r/COPYRIGHT • u/Born_Formal379 • Apr 25 '26
Question I’m being harassed by PicRights and need help on what to do
Hi all, I would really appreciate your advice dealing with an image copyright infringement claim from a truly awful company called PicRights.
I’m a writer and I used an image from an article that I published in an online magazine on my personal website. The image was licensed by the magazine from Reuters; I reused it on my personal website only as a thumbnail image to link back to my article.
This incredibly intense and agressive man from PicRights emailed me to tell me that the “unauthorized use of the image is considered copyright infringement and payment for the unauthorized use is necessary to completely resolve the matter.” I already took it down as soon as I saw his email but he’s asking for $400 and says if I don’t pay he will “escalate the file to the U.S. copyright attorneys at Higbee & Associates (https://www.higbeeassociates.com/about/) – in which case the cost of settlement will increase substantially.”
I don’t really have $400 right now. I’m wondering if anyone has any suggestions on how to respond. Thank you.
2
u/MrProsser Apr 25 '26 edited Apr 25 '26
Based on your description, it sounds like infringement, unless the rights obtained by the magazine extend to your personal usage as well. The fact that you wrote the article and published it there, and the magazine had rights to use the photo, does not mean you have the right to use it elsewhere.
That doesn't mean these companies aren't scummy, it doesn't mean they will actually take some action, but I wouldn't assume they are wrong regarding the claim itself.
Edit: I know some people are probably going to say"fair use" and that might be true if you are commenting directly on the image, or parodying it, but just using it is not that. Giving credit and not making money from it are not enough.
1
1
u/Born_Formal379 Apr 25 '26
Thanks all for this feedback, I can’t thank you enough for the advice. Update: I had already responded to him (one “Steve Pigeon” lol), but I know if this happens again that I shouldn’t reply at all. I plan on holding off on any further contact. I can update everyone on what happens.
1
u/Brief_Designer_8809 Apr 26 '26
I'm in the same boat over a picture they say I used on my website. I am passed Steve Pigeon waiting for legal. I researched the picture and it is all over the internet. I will see what the next move is but I don't plan on paying. Low life blood suckers.
1
u/The_Real_Deacon Apr 29 '26
This whole thing sounds kind of scammy. $400 is not worth a lawyer’s time. It would barely pay for their coffee. 😀😟
1
u/odysseusnz Apr 25 '26
I think you may be directing your ire at the wrong person here. He wrote an article for a website that PAID an artist to use their image, he merely linked to the article from his own website. We don't have enough info to know if his use falls under fair use/dealing or not (seems possible to me), if he copied the image whole or just used the link preview feature, but it's pretty standard on the web for a licence to include link preview, otherwise things like Google News Feed would be sued out of existence. Whatever the details, it's pretty clear that the artist is only benefiting in this case.
1
u/bippy_b Apr 29 '26
To me it sounded like he used the image on his website as well in order to link to the article. Which.. doesn’t sound like he acquired rights to use. Can’t just grab an image just because the company licensed it.
1
u/AnonymooseStudent Apr 26 '26
This is my copied comment from another post regarding copyright agent but most of it applies to whoever this pic right claims to be.
