a year unlicensed) - then that's actually fair, but it seems high - depends rather on what the image is and who the photographer / owner is. If you can give them information / proof of your minimal web traffic that should also help - it's nominal use but it's still unauthorised use.
God forbid this ended up in court, they'd be awarded their loss - a reasonable licence fee. That's what you need to establish. Given their market dominance, i'm not entirely sure how you work out what that reasonable licence fee is for one year / online only / minimal use (if your website is by some miracle geo blocked so that it's only UK accessible, then that's a very material factor...)

It's NOT a scam. If they own the copyright in the image, you have breached it by putting it on the web.

But it's unlikely they will waste their money pursuing you through the courts for what TO THEM is such a small sum. Reply, stating you have immediately taken down the image.

I seem to recall a similar dispute where a small cafe near us called a cake they made "hokey-pokey", a term that had been unbeknownst to them recently trademarked by an online chocolate retailer who were aggressive in pursuing their rights. Threatened with bad publicity (David and Goliath, etc) they settled on a much smaller sum than they had originally demanded.

I'll see if I can find the details.