Copyright Aid

I understand why it’s helpful to hear of outcomes. I posted mine elsewhere but I’ll put it here too.

I was chased by Pixsy for £900 for a CC2 image from Wikipedia. Investigating it I found the photographer had been approached by around ten others on Wikipedia asking if Pixsy represented him and ...

Well I paid in the end, but a tenth of what they were asking for. I didn’t think they would actually go to court in the end, but I’d made the offer, and surprisingly they accepted; so I thought it’s there in writing, I can’t really get out of it.

This was after about four or five demands, over ...

Interesting update. In our last email to Pixsy rejecting their reduced demand, I made a derisive offer of 1/10 of their demand, never expecting they'd accept it.

They now have. While I'm reluctant to feed them in any way, honour (and probably contract law) suggests I have to pay it. It will be a ...

Nothing for a month in our case. I don’t think I’ve heard the last of it.

Thanks for this. The outcome of these cases is often not updated, and it's good to see. I'm glad you've shaken them off.

There are massive debates going on at Wikipedia now about how to stop this. It seems you can’t just remove CC2 or change existing CC2 licences to 4, as some have suggested. I don’t understand all of it but the so far they seem to be favouring a flash below each photo that says ‘This photographer has ...

Another interesting POV from a photographer about changing Creative Commons licences to CC4 which allows a grace period after first contacting an infringer:
A lot of people seem to be suggesting that CC4 solves all the problems. I don't believe it does, at least not from the photographer's ...

Thanks for that, Andy.

This is because this term within the licence is not spelled out to the consumer clearly beforehand and thus it represents an unfair term (see the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and its subsequent Regulations) which the average consumer cannot be expected to understand at the ...

Here's another extract from the discussion. I'd be interested in any legal feedback on what a court like IPEC would make of the argument. I've taken the names out as it's the strands of argument I'm interested in.

Photographer:
- I am aware that many low-level and barely-commercial users have ...

The photographer in question has now contributed to the discussion in several places, confirming his reasons for using companies like Pixsy, citing unacceptable thefts of his images by large well known companies, while regretting that small time websites get caught up. There are so many uses of his ...

There's a very interesting and full discussion going on in Wikimedia regarding what's called 'copyleft trolling' - essentially what people are reporting here.

It started when evidence was reported for suspecting a particular photographer of using Pixsy as a business model. The administrators of ...

Sent you a PM, Steve, with the latest from Pixsy, which is slightly out of character. Just for your interest.

In case it helps I got the following information from a solicitor in Scotland:
The company could choose to bring their claim either under IPEC or under Scottish law - it would be their choice. While there's no 'fast track' in Scotland it would still most likely be a 'small claim' (up to £3000). In ...

Thanks for the update, Steve.

What are the disadvantages (or advantages) for the defendant if the claimant chooses the Scottish system rather than IPEC? For example can they seek expenses if they win? Can they go for punitive costs? I know there's no 'fast track'.