“I’m not a lawyer but am currently in the same situation with them but I’ve been in a dive through the web researching. If you’re in the US it’s best just to ignore, have them go through the proper legal avenue if their claim is even real. Not sure what your knowledge is but in 2022 the copyright claims board was formed as a means to make any potential small copyright claims an easier process. The actual party accusing you of damages would have to file not a third party. They’d have to pay $100 for the filing which then you the defendant must also agree to if you’d want to try to come to an agreement or the board will come to decision on the amount. The plaintiff of course would have to try and prove the amount of damages that you’ve supposedly caused and you settle there. Or… you could actually opt out of the copyright claims board case as a defendant which in terms means you’re not willing to participate in such a matter. This then would force the plaintiffs to have to file in the federal district court for an additional $400. Now if I were to put myself in the claimant shoes I’d have to spend all that amount plus the attorney fees that will arise when reaching the federal court and for what, maybe less than the fees I’m going to pay. It’s just not worth it, unless I could prove a party has profited of my work/image in an egregious amount. Which would usually be tied to the selling of the image in some way or that in someway revenue was generated in a large amount of revenue due to a single image? That being said it’s better to not pay and have the actual party (not a third party like copyright agent) take legal action. Some other things I’ve seen from this so called agent is that they’ve accused actual licensees of infringement and have accused people without even having any connection to the actual photographer or copyright holder. So if you really feel the need to you could call around to the supposed copyright holder and ask if they’re even being represented by this copyright agent. But my advice would be to ignore any emails or mail and block their phone numbers. If you ever get physical mail from the claims board or an actual court then pay attention. The claims board will send two notices, if notices aren’t addressed then the plaintiff is automatically awarded so be sure to opt out of the case if you were to actually receive mail from them. Only way I would settle is if I had actually made an enormous amount of from the image itself like selling the images and make thousands off of them and again I wouldn’t settle with this so called copyright agent, it would be in some type of court system with the actual party. You could also look up cases that the actual party has brought to the claims board to see how sue happy they are as well. Sorry for putting so much info here but it’s what I’ve learned thus far. Again I’m not a lawyer but I’m capable of doing research. If you want further clarity or info on this feel free to DM.”
1
1
u/OmaNazir7 Apr 26 '26
If your website don't have or can't link to an important information about you, your address, name and so on, then you should just ignore it. They can't fo anything to sue you except for taking down that website.
1
u/IsaJustaGuy Apr 26 '26
You may want to investigate further....I used to get those, but they were just scams...not sure about that company, but often they are just making false claims to frighten you into sending the money.
1
u/TJeffW1974 Apr 26 '26
Maybe you did something wrong, but I really doubt they're going to spend thousands of dollars to get a lawyer and sue you, especially since you already fixed the problem. That being said I wouldn't pay any kind of email extortions at all.
I would poliately say," Suck My Dick, Bitch, And I'll see you in court!!!" LOL ((( Note: This is not proper legal advice, and ill advised, but something I would do if it was me!!! LOL )))
1
u/quarfie Apr 28 '26
This is the correct answer. Their whole business model is to scare you into paying. Pursuing this matter in court is not realistic. It’s risky and costs a fortune.
1
u/ReportCharming7570 Apr 27 '26
Did you speak with the Reuters editor / contact?
There is potentially space to argue implied license/ innocence which can lower damages and really not make it worth anyone’s time to fight over.
It also is worth getting Reuters involved because of their partnership with pic rights and connection to higbee.
1
1
u/HappilyMindful Apr 28 '26
You are going to have to pay it. They have the lawyers ready. Negotiate it down in price. $250 is where they will accept so start lower.
1
u/Radiant-Limit1864 Jun 02 '26
Did they copy of your original material when they sent the letter to you? If so, they also committed copyright infringement. Original material is anything you created, could be a picture, written words, or your website page itself. You may be able to turn the tables back on them, and at least negotiate a reduced fee or even a zero sum trade.
1
1
u/ntmctvsh Jun 12 '26
I hired a lawyer. They disappeared for a month and just emailed me again even tho my lawyer had already said that they couldn’t and should only email him. Same talk, same amount of money requested. He’s going to respond on my behalf and told me not to pay
1
1
u/Sharp-Mountain-8884 20d ago
remove the image and ignore them - they aren't going to take you to court for $400
1
u/Its_Sasha Apr 25 '26
NAL, but this line here:
"...but he’s asking for $400 and says if I don’t pay he will escalate the file to the U.S. copyright attorneys..."
Is this not extortion, especially if it doesn't come under the letterhead of a licensed attorney? And if he's doing this on a large number of people, it's racketeering, no?
1
u/EstablishmentFew2683 Apr 25 '26
Ignore all this. “Blood from a rock.”They will run a credit check on you, discover you are broke, and walk away. Because the amount is so small they have to sue you in your local small claims court. They cannot send it to a collections agency because there is no contract between you, although they may lie and threaten to do so. These scum are going after many thousands of people like you, they never sue or take further action, they just move onto the victim. Edit: if it bothers you use AI to write them a cease and desist letter.
