Stupid I know but help needed

b1rdie

some months ago I was selling some pre-printed photos on eBay and had used one that belonged to a photographer. They have now contacted me and asked for £350.00 to cover her expenses. The photo didn't sell and it was only up for 1.20 - they have advised me to take legal action and the letter was horrid saying they could proceed court action and sue me for thousands - not sure what to do - any help would be appreciated.

And yes I know I shouldn't of put it on but I was completely unaware that it belonged to anyone or had any copyright issues and it was in the public with no watermarks on or identification

Flyonthewall

Where did the photo come from and what expenses is she having to cover?

campdave

Firstly, you're in the wrong, but you know that.

They are trying to strong arm you into paying by threatening court. I'm no legal expert, but in court, they would have to prove the expenses and any loss caused by you using the image without permission, but this will be trivial if you didn't sell the item. It's unlikely a court will look favourably on someone suing for the cost of sending a letter (or was it a message - you don't make it clear).

Essentially, if it wasn't a letter from a solicitor, I'd ignore it. If they are serious, they will be using a solicitor. As they are talking about vaguely suing for thousands, I very much doubt a solitictor is involved.

b1rdie

It was a letter from them on headed paper with their invoice. I am really worried. They provided me with an item number from my site but I cannot locate it as it did not sell so I would have deleted the record. I have since closed down the account because it quite unnerved me

b1rdie

I got it from the internet so thought it was in the public domain and you could use it

campdave

b1rdie wrote: »

I got it from the internet so thought it was in the public domain and you could use it

Copyright doesn't work like that. A watermark is not needed to prove copyright. If I use a picture of the coca cola logo, it's still copyrighted even if it doesn't have a watermark.

Write back and ask for a breakdown of their expenses if you're worried. But as I said, they're using threatening terms to bully you into paying up as they are aware that whilst they have a case because you did use their image in an attempt for financial gain, you made nothing from it so the loss they are claiming does not exist.

marleyboy

I am pretty sure you knew you could not sell it on. Using and Selling it are two completely different scenarios.

You were aware enough that it did not belong to you and as such you were not entitled to sell it. Hopefully its a lesson learned.

Flyonthewall

b1rdie wrote: »

It was a letter from them on headed paper with their invoice. I am really worried. They provided me with an item number from my site but I cannot locate it as it did not sell so I would have deleted the record. I have since closed down the account because it quite unnerved me

If it wasn't from a solicitor, as campdave said, ignore it. There's no legal expenses, the item didn't sell and I can't imagine a court would take it that seriously. It sounds like they're just trying to scare you.

Yes, whoever took that photo originally would own copyright and that does mean that they have rights. However, sending threatening letters and invoicing you for unreasonable amounts is not right.

Can they prove they own copyright of it? Was this a photo you bought off them?

Flyonthewall

b1rdie wrote: »

I got it from the internet so thought it was in the public domain and you could use it

campdave wrote: »

Copyright doesn't work like that. A watermark is not needed to prove copyright. If I use a picture of the coca cola logo, it's still copyrighted even if it doesn't have a watermark.

Write back and ask for a breakdown of their expenses if you're worried. But as I said, they're using threatening terms to bully you into paying up as they are aware that whilst they have a case because you did use their image in an attempt for financial gain, you made nothing from it so the loss they are claiming does not exist.

This ^

With media whoever creates it owns copyright of it and even if it's in the public domain that does not mean you can just use it and certainly not sell it. Images do get used all the time online, but that doesn't mean it's right and the original creator of the media could, at any time, order the images to be taken off sites and take legal action if they don't.

Some content will come under a trademark rather than copyright. The same applies though that you can not just use this content.

For any images or content that you don't own you should always ask permission before using them. Some sites may ask you to give them credit (and link to them) and with images some people may give permission for certain uses. For example, you may be allowed to use it only for personal use. However, it may be that they allow you to use it for commercial use or even edit it. Or it may be that they don't wish for anyone else to use it at all.

RainbowDrops

I agree with campdave.
Bit if they get in touch again, it might be worth replying apologetically with something along the lines of:

(might be worth getting someone to check over it first)

Dear X,

I am sorry for wrongfully listing your photograph for sale.
It was a genuine mistake on my part, and the photograph did not sell. As I did not make any money from this, I hope you can accept my sincere apologies to lay this issue to rest.

Road_Hog

b1rdie wrote: »

some months ago I was selling some pre-printed photos on eBay and had used one that belonged to a photographer. They have now contacted me and asked for £350.00 to cover her expenses. The photo didn't sell and it was only up for 1.20 - they have advised me to take legal action

Well, I would laugh at them, then send a letter back, saying, try taking me to the county court, it's a civil matter. Please explain what expenses I have caused you, plus the item didn't sell, so there is no revenue from the item.

Solicitors don't count in the county court, it is specifically designed to be low cost and the judge takes a dim view of people trying to use solicitors in what is meant to be a people's court. You don't get costs in the county court, so they can expend all the money they like, it won't help.

That said, you shouldn't be trying to sell other peoples' work.