A little help
Hello dear readers of my blog.
You probably weren’t expecting a blog post until next week, but I had to get in touch with you all prematurely to alert others to this nightmare fiasco.
For last 14 days I have been dealing with a situation that I wanted to share so that none of you fall victim to the circumstances that I have.
Arriving home feeling like a superstar after performing at Illusions Festival in Denmark I was awoken by an email from an unknown entity, ResolveUK@picrights.com. They appear to be a copyright compliance service representing The Associated Press (AP) for licenses of their images.
Basically, they wanted me to prove that I had permission from AP to use an image in my blog. And, if I did not have permission I would need to pay a licensing fee of £375.00 for one year’s usage rights.
A little more context
The blog in question was a blog on inspiration, where I explored people and performances that innovate and inspire me in the hope that you my readers would start looking inside and outside the magic field for inspiration yourselves.
I have many magical inspirations, one of which is the amazing magician, Lance Burton.
Lance was the very first magician I saw when I was introduced to magic, and he is partly the reason why I have a wish to compete and succeed at F.I.S.M. myself.
I found several images of Lance and picked one for my blog. Unbeknownst to me, this particular image was apparently (according to PicRights) owned by The Associated Press (AP).
The Origins of images online
To make sure the images you select are free to use you can check their origins with google.
Click the little camera image called “google lens” beside the search bar and input any link to an image to find out its original source before using all images online.
Is this scam?
Immediately I thought this email and company was a scam. I began to google everything and anything about PicRights to discover if indeed it was a real company – to my despair, it is.
PicRights represent Associated Press Agency’s around the world.
They basically scan the internet for Press agencies images used to check permission. And in most cases (mine included) the user does not own the rights. There are so many horror stories online of this company taking real people to court.
Sadly PicRight’s are real and if you ignore them they will not simply go away. It will only make matters worse. They will harass you and then their lawyers will begin it too. The only thing you can do is negotiate with them a fee which you can afford to pay.
The Subject of the image
Also being brave, I decided to contact the subject of the image himself, Lance, to ask if he indeed knew who owned the photo, if he had the rights, apologise where needed and ask permission to use it if that was acceptable.
Lance replied to confirm that the photo was taken twenty years ago and that he retains the rights to this image. He also in this message granted me permission to use it. His response gave me a moments relief.
I responded to PicRights with the information I had received from Lance thinking that this would be resolved however this was not the case. They responded by saying;
- Being the subject of the image does not permit the individual the right to distribute the image/ or grant permission for publication.
- AP is prepared to review specific evidence of Nikola Arkane Shop’s alleged financial hardship with respect to our claim but that absent such evidence, AP, in an effort to ensure its contributing photographers, who are often small businesses unto themselves, receive their due royalties for the unauthorised use of their works on the commercial website, http://www.arkaneshop.com/, AP will continue to pursue Nikola Arkane Shop with all rights and remedies available under copyright law.
- After careful review, Associated Press (AP) is willing to settle the matter for £375. This offer is based on the usage you disclosed: Commercial Blog . Please note that we are not adding any fees or attempting to recuperate any of the costs AP has incurred in relation to this matter. The offer is based on the licence fee for 1 year use that you should have purchased prior to the usage.
Some harsh realities of a copyrights and photographs
I am no expert but, when a photograph is taken by any photographer, by law, the image copyright is retained by that photographer even after death. (70 years to be precise). If you purchase the rights to a photograph from a photographer is it YOU and you alone who has the rights to it. Those rights cannot be transferred and in order to gain this it must be agreed upon with the original photographer. In this case, the photographer is currently deceased, therefore there is literally no way to prove or seek permission.
Negotiations can be had
I did try to refute the fee. As they referred to me as a “commercial blogger.”
I never claimed to be a commercial blogger. I am a self employed children’s entertainer. The intent of this blog is to be used as a tool to help me learn how to write. To practice writing.
Google analytics for my shop page has recorded 66 people viewing this blog in total – thats it!
My blog has less than 80 visitors per month. I have almost no readership, no ad revenues and no income from my blog. With the cost of the domain name and hosting, I lose money every month. The whole website was set up to help me learn to write and help others become better performers.
I make no money from this site at all.
I understand that you have a job to do. And I appreciate your patience. But as a self employed, part time, non commercial blogger who has actually been given the rights to use this image I feel that I should not have to pay for its usage.
However, I understand from your dealings so far that you will not let this go but my situation is this. I will never be able to afford £375.00.
Changing direction
After trying to explain to PicRights that I am not a commercial entity and should not be charged as such, their response basically refuted my claim again. Here is their response;
Regarding your comment “Google analytics for my shop page has recorded 66 people viewing this blog in total – thats it!”, The number of visits to your website or “clicks” on our client’s content is not relevant to this case. A valid licence is required prior to publicly displaying our client’s imagery on a website, and our client does not have a record of you having a valid licence to use its content.
Regarding your comment “I have almost no readers, no ad revenues and no income from my blog”, It is often impossible to determine if the use of an image on a website generated revenue. But even if it did not in this case, that does not change the fact that you have committed copyright infringement by using the image without permission. The same fees would have applied for you to licence the image regardless of whether the image resulted in additional revenue or traffic to your website. Moreover, since you used the image on your website, it added some value to your site – otherwise, you presumably would not have used it.
It appears with PicRights, that no matter what I do they will not rest until they either extort this money from me, or they take me to court. No matter what I say or prove they seem to find a way around everything.
No end in sight
At the end of two weeks of trying to deal with this there was really no other option but to pay the fee.
Even though my blog was never set up as a “commercial entity” or subscription I did upon posting this blog ask for help from you my readers. And in less than four hours I have managed to reach the required amount above and paid the fee.
I honestly cannot thank you all enough who contributed. I have tried to reach out to most of you to do this but just incase you are not on socials, I hope you don’t mind a mention here.
To Ottar kraemer, Robert Hamilton, Lucy Spielberg, Magnus Råberg, Harry Perrin, Barry Fernelius – THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH for your kindness today!
Much love, Nikola
Have you tried to contact AP directly? This still seems suspicious to me. I’ve reached out to a friend who used to work for AP but as a journalist, not on the business side.
Wow! Unbelievable! I’m glad you got it reduced at least!
The quick reduction sounds all the more scammy to me. And to license the pic I imagine would cost about a tenth of what they are asking. More on the order of £30 for a perpetual license instead of £375 annually. It also sounds like if you comply they’ll come after you again next year.
Can you reach out to the Associated Press? They should be able to tell you what’s up with the licensing, and probably settle it for you. Then you just show that to PicRights and tell them to go away.
You probably already found this in your search, but the part about requesting the deposit copy is interesting: https://cjfoxlaw.com/law/is-picrights-legitimate/ It seems PicRights sometimes bluffs about what they legally represent.