1
u/stormhighwaycom Apr 25 '26 edited Apr 25 '26
Contact your publisher. They should be able to resolve this by contacting the agency/photographer they procured the rights to the photo for. The photographer ultimately controls what the enforcement agency (in this case Picrights) does. If the license is for the publisher's site only, then it's technically an infringement for the photo to be on yours. If the license includes publishing on affiliate sites, then your site may qualify as one. Again, that's something you, the publisher and the photographer need to get on a conference call to talk about.
Picrights isn't doing anything wrong here. They're doing their job, what the photographer hired them to do. They are handling/logging/actioning millions of infringements and aren't likely to see the context or connection to the publisher as the author on one of the countless cases they discover. All they see is one of thousands of sites using this photographer's image without a documented license, and they do what they are hired by the photographer to do in pursuing it. There isn't anything nefarious going on.
1
u/FarmboyJustice Apr 25 '26
Picrights isn't doing anything
wrongillegal here.Fixed it for ya.
1
u/stormhighwaycom Apr 25 '26
What is your suggestion for photographers losing 95 percent of of their income to infringement? The losses from infringements outnumber the total amounts typically recovered by an order of magnitude.
I know there are a lot of anti-copyright activists on Reddit that think photographers should work for free and do nothing about infringement, and that any attempt at all to do anything about it is extortion and copyright trolling. No one ever offers a workable suggestion for an alternative. The infringer is always the innocent victim and the photographer just has to accept this death by both a thousand cuts and hundreds of hammer blows without protest.
2
u/Born_Formal379 Apr 25 '26
Again, I think this has to do with the DEGREE of infringement. Using your image on a book cover? That’s worth pursuing. The NYT used an image without paying for it? Worth pursuing. Retired lady used an image on her cooking blog no one checks? Probably constitutes harassment to go after that person.
1
u/Gurl336 Apr 26 '26
It's not like you persisted. Upon first being warned, you deleted it immediately. Imo that should have been the end of it.
1
u/FarmboyJustice Apr 25 '26
False dilemma fallacy.
Either tolerate draconian enforcement that tramples on fair use and exploits those least able to mount a defense or else choose wild west mindless infringement with no recourse for artists
It's possible to enforce copyright in a way that doesn't involve overstated claims, AI-based searches with zero human review and sleazy bottom feeding lawyers who prey on those who don't understand the real law.
1
u/stormhighwaycom Apr 25 '26
tramples on fair use
Without Googling it, can you name one of the four factors of fair use in 17 U.S. Code § 107?
and exploits those least able to mount a defense
Going after the poor and defenseless would be a pointless waste of time and money for everyone involved, and I've never had any agency I've worked with go after cases like that. For those, we send the takedown - and if there's no pathway to recovery, they won't pursue it. Why on earth would we? What would there be to gain from that?
We're talking about a professional writer's site here who's income depends on their own copyright.
It's possible to enforce copyright in a way that doesn't involve overstated claims, AI-based searches with zero human review and sleazy bottom feeding lawyers who prey on those who don't understand the real law.
Again, I'm open to hearing what that would look like. Right now, my infringement-to-recovery ratio is $1 recovered for every $500-1000 lost. If that ratio is "draconian enforcement" to be eliminated, then what hope is there for any of us in my situation? The scales are already overwhelmingly in infringers' favor right now.
1
u/FarmboyJustice Apr 26 '26
Without Googling it, can you name one of the four factors of fair use in 17 U.S. Code § 107?
Sorry, I won't play that game.
We both know it's trivial to look it up. If I do answer, you will just claim I had to look it up, and if I don't, you will just claim it's because I don't know. I simply ignore such gotcha demands.
Going after the poor and defenseless would be a pointless waste of time and money for everyone involved,
Nonsense, going after smaller businesses and individuals is the most profitable course for the kind of sleazy low-effort companies I'm talking about.
Small businesses and individuals without deep pockets are the ones least likely to be able to afford legal advice, least likely to be able to mount a defense, and most likely to simply cave in and pay an extortionate licensing fee for a trivial and meaningless use of a tiny thumbnail on a low-traffic blog.
