pic rights dot com

[JMI]

Has anyone had any dealings with this lot. I have a friend being hassled about an image he put on a blog post over a year ago. Recently they sent a screen shot showing it on his site demanding $700 bucks to buy the image. He paid a third party seo company to update the content on his blog. He's flapped and taken it all down but I think this is just an over reaction. Looks pretty legit company - but just fishing?

 

[Skinner]

Be thankful its not getty, they hunted a company I worked for to the ends of the world until it was settled out of court. I would consider making a counter offer, unless he had image rights transferred, they may have a case.

Have a google of "Getty Lawsuit" or Getty Extortion.

Edit: it was settled for about 30% of what they asked for, which was about 10x what actually buying the license would have cost.

 

[getmein]

I found myself in the same situation a few years ago with an image supplied by a freelance content writer. The rights holder was very aggressive (started sending me drafts of the proposed writ) I settled for a fraction of the requested amount on the basis that the CDPA made provisions for unwitting/innocent infringement (not sure how that would stand up in court, or people would use 3rd parties to do everything). I think a more reasonable basis for negotiation on the amount is the nature of the site - if it's the daily mail then $700 sounds very cheap, if it's a non-monetised website or one that makes peanuts then it may well be very expensive. In the end it's a negotiation and a cheapish lesson (suddenly shutterstock doesn't look so expensive!) because as Skinner says if you had Getty after you, regardless of the ins and outs of the case they will just litigate you into submission with their legal muscle.