Big Brother strikes again—and this time, the blow is lower than the case involving Getty Images covered on the #Strella blog a few years ago.
The most recent way to try to collect from small businesses comes in the form of citing copyright infringement on images generated in link previews on social media. (The images, because they’re embedded in blog posts, appear when articles are shared on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, etc.)
Here’s an example:
In the image below, there’s a post from my blog. Let’s say a user selects the option to share the post on Facebook.
The user is redirected to Facebook where they can share the post to the newsfeed, a story, or a group. As you can see, the image associated with the post automatically populates to the feed.
Pixsy sent its claim via an email to my client on July 31, 2019. The message stated that Pixsy represents a photographer as the artist's authorized licensing and copyright agent—and that my client has been using the artist's imagery without license or permission.
The email alleged Pixsy detected the unauthorized use at a specific location on my client’s website, and it shared a link to that site. That link led to a tweet my client shared from another source, which autogenerated the link preview picture in question.
To resolve the matter, Pixsy requested a payment of $750 for a “license” to the photo, to be paid through an online portal. And it threatened that “failure to resolve this matter of unlicensed use within 21 days will result in escalation to one of our partner attorneys for legal proceedings.”
My client initially suspected this letter might be spam, but upon talking with a colleague, it was suggested that I check it out. Since the article with the picture in question originated from a third-party website, I believed the claim to be unfounded. However, having dealt with copyright issues before, I know they are relentless about pursuing collections even if the claim is absurd.
Internet marketing consultant John Webster said, “These are people looking for low-hanging fruit. What they are claiming would break the internet if they are successful.”
I believed it was necessary to respond to the claim, so I recommended that we delete the tweet and write Pixsy back with an explanation.
Refuting the claim
As you can probably guess, Pixsy did not accept my explanation. They wrote back a few days later:
“In such instances, it is the individual user's responsibility to ensure that the correct licensing requirements are met when using an image in this way, regardless of source. The image in question was posted on your client's twitter and the appropriate attribution was not given, hence an infringement has occurred.”
Pixsy again supplied the link to its online licensing payment portal.
Since I’ve engaged my lawyer, Jan Matthew Tamanini of JMT Law, LLC, in previous copyright matters such as the Getty Image suit, I decided to reach out to her for insight.
She admitted she’s never seen anything like this third-party click-through claim. She was kind enough to take some time to review the claim and comment to me for this post:
“There's precious little caselaw on whether online click-throughs connecting to a copyrighted image on a third-party Internet site infringe on an auto-displayed image owner's copyright. The prevailing wisdom of the two higher federal courts that have considered the issue (the 7th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals) plus the Southern District of New York (which, due to its location and the amount of intellectual property cases it handles, generally gets a lot of respect from other jurisdictions) seems to come down on the side of the pass-through website owner: click-through use through an html link to another site would not constitute copyright infringement.
In addition to the holdings of the few cases decided to date as binding or persuasive authority (depending on where the site owner or copyright holder is located), the pass-through owner should have protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act where the site removes the offending post after they’re made aware that the posted link includes a copyrighted image and there was no intent to infringe. The pass-through could also have a fair-use “transformative” defense under the DCMA where the click-through site is not using the photo for its artistic value, but to “transform” both it and the article which it accompanies for public benefit.
Transmitting information where an image is merely included as an adjunct illustration connected with the article, not using the image as the subject of the post, should protect the pass-through site owner. Including an image as an illustration doesn’t impair the copyright holder’s market for its image; those using the link aren't going there to copy the photo, but to read the accompanying article.”
In short, there was no legal reason for my client to pay to license the image for this type of use.
I asked Tamanini how she would advise someone who receives a letter of this nature. She said it depends on the individual situation. If it involves a click-through link, the person receiving the demand could write back and say there was no infringement, citing the DMCA.
What if a recipient decides to ignore the letter from Pixsy? Tamanini explained that Pixsy—like Getty Images—“will keep harassing until someone pays them or tells them to go pound sand.” Pixsy may still escalate, even with an attorney representing the target business, but with a valid legal defense as in my client's situation, there’s little chance Pixsy would spend the time, money, and effort to file an action. However, there are no guarantees.
The Bottom Line
A letter from Pixsy claiming copyright infringement from images displayed in a click-through link from a third-party website does not constitute an infringement on the image's copyright. Even in instances where a website unknowingly displays a copyrighted image with no intent to infringe, the DMCA exempts the user from liability for infringement as long as the site owner promptly deletes that image upon being informed of the copyright.
It will be up to each individual to determine how much harassment he or she is willing to take if no action is taken, and relative costs are always a factor, but I recommend you consider consulting an attorney who can resolve the matter quickly.
Sadly, this Pixsy claim is another way to collect from small businesses with limited resources.
Don’t let them get away with it! Please help me spread the word to other business owners.
Interesting read, Rachel.
Glad it turned out well, although this was a flaky attempt at best by Pixsy.
I had a Pixsy demand letter in December myself. So, I found this post while researching how much trouble I might be in!
Although, after finding a few posts like this one where Pixsy was rebuffed, I'm feeling better.
I'd hold my hands up if I "stole" an image, but I don't feel like I have.
I picked up a Creative Commons 2.0 image from Wikipedia. Pixsy has since informed me the image belongs to a Flickr user (Pixsy has partnered with Flickr now to carpet bomb usage of Flickr images).
They want $750 from me, citing among other reasons "loss of earnings" - how can someone who licenses an image for free that's on Wikipedia and who knows where else lose earnings?
I've gone back on forth on them via email disputing this fact. They keep sending me demands for the money threatening to escalate the issue.