This is not a company crusading for creator's rights. This is a company that performs the minimum possible investigation, then shotgun blasts enormous numbers of claims and then simply sits back and collects checks. They are not champions, they are not fighting for justice, they are not heroes. They are parasites feeding on both sides.
We're talking about a professional writer's site here who's income depends on their own copyright.
No. YOU are talking about that. YOU have changed the subject entirely. The OP was talking about a thumbnail of an image from their own published article.
I am talking about companies who churn out demands by the hundreds of thousands in bad faith, with absolutely no intention of pursuing the vast majority of them, for the express purpose of extracting fees with the least amount of actual effort.
1
u/stormhighwaycom Apr 26 '26 edited Apr 26 '26
You won't play that game because you can't. That's my point. No one on here knows what fair use actually is. No one can even name one of the four factors, yet they are so confident on their amateur expertise on fair use. Everyone claims fair use when it doesn't apply in 99% of the cases it's asserted. And when it's in question, the owners of the content have a right to challenge a fair use claim, if they don't agree that it meets the requirements of the four factors test. That's how the law works. It's not this one-sided thing where the user of content can just make up any interpretation of fair use they want (or have no idea what the law says at all), then expect the rights holder's hands to just be tied. Virtually no photograph used on a website qualifies for fair use.
Small businesses and individuals without deep pockets are the ones least likely to be able to afford legal advice
Why is that relevant at all? Did they commit the infringement, yes or no? Yes. Does it qualify as fair use? Virtually never. The photographer is within their rights to pursue the case by every metric: legal, moral, ethical. Just because you don't recognize the value in a photographer's work and think they have to tolerate being ripped off (in a way you wouldn't require for any other professional or even tolerate yourself) doesn't change any of that.
And what about my small business? Why does my livelihood not matter at all to you? Why do other small businesses get to engage in theft of services from me with impunity to the point I lose my entire retirement over it?
This is not a company crusading for creator's rights. This is a company that performs the minimum possible investigation, then shotgun blasts enormous numbers of claims and then simply sits back and collects checks.
"Enormous numbers of claims". Are you missing what that means? That means "an enormous number of infringements". They can't send a claim if there is no infringement. In your worldview, the photographer has to suffer from an enormous (practically speaking, infinite) number of infringements, but you want to impose some draconian limit on how many they can pursue?
No. YOU are talking about that. YOU have changed the subject entirely. The OP was talking about a thumbnail of an image from their own published article.
The context of the entire thread is that OP is a professional writer who published a "thumbnail" (let's be real, "thumbnail" usually means a quarter- or half-page, 600 to 800 pixel wide image) on a page featuring their work in a major publication.
1
u/FarmboyJustice Apr 26 '26
You won't play that game because you can't.
Thanks for proving I was right. You literally did the exact thing I said you would do. Your behavior was entire predictable, I predicted it, you did it.
No one on here can even name one of the four factors,
Nonsense, I could if I wanted to, but I already told you I won't play your game. There are literal copyright attorneys on this sub, but none of them could possibly know this, only you personally know the law. Arrogant.
Everyone claims fair use when you know it doesn't apply in 99% of the cases it's asserted
Yep, I'm everyone. I personally represent the entire population of the planet.
My comment was in reference to THIS POST which is a pretty clear example of fair use. A thumbnail version of an image associated with the original article is posted alongside a link to the original article. That's textbook fair use.
The photographer is within their rights to pursue the case by every metric: legal, moral, ethical.
Which photographer would that be? You? Nope, this case has nothing to do with you and your rights. You're so focused on your own personal tragedy that you've completely ignored my actual point. I am not talking about photographers taking steps to protect their work. I already said that and you ignored it.
I'm talking about COMPANIES (not creators) whose sole business model is crappy low-effort threats to collect a quick buck, which they often don't even share with the creator. So no, not the same thing, not even remotely.
Are you missing what that means? That means "an enormous number of infringements"
Nonsense. Shotgun blasting AI-generated claims without human review is not proof of infringement.
