Picrights Omdömen 

So, I was intrigued by this after receiving the letter and went to the references that PicRight helpfully provide. Turns out that they even scammed AP and Reuters, by directing you to a website that looks and feels like the real thing but has a different URL than the actual AP and Reuters websites (ap.org v apnews.com; reutersagency v reuters.com). This company is, in other words, impersonating respected news agencies and dragging their reputation through the mud. I can only hope that AP and Reuters sue the hell out of them and that the scammers get caught. In any case, be aware that this is a genuine scam. Do not believe them when they claim otherwise. And if anyone has contacts at AP or Reuters (I m a7y, actually), please alert them to the abuse in their name.

Come difendersi da Picrights: Il timore di azioni legali
La paura indotta nelle vittime di successive azioni legali è un elemento chiave nell’approccio di PicRights e di altre aziende simili, per ottenere pagamenti.

In realtà, una eventuale azione legale, peraltro su scala internazionale, è una possibilità più teorica che pratica. I rischi e costi che dovrebbe affrontare PicRights renderebbe poco conveniente insistere attraverso questa strada.

In effetti, al momento non ci risulta nessuna causa legale svolta da PicRights in conseguenza del mancato pagamento alle loro richieste.

E’ opportuno comunque spendere qualche minuto e fare un controllo sull’immagine per verificare se se esiste qualche forma di copyright e avviso sull’utilizzo dell’immagine. oppure se è disponibile tramite accesso protetto.

E anche utile visitare il sito dell’azienda che si afferma proprietaria per verificare se quella immagine è disponibile a pagamento o soggetta a copyright, condizioni d’uso etc.

Quindi se avete ricevuto una richiesta di pagamento una volta accertato che effettivamente l’immagine è presente negli archivi del fornitore, rimuovete l’immagine dal sito in via cautelativa. La cessazione dell’utilizzo, almeno per la normativa italiana, è più che sufficiente a tutelare i diritti connessi all’immagine, considerato che non ricorre l’ipotesi di cui all’’art. 90 comma 2 L. n. 633/1941, che prevede che quando le fotografie non rechino le indicazioni prescritte dal comma 1, la loro riproduzione non può essere considerata abusiva e non è dovuto il compenso di cui all’art. 91, a meno che l’interessato non provi la mala fede del riproduttore.

I received it in a mailbox asking for a license towards some pics I used related to copyright. This is a scam. Already been reported

Empresa horrível que usa técnicas de intimidação e bullying para extorquir dinheiro de pequenas empresas e blogueiros. Sempre obtenha aconselhamento jurídico antes de dar-lhes qualquer dinheiro

This is a sad way to make money out of small businesses inadvertently using images. If this were a legitimate business it would simply advise those who have mistakenly used an image of the legal situation and ask them to remove it. They are clearly using a bot to scan sites. I strongly advise all to get the terms and conditions of their websites in order to prevent these losers from exploiting hard working small business owners for their own gain. Companies like Reuters and AP should hang their heads in shame for lending their support to this.

Scammers. Avoid and ignore

We too, like many others have received a letter by email telling us we are in breach of copywrite due to an image found years ago on our blog.
We don't dispute the use of the image however, we will too request evidence and an explanation of how the fine is made up. Its just a random figure. What we would expect is a breakdown of how that figure is achieved and ultimately, how much the beneficiary receives.
Until that time, they look like a lawless agency targeting small business for their own financial gain.

I am in the same situation as many of the people who have posted - small business, small image used in the depth of a blog, aggressive letter recieved, unknown fine being demanded. I am now trying to look at options. I read this on the Reuters webpage about their own copyright guidelines - It seems they do not mind using content in some circumstances as long as it is attribted to their organisation/photographer and it is not used out of context

Thoughts would be appreciated

Attribution to Individuals and Content Details

Where any picture or graphic is attributed to any individual (in addition to Reuters or any Third Party Provider), you must clearly and prominently display such attribution (for example, REUTERS/Jane Doe, where “Jane Doe” is the name of the photographer).

