picrights - how I settled

[matthew123456]

For what it's worth, this is what I did to reduce the fees/fine that PicRights was demanding:

1. Asked the licensee directly by-passing PicRights (like PA images, for example) for a future quote to use the same content in the way PicRights said I was. For example, I said 'editorial', 'worldwide' and 'business'. However, I also shared the expected number of hits (for example, less than 50 per year) and also the likely market domain (for example, Europe) as well as the category (for example 'language', and not any sport). I also limited the duration of the article to 2 years (as PicRights had taken previous snapshots of the site at earlier times, and I needed a time frame that was accurate but not too lengthy). I also said I wanted to use the image as complementary and not a focus or 'main' content. I also limited the 'business' aspect to only how I used it, which was a 'contact page' for a sole-trading business with a turnover of less than £xxx and no profit. (No proof was asked for, and I also offered to share hit stats, but they were not interested.)

2. Whilst the quote from PicRights would be a 'list price' for the content, its scope and use would far exceed what was needed. It was obvious to me that you could purchase the same content but for different purposes, for different domains, different use-cases, different geographies, different durations, etc and different sizes (of image). Thus, whilst Picrights wanted to sell me a retrospective license that would indeed cover the likely breach of terms, I just needed a license that was far, far smaller and limited, but still cover for my purpose.

3. If the future quote was higher than PicRights, I just purchased the PicRights quote, but asked for a discount.

4. If the future quote was lower than PicRights (as was mostly the case), I then exchanged e-mails, and they had to agree that "damages should be compensatory rather than punitive". We also said, "We are not obliged to pay the initial fee requested". Then I was able to say that "compensation of £xxxx would restore the copyright owner to the position they would have been in if the infringement had not occurred." Picrights came back on this, and I just repeated the same adding "We consider this to be a fair proposal, as damages should be compensatory rather than punitive." They just kept dropping their quote until their final message which is very obviously their final offer. This final offer, in some cases, was drastically lower, and we settled on that.

The bottom line is that "damages should be compensatory rather than punitive" and that PicRights will try to sell you a license far exceeding your needs. However, you need to find a license that meets your needs. Then, you can use this, and the phasing "compensation of £xxxx would restore the copyright owner to the position they would have been in if the infringement had not occurred."

Overall, I found Picrights to be professional and courteous despite my concerns about their business model. I would recommend engaging with them in a professional and polite manner.

I also emphasised that this was an innocent infringement and there was no intention to break or breach any terms on every exchange. I also added "not attempted or intended to mislead viewers or claim the content as its own. This was an innocent infringement and as a sign of goodwill, the copyrighted images were taken down immediately"

I would advise against contacting pcirights until you received a written quote for the same image /use etc. but for future use. I found pcirights wanted to put deadlines in place and some agencies took a long time to provide the quote. So get your future quotes upfront and ready before contacting pcirights. If you act timely from the initial request you'll have plenty of time

Hope this helps others.

[AndyJ]

Hi matthew and welcome to the forum.

And thank you for your considered thoughts on the matter.

And I agree that engaging with these claim management companies is necessary. It is important to remember that in most cases the people they target have in fact infringed the copyright of someone who probably earns their living from selling licences to use their work legitimately. So ignoring that initial, often excessive, demand continues to deprive the photographer of income they are rightly owed. However it is also true to say that a person who infringes another's copyright is under no obligation to reward the claims companies, even though they are quite legally pursuing claims on behalf of the copyright owner. Just as a photographer is prepared to pay to insure his camera gear, agree to let the picture agency take a persentage cut from licence sales or to pay an accountant to manage his tax affairs, he or she ought also to consider the cost involved in employing a third party to track down infringement as being a necessary business overhead. But because the business model of the claims companies is pitched to photographers and their agencies in such an attractive way - that they act as agents for the photographer, in the expectation that a third party will pay for their services - it is easy for photographers to lose sight of this reality.