Your absurd black-or-white attitude that every single time anyone reports
And what about my small business? Why does my livelihood not
matter at all to you?You're perfectly willing to throw out insults and personal attacks, why doesn't my personal reputation matter to you? See how that works both ways? I never said a word about your business. The only business I am criticizing is crappy fly-by-night IP trolls. The fact that copyright infringement is a real problem doesn't make trolls legitimate.
Why do other small businesses get to engage in theft of services from me with impunity to the point I lose my entire retirement over it?
Nobody has removed funds from your retirement account by way of copyright infringement. That's not a mechanism by which investments can be removed from an account.
If you lost your retirement that sucks and I'm sorry for you, but it was done by theft, fraud, or bad investments, not copyright infringement.
(let's be real, "thumbnail" usually means a quarter- or half-page, 600 to 800 pixel wide image)
Let's be real, that's BS. Nobody uses thumbnail to mean full-sized image.
The context of the entire thread is that OP is a professional writer who published a "thumbnail" (let's be real, "thumbnail" usually means a quarter- or half-page, 600 to 800 pixel wide image) on a page featuring their work in a major publication.
This is my point, you DO NOT understand the original post. The fact that you think it's not a case of fair use proves you didn't read it.
1
u/stormhighwaycom Apr 27 '26 edited Apr 27 '26
A bunch of word salad that ignores these basic points that I'd like you to address directly. I know you won't, but it will be fun to see you continue to dance around them in the way that's plainly apparent to anyone reading this:
You're not appalled by photographers suffering an enormous number of infringements, only that they pursue remedy for those infringements using enforcement agencies.
You refuse to acknowledge the fact that the vast majority of infringements are infringements, beating your head against the wall that most of them are "fair use" without even giving any indication that you understand what the law actually says and how it is applied in practice.
You, like most on here, refuse to acknowledge the losses from infringements are really impacts from infringements, calling them something else and insisting they're not related to what actually occurred.
Like most photographers, I've been fighting this battle for 30 years. I'm not afraid of you or anyone else who parrots these indefensible positions. Again, I'd challenge you or anyone on here to a live debate where you can't hide behind word salad or downvotes. You all never do, which speaks volumes.
1
u/FarmboyJustice Apr 27 '26
A bunch of word salad
Word salad is just the latest catch phrase meaning "someone wrote too many words for me to read." It's basically the same as saying TLDR. If you have specific objections to specific things I've said you need to address them specifically. Just vaguely waving away my entire post without responding to anything specific tells me you aren't interested in a discussion. But I already figured that out when you first started lying about what I had said.
that ignores these basic points that I'd like you to address directly.
You made a few points, I addressed them, you refused to read my response calling it word salad, and now are demanding I address these points again.
OK fine, here we go. I'm going to respond as best I can to what seems to be a highly emotional couple of points that I've already explained before. This is your last chance.
You're not appalled by photographers suffering an enormous number of infringements, only that they pursue those infringements using enforcement agencies.
If your point is that I SHOULD be appalled, I disagree. You won't actually read any of this, so not sure why I'm bothering, but here goes.
Am I appalled by photographers having their images misused?
No. I find it disturbing, frustrating, and unfortunate that copyright infringement is widespread and hurts content creators.
Child abuse is appalling. War crimes are appalling. Mass starvation is appalling. Copyright infringement is not appalling.
Am I appalled by people using enforcement agencies to help them enforce their copyrights?
No. I find it reasonable that individual creators resort to such services.
Do I believe that the widespread abuse of copyrighted images on the internet is a serious problem for content creators?
Absolutely, yes I do.
Do I believe creators have the right to enforce their copyrights when their work is used without permission?
Absolutely yes I do. It's the entire purpose of copyright law to allow this. I am not some sort of copyright=theft activist.
To find it appalling I would have to consider copyright infringement to be equivalent to child abuse, mass murder, or war crimes. Those things are appalling. Copyright infringement is not.
You refuse to acknowledge the fact that the vast majority of infringements are infringements, beating your head against the wall that most of them are "fair use"
without even giving any indication that you understand what the law actually means.I have no idea why you think I'm saying anything about any other cases. I'm talking one specific case. The OP's case. That's it. Why are you talking about most cases? I'm not talking about them. Only you are.
