Stupid I know but help needed

Flyonthewall

Rob_S_Photographer wrote: »

not defending just pointing out the cruel but funny irony should it ever happen...

Exactly, and we were pointing out that the letter wasn't official and if the sender was serious they would go through the legal route rather than sending a demand for some seemingly random amount.

If they are serious the OP will receive an official letter, of which they certainly should not ignore.

Just because the OP made a mistake in listing the copyrighted image doesn't mean that it's right they get scammed. Even if it's from the person who does own copyright, £350 could be more than they really should be asking which still is not right.

Flyonthewall

Rob_S_Photographer wrote: »

'accidental listing'? the ops stupidity/lack of understanding of copyright is no defence. she nicked it and thought she could make some easy money.. hardly accidental!

why is it classed as a business.. because they are sourcing items/images specifically to sell, ideally for a profit.

They listed a number of photos of which we have to assume the rest were not stolen as the OP has not stated this. It is really easy for another photo to get mixed in with them and for the OP to have listed it without realising at the time. Therefore they accidentally listed a copyrighted photo.

I never said that their lack of knowledge was a defence, I'm just saying they made a mistake.

They didn't source it to sell on. At no point has the OP suggested they did any such thing and I'm sure that you can not prove they did. This is about a one off time of listing a few photos. That's not a business.

Rob_S_Photographer

Flyonthewall wrote: »

Exactly, and we were pointing out that the letter wasn't official and if the sender was serious they would go through the legal route rather than sending a demand for some seemingly random amount.

If they are serious the OP will receive an official letter, of which they certainly should not ignore.

Just because the OP made a mistake in listing the copyrighted image doesn't mean that it's right they get scammed. Even if it's from the person who does own copyright, £350 could be more than they really should be asking which still is not right.

Sending the cavalry in (solicitors) for first contact would be frowned on if it got to court.. also the initial payment requested wouldn't be £350 but £475 (inc the added £125 for the solicitor to make initial contact) without any room for movement should it be required.

Rob_S_Photographer

Flyonthewall wrote: »

They listed a number of photos of which we have to assume the rest were not stolen as the OP has not stated this. It is really easy for another photo to get mixed in with them and for the OP to have listed it without realising at the time. Therefore they accidentally listed a copyrighted photo.

I never said that their lack of knowledge was a defence, I'm just saying they made a mistake.

They didn't source it to sell on. At no point has the OP suggested they did any such thing and I'm sure that you can not prove they did. This is about a one off time of listing a few photos. That's not a business.

can anyone really be this naïve? I fully believe that the op knew what she was doing and panicked when caught out.. tis the same excuse that has been used every time Ive had to go to court..

Flyonthewall

Rob_S_Photographer wrote: »

Sending the cavalry in (solicitors) for first contact would be frowned on if it got to court.. also the initial payment requested wouldn't be £350 but £475 (inc the added £125 for the solicitor to make initial contact) without any room for movement should it be required.

I never said no other contact should be made first, I'm just saying waiting for them to go to the next step would prove they're legit.

I don't see why a court would frown up someone trying to make sure they do things legally though. Fair enough showing you tried to resolve it first, but what's wrong with just trying to do things legally by going to those who can help (solicitors)?

Either way, the OP did try and phone the sender, although no idea if they ever phoned back.

Flyonthewall

Rob_S_Photographer wrote: »

can anyone really be this naïve? I fully believe that the op knew what she was doing and panicked when caught out.. tis the same excuse that has been used every time Ive had to go to court..

I'm just going by what has been said by the OP. It's not right to judge them. We don't know them, people make mistakes and there's a lot of people who know little (or nothing) about copyright. Just because some people lie and claim they didn't know/made a mistake doesn't mean that everyone who says it is lying.

After all, if that is what happened, what are they going to say? Should they make something up just so it isn't what someone else has said who did lie?

Brooker_Dave

Rob_S_Photographer wrote: »

as soon as it get to court theres added costs.. as a photographer it costs me money [loss of income] to spend days sitting waiting to give evidence etc.. this is added to the final pay-out as well as legal fees.

personally I couldn't give a monkeys if the op pays or not.. but hopefully you armchair warriors will learn a little.. but from what ive seen so far its rather unlikely!

Why would a small claims action for £350 take any more than an hour, and do the small claims court allow legal fees to be added?

Brooker_Dave

Rob_S_Photographer wrote: »

Sending the cavalry in (solicitors) for first contact would be frowned on if it got to court.. also the initial payment requested wouldn't be £350 but £475 (inc the added £125 for the solicitor to make initial contact) without any room for movement should it be required.

You can invoice people for what ever you like, but you still need to prove your losses to a court.

Given OP didn't sell any of the disputed photos, what losses were incured?

Remember everyday thousands of people are sent invoices from car parking companies...

Rob_S_Photographer

Flyonthewall wrote: »

I never said no other contact should be made first, I'm just saying waiting for them to go to the next step would prove they're legit.

I don't see why a court would frown up someone trying to make sure they do things legally though. Fair enough showing you tried to resolve it first, but what's wrong with just trying to do things legally by going to those who can help (solicitors)?

Either way, the OP did try and phone the sender, although no idea if they ever phoned back.

Christ.. this is akin to banging my head against a brick wall... youre already saying the photographer is charging too much, but you want the OP to wait until they receive a letter/email from a solicitor which will cost them even more money?

mgdavid

from what I've heard about the newly-enlightened and empowered SCC judges, they are likely to throw the case out and admonish the photographer for aggravated time-wasting.