Where any text story is used in the Client Property substantially as it was provided to you, you will maintain the original Reuters dateline and author attribution (i.e., the byline) that appears together with the story.

No tienen oficina. Simplemente dan la dirección de un centro de negocios salchichero ubicado encima de una pizzeria en un pueblito de Suiza. Al menos podían gastarse un poco más de dinero para intentar dar el pego.

Los informes que envían por correo dan risa, imprimidos con una impresora de inyección mala.

En una palabra, cutres 100%.

Quien se puede creer que estos mendas te demanden en un juzgado pidiendo cientos o miles de Euros por un par de fotos en miniatura publicadas en un blog?. Un Juzgado no admite a trámite ni de broma semejante bobada.

Simplemente Ridículos. Ya he perdido la cuenta de cuantos requerimientos me han enviado estos mendas lerendas. Cada vez que recibo uno, me da la risa. Te dicen que te dan un plazo 14 días para solucionarlo, al mes siguiente otra vez el plazo de 14 días y así sucesivamente. Pero burros, demandadme ya, que estoy esperando a vuestro departamento legal externo (debe ser algún pizzero).

Ni piquéis ni os asustéis, mandan miles de estúpidos requerimientos y con tal que pique un 0,1% ya ganan dinero. A lo sumo borrad las fotos y enviar sus mails al spam. No entréis en su juego y no responded, a no ser que los queráis trolear para reíros un poquito de ellos.

Venga, scammers, respondedme la reseña y así me río un poco más de vosotros.

Respond to PicRights with apologies and a proposal for negotiation, engaging with their tactics. However, they quickly retort with another fabricated screenshot showing the image still in a specific directory, presenting an opportunity to conclusively address the issue. In your reply, emphasize that they have breached your website's terms and conditions by using bots to scan your site, extracting sensitive information, and sharing it with their partners without authorization. Highlight three significant violations, and optionally note that their second claim regarding the image's ownership is incorrect, as the true creator, as indicated on his website (include link), retains ownership. Offer to resolve the matter directly with the legitimate owner of the image, pending verification through documentation. Following this, they disappear. It's crucial to have a clearly outlined terms and conditions page on your homepage to deter such scams and insist on evidence of ownership. Rather than ignoring these claims, provide proof that they are unfounded.

It's a predatory practice that exploits small business owners using outdated copyright laws.

Disgusting that companies like this exist! Very arrogant to deal with!

ATTENTION ! Arnaque !!!

Being receiving letters stating the same as others - demanding money for unauthorised usage. Problem is my company does not have a website!

Entreprise Suisse frauduleuse qui se sert d'un logiciel de tracking et démarche elle-même les agences médias en empochant illégalement 90% des sommes demandées.

Seulement, 1) les bases d'archives numériques sur lesquelles elles s'appuient sont situées aux USA et n'ont aucune légitimité en zone EU.

2) Les archives numériques de sites web sont réalisées sans l'autorisation de leurs créateurs ou de leurs propriétaires et sont donc irrecevables, pour peu que les mentions légales du susdit site soient bien structurées. (toute reproduction, copie du site partielle ou complète est interdite...) .

3) Les sommes demandées ne s'appuient sur...rien et ne sont pas légitimes.

4 ) La représentation des "soi-disant" sociétés qui passent par eux n'est ni établie , ni juridiquement valable. (Sinon, ils inventeraient un département propre à cet effet.)

5) En France, il est nécessaire de faire réaliser un constat d'huissier sur le moment (et non sur une archive) -

6) Le nombre de lacunes et d'erreurs juridiques que commet ce groupe d'étrons ne grandit pas leur minuscule pays. Il y a toute une industrie fallacieuse qui tourne autour de ces déjections anales, avocats pour & contre, menaces, mais rien de sérieux.