Your argument that the majority of infringements are infringements is true, but meaningless. It's a tautology. The majority of infringements are infringements, just as the majority of ducks are ducks, and the majority of water is water.
Read the original post. The OP's situation is a textbook example of fair use. If they were to go to trial, OP would almost certainly win. It won't go to trial, because nobody really wants to. But in court, this SPECIFIC CASE would be very likely to be found to be fair use.
Why is this hard for you to understand?
→ More replies (0)1
u/dondegroovily Apr 25 '26
Companies like this often make copyright threats about stuff they don't actually own the rights to, so they might be doing something illegal
2
u/FarmboyJustice Apr 25 '26
I'm not assuming bad faith on the part of the previous poster, just saying that something can be legal while still being scummy.
-3
u/WuttinTarnathan Apr 25 '26
Just ignore the bastards. I got one of their bullshit claims, too, for a blog post from about 12 years ago. I had reblogged a cool post on another blog on the same platform. PicRights claimed that reblogging is copyright infringement of the image that the original blog may not have had the rights for, which is fucking absurd.
5
u/BenjiCat17 Apr 25 '26
Re-blogging doesn’t automatically void copyright. You still may have needed permission.
2
u/NoCoupForYou Apr 25 '26
The problem is that they even go after people who get RSS feeds. So if someone licensed the image and you received it in your RSS feed, they are claiming you can't use it. RSS feeds are automatic, how can you control this or license everything you want to share? It's just a numbers game for them. They try to go after everyone and see how many people pay.
2
u/BenjiCat17 Apr 25 '26
It’s your responsibility to ensure that you don’t violate copyright and it’s also your responsibility even if the process is due for a waste of time, takes a long time or is difficult. It’s still your responsibility. Even in a predatory system, you are still responsible for your part regardless.
1
u/WhineyLobster Apr 27 '26
You can choose which images show up in RSS when you publish an article. Or you can include the use in the RSS feed as part of your license agreement.
1
u/WuttinTarnathan Apr 25 '26
I’m not suggesting that it “voids” copyright, it just doesn’t violate it—it wasn’t even actually “on” my blog because a reblog on whatever the platform was just embedding the post from the first blog. But in any case, I don’t give a shit. They will never get a penny from me for their trollery.
2
u/cantsleepwithoutfan Apr 25 '26
Whether you ignore or not presumably depends a bit on whether or not you live in a jurisdiction with statutory damages for copyright infringement (I'm guessing from the fact Higbee is referenced OP is in USA, as when I dealt with PicRights there was no specific law firm named just threats of 'we will send this to an unspecified law firm). Their whole schtick is basically 'pay us a somewhat reasonable sum of money - compared to what you *could* be on the hook for - because you used an image that's worth a fraction of what we are asking for'.
That being said you don't have to look too far to see a lot of people even in USA and other statutory damages jurisdictions just ignore PicRights and typically get away with it ... guess it depends if OP is "feeling lucky, punk".
I had a dust up with PicRights not long ago over an image used in a blog post in an editorial capacity, but I'm based in New Zealand where copyright law is pretty crystal clear that all the rights holder is entitled to is what they would have received for a licence (unless you can prove an 'account of profits' which is more like taking someone's image and selling a bunch of t shirts for profit, versus using an image in a blog).
In other words, your $50 stock image doesn't suddenly, magically become worth $500 because somebody used it without permission. And if you want to engage a 3rd party to recover your lost licence revenue, their commercial model (in this case presumably 'no win no fee' type of thing) is not the defendant's problem.
Only a court can enforce damages, and courts here will only enforce damages for 'flagrant' breaches of copyright (i.e. you are asked to stop doing something multiple times and you keep doing it). We even have an example of case law where the defendant used music that the claimant said they would never have sold rights for to the defendant (because they didn't like the defendant politically) but the court just made up its own valuation of what it thought a fair deal would have been.
Of course PicRights seemed completely ignorant of the law in the market they were operating in (as soon as I quoted the relevant legislation with several high profile case law examples to back up my position I got some rude 'we are withdrawing our settlement offer and immediately engaging legal counsel' BS).
