Copyright Aid

I'm interested in this idea of counter-suing Pixsy - have you heard of anyone who's done that?

No, I am not aware of any specific cases as much as I'm not aware of any UK cases like mine going to court. Though reviews around the web suggest that cases have gone to the IPEC, and many artists say they won however they did not seem to be about CC 2.0 images but stolen licensed images. On the unjustified threats, not found anything specific in court cases. The IP (Unjustified Threats) Act here protects vulnerable people and small businesses from baseless claims, intimidation, threats of legal proceedings if proven to not be an infringement. But it's also when a threat is not justified. This seems to include threatening proceedings but then not following through with it i.e. as Pixsy have done with me during the last 7 months. Could I get compensation regards that if it ever went to court? No idea frankly but if it's worth mentioning, I will at the appropriate time.

Hi guys,

Just a word about counter suing. There are no grounds under the Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Act 2017 which could be used in the type of cases we have discussed here, because the Act specifically omits copyright from its scope.

The best method of doing this would be to seek a declaratory injunction that the use of the CC licensed images was non infringing. However this would not be without risk (and not cheap either!). You can read a little more about injunctions in general here. The IPEC small claims court can deal with such declaratory injunctions but generally cannot to do so ex parte, which means without the other party being given notice of the application. Also if the application is unsuccessful the other party is entitled to additional costs:

in proceedings which include a claim for an injunction, a sum for legal advice and assistance
relating to that claim, not exceeding £260 (PD 27 para 7.2);[/url]

(see section 8 of the Guide to the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court Small Claims Track)
.
And the main drawback with a declaratory judgment would be that it is specific to the single instance and would not be a precedent which could be used as part of a defence in other pending or future cases. Since the judgment would not be published, it would probably have very little deterrent effect on the other companies engaged in this type of claim.

I hope that doesn't pour cold water on your fighting spirit!

That's a shame. Harassment - which this is with Pixsy - should be governed by better laws.
Anyway, that's not my focus should this go to the IPEC court or continue. Not at all. Just might have been another string to my bow.

One reason I say that about harrassment is this latest email. The subject is:

Second Notice: Unauthorized Use .......


The artist's name follows that. Then a couple of repeated paragraphs down, it says:

In the event that resolution with a fair license fee is not possible, our next steps are to forward this matter to our partner attorney to secure the highest fees recoverable for copyright infringement and to commence legal proceedings. Should legal escalation become necessary, this licensing offer will no longer be available.


Very standard cover letter, no different from previous ones. So I'll find out what this piece of you know what intends to do I guess. I have made a decision on what I'm doing while making an offer is not possible. Nothing. Until I'm back in full-time work. And even then, I'll be pushing low offers even though I do believe I have a case against this artist and so if it does go the distance, I have plenty to go on. I won't go into details here. Most of the stuff is covered anyway in the forum pages.

Anyway, my latest update to this debacle.

Question for Steve, Andy or anyone who knows Pixsy.

Do you think it's possible for Pixsy to be going after 'infringements' without the knowledge of the actual photographer? I mean maybe they signed up for it ages ago. I ask because on a discussion elsewhere re PicRights the author seemed to have determined it was sometimes acting without the photographer's knowledge.

Hi Les,
I'm not aware of any occasions where this has happened. In theory they are supposed to disclose the name of the copyright owner (not necessarily the photographer in every case) when they send off their demand emails. This certainly has to be done as part of the pre-action protocol before lodging a claim with the court. But there again, Pixsy have no standing to bring a claim to court: that has to be the copyright owner in their own name.

The latest attempt to bother me with threats is pretty much the same. It's been more than 3 attempts in their letter and until now, I've always replied. Their latest subject header:

Escalation Notice: Unauthorized Use of .....


Their first threat in August 2023, demanded a fee paid in 21 days. How many months gone by? Probably, they're hoping to avoid any legal course as it will cost them much more. In this latest notice, they added "local area" as their 'partner attorney' which sounds like an empty threat to me. First time they said that. Same paragraph as in previous notices except for the local area part.

In the event that resolution with a license fee is not possible, our next steps are to forward this matter to our partner attorney in your local area to secure the highest fees recoverable for copyright infringement and to commence legal proceedings. These fees include actual damages or statutory damages, and can include legal costs, court fees and other expenses.


I think they can do one, frankly. Even if I wanted to pay anything like the fee demanded, making on offer just isn't possible anyway. They have never acknowledged my reminders of my current financial issues. Not a shocker though.
And a bit strange... they have no details of my 'local area' at all. Just a disused P.O. box not used for years.