Mon conseil : Si on a affaire à un avocat, on avertit le grand Bâtonnier, si on a affaire aux petites bouses de Pic-Right, on les colle au tribunal ou on les envoie balader en insistant sur les meurs décousues de leurs mères et en leur précisant que les intimidations, les tentatives d'extorsions, le harcèlement et la violation des droits d'auteur (bonjour la copie écran avec le logo de votre site dans la boite mail) sont punies par la loi.

Moi, je suis contre la peine de mort, sauf pour eux.

Que tous les entrepreneurs honnêtes et soucieux de justice qui tombent sur cet avis me contactent. Ensemble, nous obligerons cette entreprise à rendre des comptes et a rembourser toutes celles arnaquées. (La liste est longue)

this company has demanded money it would be easy to accept liability ( even though I used a design company for my web site) but it gives a swiss bank account and a Uk bank account to pay into. How do I know this resolves the issue - if indeed it is an issue?

NB This matter has been resolved. I had to pay up and it was a large sum that still did not give me full rights to use the picture in question. Should bem noted - the photo in question - at that time was supposedly from a site offering copyright free images

Rasentano la truffa, ignorate ogni comunicazione

IF THEY CONTACT YOU, ALWAYS REPORT THE EXTORTION ATTEMPT TO THE POLICE:
This PicRights is not a law firm, it is a company that sends requests for money in droves to anyone who has a website, they only and exclusively deal with requesting payment of phantom "copyrights" by threatening lawsuits.
They use programs that scour the web looking for photos (of any kind, they don't even check that they are old photos with copyrights that have expired decades ago).
Remember that by law legal communications must only take place via certified email or registered mail, if they send you notices via email or letter they are worth the same as spam or supermarket flyers.
They use a practice called "copyright trolling", invented about ten years ago by unscrupulous American law firms, although it is now declining in the USA because judges have begun to condemn and disbar lawyers who indulged in such practices. practices (search on Wired for an article entitled "Creditor Moves to Dismantle Copyright Troll Righthaven". Righthaven was in fact the name of one of these law firms).
In Europe a gang of Polish scammers have been trying for a few years and unfortunately they found a law firm in Berlin that lent themselves to the game

Be wary of this 'company'. I have inadvertently used a picture which they are claiming belongs to them, but cannot provide me with any proof. They expect me to pay over £600 for this or they will pass my details onto the 'law firm'.

Of course it's a scam. If it weren't, they wouldn't ask for absurd amounts claiming to be fair payment for the photographer's work.

Firstly, the work of these photographers to obtain these photographs has already been paid for by whoever commissioned the work, so asking for money for a supposed license of use obviously means that this money is not for the photographer but for whoever paid him for the work.

Is this right? Only if it is in the USA or countries with absurd copyright laws, in the European Union and in most other countries in the rest of the world, this is absurd. But if these laws are from the USA or UK, there are also Fair Use laws there, that is, asking for money for a photo that illustrates a certain article, being necessary for the clarification of the article and as such with the aim of educating or clarifying someone, is covered by the law of Fair Use.

On the other hand, if there is indeed a right to pay for copyright then it should be paid based on viewing it. If I want to see a painting, I go to the museum and pay for it, I don't have to pay just because I know the painting is in the museum, which is exactly what these gentlemen ask for.

In other words, if the photograph is in a certain article/blog/webpage and no one goes there, it's the same as me knowing that the painting is on the wall of the museum, so I don't have to pay for it, if I click on the article and go see the photograph, then it's as if you went to the museum to see the painting and paid for it, so if these con artists were serious people, they would ask for a percentage of the value earned by viewing the work, nothing more than that.

As such, they are not serious people, so this is a scam to steal money, nothing more than that.

A rip-off. I was charged €431 for a picture on a blog site where I post short stories for my writing group of about 10 people. The page has probably had about 20 views. The picture was a small decoration that I could have easily done without. I made no money out of it, it attracted zero visitors to my website, so how do they arrive at the cost? They are picking on the little guy because we don't have the means to appeal these charges in court. How much of my €431 actually went to the photographer?