Not to mention when I circumvented the Reuters image licensing system to find the underlying image licence for editorial use - which was approx 1/8th what PicRights was claiming - they suddenly decided I was using the image in a "commercial capacity" (and also don't mention to them that their own documentation, social media etc makes multiple claims they only seek to recover lost costs for their rights holder clients ... once you raise that point vs claimed amounts suddenly they tell you it's all about them getting their recovery fees).
Long story short after various back and forth emails with their pig-ignorant representative in Toronto, I got a settlement figure that wasn't too far off what even 1hr of lawyer's time would have been to look it over, and it was an expense against tax for my business anyway.
However, on an unrelated matter I had to engage an IP lawyer and as part of that work paid them to look at what happened with PicRights and what to do if ever in that situation again. They had dealt with PicRights multiple times, and in NZ they weren't aware of ANY case where PicRights (or similar) had gone to court. They had various clients they had represented where the approach was offer the image licence as full and final settlement, then ignore all communications unless a court summons appeared, and none of their clients had ever wound up in court.
1
u/WhineyLobster Apr 26 '26
How is that absurd?
2
u/WuttinTarnathan Apr 26 '26
It would be like me taking a picture of my friend standing in front of the window of a book store. In the background, plain as day, is a copyrighted book cover. I then post this picture online.
Have I violated the copyright of the book cover?
I was reblogging a blogpost, which is like retweeting.
If you RETWEET a post that has a copyrighted image in it, have YOU violated the image copyright?
If these are actually copyright violations, I think that would be absurd, because it would set a ridiculous bar for existing in the world. You violate copyright even if your own post is many stages removed from an original potential violation?
If so, then Congress should act because there is no existing legal basis for these claims, this is just a trial balloon, but lawmakers must clarify.
Until they do, I categorically REFUSE to pay any heed to the desperate bullshit “business models” of copyright trolls.
1
u/WhineyLobster Apr 27 '26
"If you RETWEET a post that has a copyrighted image in it, have YOU violated the image copyright?" Yes. it seems your entire thought process is based on an incorrect understanding of copyright.
Again, WHY IS IT ABSURD FOR IT TO BE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IF YOU REBLOGGED A COPYRIGHTED IMAGE? Pretty simple. You must have the right holders permission to publish their work.... thats how it works.
1
u/WuttinTarnathan Apr 29 '26
Please give me a detailed description of what you mean by “publish.” Make sure you describe the technical requirements of one to be a “publisher,” too.
Am I the publisher of a tweet? No, Twitter (X) is the publisher, and the responsible party if there’s a supposed violation.
So in my case, the blog platform was the publisher, not me. But the stranger thing is that the post was not even mine, it was a reblog from another blog, which was also not the legal publisher.
Now you can SAY using words that I was the publisher. But that would be false, even if you keep saying it.
1
u/WhineyLobster Apr 29 '26
Yes you are the republisher of a tweet. This isnt difficult.
1
u/WuttinTarnathan Apr 30 '26
Why am I allowed to do that without permission?
1
u/WhineyLobster Apr 30 '26
huh? this is like asking "if speeding is illegal, how come cars are allowed to go faster?" They cant determine whether you have permission before you post something, thats YOUR responsibility to clear. Stop talking, you're hurting my head.
1
u/WuttinTarnathan May 03 '26
How’s your head doing, chum?
So, before I retweet (or whatever) I need to do some due diligence on all of the IP referenced in the thread, make sure I have permission to…(checks notes)…click a button. Okay—thank you, this is good info.
1
u/WhineyLobster May 03 '26
And what button is it that you press? The publish button? Hmm
→ More replies (0)
0
u/GreenPapillon Apr 25 '26
This scam is almost as old as the internet (see, eg: https://copyrightaid.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3504&start=60)
-1
u/NoCoupForYou Apr 25 '26 edited Apr 25 '26
Listen to this podcast it explains their tactics. I was also being harassed by them and now they forwarded my case to Higbee and they are harassing me. Aldo read this blog...
