PA Media/time limit for copyright infringement claims

[IPProtection]

I don’t disagree at all Andy - you worded it more succinctly than I did.

Best,

J

[Query99]

Thanks for replying. As it turns out, the image has, at PA Media's request, been removed from my site and server.

But as it seems the clock started running again in 2020, I cannot rely on the six-year limitation (unless we are still engaging in back and forth in late 2026!)

I'll reply to your other post separately.. but unfortunately, I think you've reset the limitation timer several times - by updating the copy of the post in 2018, and definitely by migrating to a new server in late 2020. They would only have to look at the "Last Modified" date of the image to see that the date is now within the six year limitation period, and that can be done by simply opening the image URL in a browser window and typing

Code: Select all

javascript:alert(document.lastModified)

into the address bar - then, providing it's the actual image URL and not being served by a Content Management System or Content Delivery Network, you'll get a pop-up alert showing the date and time the image was last modified on your webserver.. If that's within 6 years, then they'd have a potential claim.

[Query99]

Thank you @AndyJ and @IPProtection for your replies.

I guess I will go back and politely disagree with their claims and reiterate my offer to pay the Alamy fee and reasonable admin costs. I assume they will reject that, but the ball will then be in their court to escalate things if they wish. I agree that I can't see a court agreeing to their inflated and extortionate charges.

[snapperman67]

Statue bar on copyright works differently to contractual law. Having taken on several very large media groups over images posted over 6 years ago - both IP solicitors ( I have spoken to quite a few now) and a IPEC judge instead believe that the statue bar started from the point of discovery of the infringement. My argument to the court was that search engines such as google etc only index 3.5-5% of the visible internet - usually only the page headers, 1st layers of a site or if the image has a full set of meta data. Given that most infringers strip the meta data from a file or hide the site's API, it makes discovery very difficult to almost impossible in timely manner. Given that there now approximately 5 billion web pages in existence currently and Google is now reducing the percentage of indexing - an individual creative has an almost impossible task of finding the infringement in a timely manner. This argument was originally formulated by Gwen Thomas at the Association of Photographers and every newspaper solicitor I have encountered (there are a lot) who offered the statute bar argument for a strike off of the case have backed down when I have presented this argument. At my last hearing, the judge accepted my explanation without question.

[IPProtection]

Statue bar on copyright works differently to contractual law.

Yes - copyright infringement is a tort, not a contract.

tbh - I think you were fortunate if the judge accepted your argument;
The limitation period can be postponed 'until discovery' if there is evidence of deliberate concealment - but if the infringement is on a publicly accessible website, without paywall, then it can hardly be considered to have been deliberately concealed - however long it took to discover.

Otherwise, the Pirelli General Cable Works Ltd v Oscar Faber & Ptns [1983] case could be cited where the limitation period begins at the commencement of the cause of action, not the discovery.

To my knowledge, there is no case law which has contradicted that.

Personally, it would be in my best interests, as a creator and for the enforcement of IP rights if the limitations act didn't apply to copyright infringement, so I'm not trying to stoke an argument.

If it wasn't a particularly big claim, the newspaper solicitors may have backed down after weighing up the cost of their time arguing and defending the claim but in any case, glad you were successful!