company claiming copyright from image

[Michlap]

18 months ago I wrote an article for a company

In the article, I used an image that a photographer is now claiming copyright for

The company is emailing me, and saying I will have to pay the photographer

Is this correct though? Am I liable for the copyright claim when I did not publish the article on a commercial website? I simply sent it to someone in a word doc

Shouldn't he take responsibility? He knew they were free images. It is his website.

 

[blogzandstuff]

18 months ago I wrote an article for a company

In the article, I used an image that a photographer is now claiming copyright for

The company is emailing me, and saying I will have to pay the photographer

Is this correct though? Am I liable for the copyright claim when I did not publish the article on a commercial website? I simply sent it to someone in a word doc

Shouldn't he take responsibility? He knew they were free images. It is his website.

It should be down to whoever published it, they should have sought permission. Call their bluff

 

[MatthewGraham]

They probably can't hold you liable (probably). Or at least it would be so much effort to do so that it wouldn't be worth it.

But also, you know, if you're being paid to write content for someone and you know they're going to use it for commercial purposes, you should probably spend like four seconds making sure that the content you're providing to them can be used for commercial purposes.

 

[Michlap]

They probably can't hold you liable (probably). Or at least it would be so much effort to do so that it wouldn't be worth it.

But also, you know, if you're being paid to write content for someone and you know they're going to use it for commercial purposes, you should probably spend like four seconds making sure that the content you're providing to them can be used for commercial purposes.

I'm 99% I got it from Pixabay, but the image is no longer there anymore.

The image is also on the photographers Flickr account (I've searched for it) , and its listed as "free to use for commercial and mods purpose". It does state it requires attribution though.

 

[Michlap]

It should be down to whoever published it, they should have sought permission. Call their bluff

Are you sure?

I agree, but he did pay me for the article.

This is what the risk he took though by willing to use free photos. I feel he is refuting all responsibility.

 

[SamLewis]

Well what was the terms when you emailed it? Did you say what the permissions on the content were?

 

[MatthewGraham]

I'm 99% I got it from Pixabay, but the image is no longer there anymore.

The image is also on the photographers Flickr account (I've searched for it) , and its listed as "free to use for commercial and mods purpose".

Then forward him screenshots of the artists official public listing indicating that they're free for commercial purposes and save copies on your hard drive. Unless he comes back with a legal mandate that you pay money (he won't) move on with your life.

 

[Michlap]

Then forward him screenshots of the artists official public listing indicating that they're free for commercial purposes and save copies on your hard drive. Unless he comes back with a legal mandate that you pay money (he won't) move on with your life.

It did state it requires attribution though.

 

[blogzandstuff]

I'm 99% I got it from Pixabay, but the image is no longer there anymore.

The image is also on the photographers Flickr account (I've searched for it) , and its listed as "free to use for commercial and mods purpose". It does state it requires attribution though.

There's your answer, take a screenshot showing that, you acted in good faith 18 months ago. The photographer may have changed his terms in that time

 

[Michlap]

the photographer is trying to claim $2000 for what looks like it could be a $8 stock image.

Is that even legal?

 

[blogzandstuff]

the photographer is trying to claim $2000 for what looks like it could be a $8 stock image.

Is that even legal?

He could basically claim anything, if the site was commercial, the page and image could be shared etc. Doesn't mean he'll get it though

 

[kontentdruid]

ive heard of similar situations
they often demand an absurd amount and if one idiot pays up its worth it

in meantime, just take down the image. even better, ask ur client to remove the blog post

 

[bartosimpsonio]

Yes they can sue you.

The photographer sues the publisher, the publisher sues you. This is what usually happens.

 

[patriotnews]

the photographer is trying to claim $2000 for what looks like it could be a $8 stock image.

Is that even legal?

Using an image improperly, does put you in a sticky position.
You may have been able to buy the image for use BEFORE using it commercially for $8. Totally grand.
Now, AFTER the fact, then it isn't up to YOU to determine the price, it is on the photographer. I usually use a nifty little online calculator for usage, then double it(asshole tax).
So, he is offering to sell a license post-use for $8,000... Doesn't sound like a bad deal, copyright claim can be in the $100's of thousands, but are expensive to litigate.


As to who would be responsible, it would come down to your work contract. Was it "write an article and include royalty free images" or did you toss the image in because you're a hell of a guy? When you emailed it over, did you explain the requirements of posting(attribution required)?

Sorry, "you're 99% sure you got it on pixabay"... Bullocks, you're guessing. Find the original saved image, the name should be searchable(unless you changed it). Find EVERWHERE that image is, that can help in the eventual negotiation for licensing fees...

Learned a lesson OP?

 

[NoDice]

If we are talking about the USA, an image has to be registered with the US copyright office in order for the owner to seek damages. Damages would be a loss of revenue that the owner experienced due to you using the image. In your case it's probably nothing or a few dollars.

They have to reference a copyright number when they sent you a DMCA take down otherwise the best they can invoice is a injunction for you to stop using the image in which they would have to go after you in federal court and likely cost $20k+ in order for them to even get that far.

If they do have a registered copyright, just take down the image and replace it with some stock image. They will go away. They won't spend $20k to chase your 5 bucks.

Source <- Me. I've sued many companies (competitors) for stealing my images. The only ones I really can go after are the morons to refuse to take my stuff down.

 

[patriotnews]

If we are talking about the USA, an image has to be registered with the US copyright office in order for the owner to seek damages. Damages would be a loss of revenue that the owner experienced due to you using the image. In your case it's probably nothing or a few dollars.

They have to reference a copyright number when they sent you a DMCA take down otherwise the best they can invoice is a injunction for you to stop using the image in which they would have to go after you in federal court and likely cost $20k+ in order for them to even get that far.

If they do have a registered copyright, just take down the image and replace it with some stock image. They will go away. They won't spend $20k to chase your 5 bucks.

Source <- Me. I've sued many companies (competitors) for stealing my images. The only ones I really can go after are the morons to refuse to take my stuff down.

In the US without registering before publication(or within 3 months of 1st publication), you can't sue for statutory damages, $75-$30,000(or $150,000 for willful). But for a photograph, you can(without registering), sue for damages like lost fees for use(meaning, the fair market value for that image to be licensed). There are many great tools out there to show what an image license can cost, then increase as you see fit. This is completely separate from copyright infringement and can be handled in any civil court system(within the US). The requested amount can not seem to come across as blackmail; no threats of making it worse and such. But $8,000 for a fully licensed image isn't truly an insane amount.
Source -->me<-- I have been doing this for years as well, and find most companies will offer a lower rate then my first offer, but still quite acceptable.

 

[DavidStan]

The publisher is responsible if a copyright claim has been raised.

 

[Zwielicht]

the photographer is trying to claim $2000 for what looks like it could be a $8 stock image.

Is that even legal?

Perhaps this article might pique your interest.
https://www.contentfac.com/copyright-infringement-penalties-are-scary/

 

[korshen]

From which resource did you take the photo? If this is a free resource and the photo was posted there before you, then you do not have to pay anything. Address to the lawyer. Good luck!