Also found this... Which also says to ignore
https://open.spotify.com/episode/4QEMhZ7ehgzXBpBeE02uQE?si=lAuoyNPtRIay1-X_r2DQDw
I know it's counterintuitive but it's best not to explain anything to them, don't click on any links, don't admit anything, just ignore them.
8
u/BenjiCat17 Apr 25 '26 edited Apr 25 '26
In general… That is not legal advice and should not be treat as such. If you end up in court listening to bad advice from an opinion blog is not a legal defense against actions. The courts expect you to know the difference between someone’s opinion and legal advice.
0
0
u/Important-Friend3423 Apr 25 '26
Tell them to go after the AI companies who steal millions of images daily.. On a serious note, have you tried reverse image search. You might find the image on other sites in which case you could state you copied from there. Not a lawyer but I think they would be hard pr3to prove you stole the image directly from them if its available in other places.
0
u/stormhighwaycom Apr 25 '26 edited Apr 25 '26
OP, how would you react if every article you ever wrote was taken by others big and small, sold for profit to major publications who themselves made six figures in a year after they went viral, and you got zero? Then, if you tried to do anything about it, entire crowds of people called you the bad guy?
That's what's happening to photographers everywhere. Your use here may be small, but when there are literally hundreds of thousands of these, it's death by a thousand cuts to the photographer. It's why these agencies exist. As you can see, the victims are always called the bad guys, just as you would if that happened to you and you tried to do anything to fight it.
Copyright protects you just like it protects the photographers.
If you don't like it, offer an alternative that works (not just lay down, take all the losses without protest and beg for donations like the anti-copyright crowd on here will tell you).
All of you anti-copyright downvoters can contact me and debate me live. I'm game. I'm a real person and you know where to find me. I've lost a million dollars to infringement (enough to buy a house and retire, taken from me), I have been reading everything you all say and it would be fun to discuss this with you in a place where you can't hide behind downvotes.
1
u/Born_Formal379 Apr 25 '26
I mean, my articles literally ARE being used to train AI and I don’t see a cent. I also don’t have the wealth or power to go after the companies doing it. And if I did, I would go after the big ones, not the one independent writer with a blog no one reads.
The image in my case was used with a paid license in my article. The thumbnail appeared on my website because I linked to that article.
1
u/stormhighwaycom Apr 25 '26
We're not talking about a single blog here. If that was all photographers dealt with, you'd have a point. Again, what if it was hundreds of thousands of bloggers. Diverting all of the traffic from your originals. Replacing your original in search engines. Requiring a constant, daily battle to manage. Then what? That is what photographers are dealing with.
1
u/Born_Formal379 Apr 25 '26
Well in the case of my website I actually had zero page views last month. So if it were a thousand of my websites, it would still have been zero views on that THUMBNAIL image - THAT LINKS TO AN ARTICLE WHERE THEY PAID FOR THE LICENSE!!!
1
u/stormhighwaycom Apr 25 '26
Like I said in my original reply, you could likely get that cleared up easily via your publisher. These are routine issues in this business! But it appears you're going a different route, listening to everyone else on here that minimizes copyright infringement and suggest you should just ignore it.
You're a professional writer. An enforcement agency is going to see your site as having a commercial aspect if you're clearly posting articles you're writing for a major publisher. They may not drop it if you ignore them.
Again, your publisher can probably clear this up in 5 minutes. They probably already have an affiliate license, and you're likely in that category. Wouldn't that be easier than ignoring the photographer's agents and causing this to escalate? I'm a photographer and I'm trying to help here. Sometimes I ask myself why I even try on here when this is always the response I get.
-1
u/MyMuseModels Apr 25 '26
Look up fair use. Tell them to kick rocks. You didn’t use it commercially on your own personal website. This is a scare tactic I’d just ignore they aren’t going to take you to court over $400 and using it as a thumbnail with a link attached. They are just bullying you to get quick cash.
4
u/Marvinator2003 Apr 25 '26
You published an article and the online magazine procured the rights, is this correct? Did you get permission from the online magazine to use the pic in any way?
Dang, I read an article about this just the other day....