Stupid I know but help needed

RFW

Mostly as all above advises. I'd be inclined to ignore it.
If you haven't actually sold it then there wouldn't be a case anyway.

I wouldn't admit to anything if replying. If you do intend to reply ask for details of what it is you are supposed to have sold and see if they have evidence of that. Obviously if you never sold it they won't have.

Whilst no one has mentioned a criminal act, it may well be that you could be prosecuted for selling fake or even stolen items (I've no idea how this works) so you may want to get some legal advice.

Most pictures on the internet are 'owned' by someone even if they don't say they are. Most people don't care what is shared and it's not easy to stop anyway. Printing them off and selling them probably does push it into a different category.

Flyonthewall

RFW wrote: »

Most pictures on the internet are 'owned' by someone even if they don't say they are. Most people don't care what is shared and it's not easy to stop anyway. Printing them off and selling them probably does push it into a different category.

All images (and written content...and all other media for that matter) on and off the internet are owned by someone. All media content is automatically copyrighted to the original creator.

You're right about it not being easy to stop. Problem is, one person may share something that is copyrighted and that the original creator does not want used elsewhere, but they don't credit anyone and, worse still, some state the content can be used elsewhere and then someone finds the shared content and believes they are the creator and they are free to use it.

It's often very hard to tell where the content was originally shared and have it removed from all places that don't have permission and it can be just as hard to prove you are the original creator.

A lot of businesses who want images either create their own or use stock photos, which you usually have to pay for and they will state what the image can be used for. That way they won't be using something copyrighted that they have no permission to use and could get them in trouble.

paddyrg

How would it feel if a photo you'd taken, maybe of your daughter for instance, and posted on Facebook was being sold by someone as a poster? It would feel unfair, you'd want to do something about it. That's what's happening here in some form.

Will they sue if you don't respond? Maybe. They're within their rights to. Perhaps they're a professional photographer and the £350 is their library fee. Perhaps the letter is from Getty who are the biggest library and defend their image rights very actively. Personally I'd get in touch and try to mitigate, whether you were contacted by a solicitor or directly, they can still rightfully take it to small claims court. As they say in car ads, your mileage may vary.

mgdavid

I'm with Flyonthewall and others;
don't worry !
don't respond, they are trying to scare or bluff you.
if they really want to go to court, fine, go. It's low key, fairly informal and easy to represent yourself. You've advertised ONE photo which did not sell. I rather fancy most small claims judges will remonstrate with the photographer for wasting court time . IMO very difficult for the photographer to justify the 350.

RainbowDrops

RFW wrote: »

If you haven't actually sold it then there wouldn't be a case anyway.

I was thinking about this when I replied yesterday. However, on further thought I wonder if the justification may be that although the item didn't sell, by listing the item at a low price the OP devalued it, and also made it "less unique".
Just a thought.

Road_Hog

RainbowDrops wrote: »

I was thinking about this when I replied yesterday. However, on further thought I wonder if the justification may be that although the item didn't sell, by listing the item at a low price the OP devalued it, and also made it "less unique".
Just a thought.

The owner would still have to show some tangible loss. County court judges don't respond well to petty claims, they can be somewhat scathing.

I think that most people work on the fact that 99% of people having never been to a county court and the threat of a solicitor's letter is enough to scare them.

RFW

RainbowDrops wrote: »

I was thinking about this when I replied yesterday. However, on further thought I wonder if the justification may be that although the item didn't sell, by listing the item at a low price the OP devalued it, and also made it "less unique".
Just a thought.

Possibly but not something easily quantifiable in a court. If the OP had had ten thousand for sale there could be a case. Having not sold one for £1.20 it wouldn't get very far in court.

"This picture is worth £350"
"No it isn't, it didn't sell for £1.20 on Ebay".

Case dismissed

RFW

Flyonthewall wrote: »

All images (and written content...and all other media for that matter) on and off the internet are owned by someone. All media content is automatically copyrighted to the original creator.

There are a lot of public domain items online with no ownership. It's interesting that with so much sharing most people don't know about copyright.
I know some pro photographers who are happy to have pictures shared as long as they are credited. There's a big difference with posting on a blog or a forum to actually selling it and passing off as something you own. That's moving on from plagiarism into theft.

RainbowDrops

RFW wrote: »

Possibly but not something easily quantifiable in a court. If the OP had had ten thousand for sale there could be a case. Having not sold one for £1.20 it wouldn't get very far in court.

"This picture is worth £350"
"No it isn't, it didn't sell for £1.20 on Ebay".

Case dismissed

Road_Hog wrote: »

The owner would still have to show some tangible loss. County court judges don't respond well to petty claims, they can be somewhat scathing.

Yeah, I think it would be a tough one to argue, but I was just postulating.
People do fight cases of brand dilution though.
A friend of mine worked on a T-shirt stall who had a logo very similar to a famous designer. That designer threatened court, but ended up just seizing their goods.
That's an extreme example though....

Flyonthewall

RFW wrote: »

There are a lot of public domain items online with no ownership. It's interesting that with so much sharing most people don't know about copyright.
I know some pro photographers who are happy to have pictures shared as long as they are credited. There's a big difference with posting on a blog or a forum to actually selling it and passing off as something you own. That's moving on from plagiarism into theft.

Someone created them, therefore someone owns copyright of it. They may not state they own it, they may not care who shares, uses or edits it and no one else may know where it originally came from, but someone does own it and technically no one should use that content as they do not have permission. I say technically simply due to the fact nothing is likely to ever come of using such content. Doesn't make it right though.

Indeed, credit should always be given and there is a very big difference. It's not just content originally created online either, but other content too. Just because , for example, you buy a CD does not mean you own that music and have a right to share it or use it for other things. Same goes for a book; you can borrow books for free or buy them, but either way that doesn't mean that you then have the right to share or use the content.

Many people don't seem to realise this though. They think just becaiuse anyone can access the content or they bought it that they then have the right to do what they want with it.