PicRights - dos and dont's?
Re: PicRights - dos and dont's?
Thanks Andy
Re: PicRights - dos and dont's?
Hi jblake / AndyJ,
I've had similar recently from PicRights, demanding £1200 or Lawyers.
Mine was for an image on a commercial website (very small part time, and definitely too high to pay those amounts).
I've read on a couple of other Blogs to possibly ignore them, but not sure that's the right way to go about it either .
What do you reckon ?
jblake
Did you reply to them / hear anything back ?
Thanks.
I've had similar recently from PicRights, demanding £1200 or Lawyers.
Mine was for an image on a commercial website (very small part time, and definitely too high to pay those amounts).
I've read on a couple of other Blogs to possibly ignore them, but not sure that's the right way to go about it either .
What do you reckon ?
jblake
Did you reply to them / hear anything back ?
Thanks.
Re: PicRights - dos and dont's?
Hi mipost. In my opinion, they sound mentally unwell looking for such a large amount for 1 image. Did they start off at 1200, or did they increase the figure, after throwing their toys out of the pram when you didn't agree to a lower initial figure?
From what I can gather, the main thing is to take the alleged image down straight away to avoid a flagrancy charge.
No harm to ask for a full breakdown of the figure, and in my opinion to persist even when if come back with waffle. If they try to suggest that the bulk of the 1200 is license fee, that may not be the case, as they may be on a profit share of monies received. Its not your job to make picrights a profit, just to cough up the true license fee, not the inflated one that includes their profits, if I understand they way these things work correctly.
In my case, in my opinion, they made up some guff about not making a profit on this, and they seem to be implying all the money will be for reuters. So if they persist on that point with more clarity under further questioning, in my opinion, they could end up perjuring themselves because they will no doubt be on a profit share.
I have no intention of paying the current full amount asked, only interested in getting to the true market rate. What that is, is still a mystery, because picrights are trying to profit on this but if it goes to court they can forget their profit anyway.
I'm sure AndyJ will be along soon, he is very helpful, and focuses on reality unlike picrights, in my opinion.
From what I can gather, the main thing is to take the alleged image down straight away to avoid a flagrancy charge.
No harm to ask for a full breakdown of the figure, and in my opinion to persist even when if come back with waffle. If they try to suggest that the bulk of the 1200 is license fee, that may not be the case, as they may be on a profit share of monies received. Its not your job to make picrights a profit, just to cough up the true license fee, not the inflated one that includes their profits, if I understand they way these things work correctly.
In my case, in my opinion, they made up some guff about not making a profit on this, and they seem to be implying all the money will be for reuters. So if they persist on that point with more clarity under further questioning, in my opinion, they could end up perjuring themselves because they will no doubt be on a profit share.
I have no intention of paying the current full amount asked, only interested in getting to the true market rate. What that is, is still a mystery, because picrights are trying to profit on this but if it goes to court they can forget their profit anyway.
I'm sure AndyJ will be along soon, he is very helpful, and focuses on reality unlike picrights, in my opinion.
Re: PicRights - dos and dont's?
Thanks Jblake.
This was their Starting price.
I guess it's their business to scare people into 'pay up or else'.
Yes - image was removed.
This was their Starting price.
I guess it's their business to scare people into 'pay up or else'.
Yes - image was removed.