Anyone had these escalation notices from these turnips?

Update to my case.

Still waiting to hear if Pixsy have accepted my offer but in the meantime, something far more sublime has happened. I asked Flickr to investigate the artist in Nov 2023. A bit of to and fro and I have got somewhere. Flickr sent me this today:

Thank you for your email. We have reviewed your report, and taken appropriate action on the content in accordance with our Terms & Conditions of Use.

Basically, the artist has been removed from Flickr and all 27k images of his doing.... hahahahah. (smug grin). I did a search on Flickr, looked for the image in question - all gone.

Took only a few months and a bit of pushing to get Flickr to seriously look at his actions. I think being clear on the lack of contacting me to correct the transgression was what sparked interest. With their strict updated guidelines, a breach occurred which surely the IPEC will also consider seriously. The fact he did that since the updated terms asking that artists do give 30 days for all licenses and with 1000s of images - many so similar - shows he was likely another version of Marco Verch. Likely. It's a hard fast rule at Flickr now so if you are in the same boat, report the artist as it's a rule to reach out and send a takedown notice or give 30 days.

Just waiting to hear now on the case itself. I feel a lot less concerned if it does to court with this latest development. Love a bit of Karma.

Great news! Well done!

So, this is the update back from Pixsy. Guess it's their move now. I won't be responding and have told them why, and why my offer is the only one possible. I think I've ruffled the guy's feathers with my pretty significant reasons for not just paying his demand. And for the last time too. So, it's just about whether he has a lawyer to pick this up or not.

If anyone would like to read my final email to this "licensing agent", PM me.

He brushes off - again - any mention of the Flickr breach, the lack of adherence to rules, the no tolerance for copyleft trolls from CC, and my offer at less than half of the demanded amount. Plus why it's all I can manage. Not sure what he hopes to gain from this point. He's also brushed on past me telling him that no further threats and intimidation attempts will get a response. Only accepting my offer will get my response. It's also interesting that this time he had not mentioned running it by his client, the artist who must know that he's banned from Flickr. He said in a previous email to "send forward an offer and I will confirm with my client". But sounds almost like the toys got thrown and he's just stamped his foot.

The response:

We are going around in circles.

Being a good-faith user does not negatr the copyright infringement and nor do all the points you have put forward.

I will withdraw my offer by the end of the week. Your offer is not accepted.

He's right... round in circles since August. Repeating himself and sending demands. Not sure what offer.... All I've had is demands and a 3 month payment arrangement since Sept with a 25% deduction to £472.60 which is not possible. This is also one of a few times since August that time based threats, a bunch of ultimatums, have been made. I was clear I won't respond short of my offer being accepted so I'll update here further if this actually goes the distance.

I've PM'ed you to see your email and shown you some of my correspondence with Pixsy. I'm not as far on as you.

It's interesting that Pixsy still list Flickr as a "partner" which they most certainly are not. Flickr have publicly condemned the actions of their service and in 2019, ended the partnership, not to mention banning artists who use their site to make money out of transgressions. Makes you wonder how legitimate this partner page is.
https://www.pixsy.com/partner

Latest on this.

Seems the emails sent to me are all pretty much the same with just a few wording changes made here and there and in the subject lines.

If it goes to a "partner attorney" as they say, then I expect to hear directly from them and so I'm blocking Pixsy emails as I no longer want any more harassing emails from them.

I get 1 email a week usually and some times, it did take a few weeks to get a response. The legal threats have been consistent since August.

Same harassment every time. Starting with a slight change in the header in the latest email (sent twice for some reason) to "Overdue license fee payment:", it then goes on to state, "license fee payment is now overdue, and our offer to license the image at a fair market rate is set to expire."
What does that mean? Fair market rate. It's beyond ludicrous now. The same rate they cannot or refuse to break down? Or try to justify? And that's been expiring for months then. It then says,
"If you require further assistance in order to resolve the case prior to the case being escalated externally for further legal review and action, please advise."

It's difficult to establish if an actual legal escalation is happening but if it is, I no longer need to hear from Pixsy. That's down to the "legal partner" and the claimant starting the proceedings. So, guess I'll see if I get an attorney email.

I guess if I was able, and just to sack this off, I'd make a higher offer just to get rid of them as many have done - and what they depend on. As the fast track route to the IPEC is a costly one compared to what they hope to sue for. But leaving it here and I'll be back with further updates should I hear further. And also if I don't i.e. many weeks go by.

Thanks for the update, Steve.