Stupid I know but help needed

Flyonthewall

b1rdie wrote: »

I had telephoned them when they sent me the letter so they had my mobile number. I am worried as I would rather pay £350.00 than thousands in a court event though nothing was sold or made from it. I am not disputing I was in the wrong in the first place, just a bit stupid honestly

Have you spoken to them over the phone at all?

There is nothing to justify a cost of £350 nevermind thousands of pounds. If you're really worried send a letter and ask them to give you a breakdown of their expenses as suggested by campdave earlier in the thread.

b1rdie

Tried to call this afternoon but went to answerphone so left a message for them to call me this evening

in_the_Cotswolds

The copyright laws are possibly changing. It will make images more available to the public and the photographer/copyright holder must be able to prove ownership.

See here http://www.purestorm.com/forum/readThread.aspx?id=252520

GabbaGabbaHey

campdave wrote: »

the keep calm and carry on poster is public domain for example

It's not actually that clear cut, and may depend on the jurisdiction - there is certainly an attempt to register it as a trademark in America and Canada, as well as EU-wide.

See http://www.theguardian.com/uk/the-northerner/2013/jan/02/keep-calm-and-carry-on-trademark-books-poster-copyright, or the section on Trademark Claims in the Wikipedia entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keep_Calm_and_Carry_On for more details.

As a general rule of thumb, you should always assume that a photograph or other graphic is copyright unless you have evidence to the contrary.

*Scarlett

b1rdie - check your home insurance policy.

You may have legal cover that could cover legal costs. Or you could at least have a free legal advice line.

Ask them for a breakdown of the £350 costs.

I am clearly no legal expert but this all sounds ridiculous to me.

campdave

GabbaGabbaHey wrote: »

It's not actually that clear cut, and may depend on the jurisdiction - there is certainly an attempt to register it as a trademark in America and Canada, as well as EU-wide.

If people are trying to register it as a trademark, surely that implies it's currently in the public domain?

OneYorkshireLass

The letter wasn't 'horrid', it was telling you what was going to happen. If anyone tried to sell my photos I'd be doing the same thing.
In fact I'm gonna start checking ebay in case this is a regular occurrence. A company once used one of my photos on their blog and when contacted they didn't even seem to think they'd done anything wrong!

Flyonthewall

OneYorkshireLass wrote: »

The letter wasn't 'horrid', it was telling you what was going to happen. If anyone tried to sell my photos I'd be doing the same thing.
In fact I'm gonna start checking ebay in case this is a regular occurrence. A company once used one of my photos on their blog and when contacted they didn't even seem to think they'd done anything wrong!

A lot of people don't understand copyright, but sadly a lot of them do have businesses or media related jobs.

Without seeing how the letter was written you can't possibly say whether it was horrid. It may be written in a very threatening way. Still, it wouldn't be nice to open a letter and find out someone wants to sue you for thousands for a mistake.

Plus they haven't given any explanation as to where such costs have come from. You can't just take numbers out of thin air and charge someone, especially when the image was never actually sold.

OneYorkshireLass

Flyonthewall wrote: »

Without seeing how the letter was written you can't possibly say whether it was horrid. It may be written in a very threatening way. Still, it wouldn't be nice to open a letter and find out someone wants to sue you for thousands for a mistake.

the letter was horrid saying they could proceed court action and sue me for thousands

They weren't horrid, they were facts (although 'thousands' is probably stretching it just slightly!). If the OP thought it was 'horrid' then the OP should C&P the 'horrid' bits. But if that ^ is the 'horrid' bit then sorry, but I disagree that it's horrid.

happybiker

I am continually astounded on this site by the number of thanks being given to posters who are totally and utterly wrong

OP
The photographer is perfectly entitled to charge you for his normal usage fee with a loading for 'unauthorised use'. He doesn't have to prove any expenses or anything else. If he is a professional who relies on photography for his income, he will follow this up, probably by using the small claims court. If he is a member of the National Union of Journalists, they will fight the case for him.
You have effectively stolen his property and he is entitled to compensation . If the image was originally watermarked, and you have removed it, then you may be guilty of an offence under the fraud act of 2006.

The situation may go away, but it may not. Your best bet would probably be to grovell and make a counter offer of possibly half what he is demanding.

Please keep us updated