I'm a bit of a worrier, so I'm kinda buying time here. Copyright lawyers are expensive, but the principle tells me to fight them off.
Thanks so much for the comment. It is disheartening when I see small business owners, and others, get picked on by Pixsy, Getty etc. My principle tells me to fight, as well. Sometimes, you do have to cut your losses and figure out is it going to cost more to fight it, or pay them to shut them up. Sad thing, but that's how they do it!
Matty, we are in the same position . In all of our searching, it clearly appears that the image that was used was pulled from the link they provided on Flickr (the images match). But we never use FLickr.
Below the image on Flickr there is an option to download with a "Some Rights Reserved" license included. When clicking on that link it points to this creative commons license:
This license states this:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
for any purpose, even commercially.
What I didn't do appropriately is provide credit back to the original owner of the image. As stated in the same license:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
Again, we really don't recall pulling this image from Flickr as we have been using Unsplash and Canva (all copyright free with no attribution) We are a very small company and don't know if we should pay the $750..ignore, wait it out. We certainly can't afford a lawyer
I'm sorry the IP trolls got you, too.
Pixsy are not IP trolls, they act on behalf of the photographers (eho have to individually submit each claim they want Pixsy to pursue, but Pixsy accepts far from all suchrequests). I don't think the "Hey! I got it from Wikipedia, it's a free photo" excuse is the least bit convincing. It's free to use assuming you make a good-faith effort to credit the author, it doesn't even have to follow the exact wording of the license. If you can't even do that, you are just as bad as somebody stealing non-CC photos from elsewhere. It's image theft.
I agree the twitter thing mentioned in the post above sounds weird though. Normally pixsy doesn't allow photographers to submit requests for user-submitted dmca-able things like that.
You make some excellent points. Thank you for reading my blog post and sharing your feedback.
Very interesting post. I am however, a photographer and may take is very different. Even though the post may be a 'click-through' post, I can tell you that there are millions of images that end up being used all over the world for advertising, informational blogs, etc. where-in the photographer receives absolutely no compensation or even credit. For far too long media of all types have gotten used to virtually free imagery, while gaining value from those images. It is time for those using the images to take responsibility to find out if an image they want to use is copyrighted or not - or, in a far better solution, PAY for use of images.
Thank you for sharing your perspective as a photographer, Heidi. I definitely understand where you're coming from. It's one of the main reasons why I've started using my own photos more or paying for licenses. Thanks again for chiming in!
"..the DMCA exempts the user from liability for infringement as long as the site owner promptly deletes that image upon being informed of the copyright."
This is just flat wrong and you're spreading misinformation by telling people this. It's like saying that as long as you stop speeding when a police officer pulls you over you won't get a ticket. The DMCA offers no such protection. If you can't afford to pay a settlement when caught infringing someone's copyright, or cannot afford a lawsuit, then simply don't use any content without permission or license.
I encourage you to check out the US Copyright Office’s own summary of the DMCA’s provisions (found here: https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf).
Here’s the pertinent text from that link:
Any person injured by a violation of section 1201 or 1202 may bring a civil action in Federal court. Section 1203 gives courts the power to grant a range of equitable and monetary remedies similar to those available under the Copyright Act, including statutory damages. The court has discretion to reduce or remit damages in cases of innocent violations, where the violator proves that it was not aware and had no reason to believe its acts constituted a violation. (Section 1203(c)(5)(A)). Special protection is given to nonprofit libraries, archives and educational institutions, which are entitled to a complete remission of damages in these circumstances. (Section 1203(c)(5)(B)).
Limitation for Information Location Tools
“Section 512(d) relates to hyperlinks, online directories, search engines and the like. It limits liability for the acts of referring or linking users to a site that contains infringing material by using such information location tools, if the following conditions are met:
• The provider must not have the requisite level of knowledge that the material is infringing. The knowledge standard is the same as under the limitation for information residing on systems or networks.
• If the provider has the right and ability to control the infringing activity, the provider must not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the activity.
• Upon receiving a notification of claimed infringement, the provider must expeditiously take down or block access to the material.
...The provisions... protecting the provider against claims based on having taken down the material apply to this limitation.”
This is interesting. I'm dealing with August LLC now for a copyright claim from a photo that was posted in 2016 before I owned the site. They're asking for $1600. I told them I'm only using the site for fun and didn't posess it until 2017. As soon as I got her email I removed the infringing image and the links throughout Google as my job is SEO so I removed them all from search console and then put in notice to Google to also remove the image from their search functions. However, they're still pursuing even though I showed them an email and the agreement signed when I sold the site. I'm wondering though if DCMA standards are done and I didn't own the site at the time the image was infringed upon do they have any right at all for making a claim? I'm also unsure where they're located for legal representation as this LLC seems to be Australia based and I'm unsure if that changes any legal claims.
I am sorry to read that you're dealing with this! These trolls are relentless. They don't care if you didn't own it or not. They will just keep bugging you and threatening you. Unfortunately, it comes down to how much harassment you're willing to take. Best of luck as you work through this.
Thank you Rachel
The person is kind of attacking you for trying to help people from predatory companies like Pixy. These photographers should not make their pictures available and downloadable , and they can do that, anybody can, and especially not mention that the use of the image is not allowed. Furthermore they should not be using PUBLIC domains for all to see and use these images, then cry foul. If they want to advertise their work they can do so on their own websites, or special websites that sells images an make the images protected with watermarks.
Thank you for the support. I appreciate it!
Thank you Rachel for your article. I am a small business in Australia and have been dealing with this horrible Pixsy organisation for a while now when I googled how to get out of a pixsy claim and was luckily enough to find your article.
I totally agree with what Mo has said. If you have your images on Google from 2013 of a plant that was taken at an orchid show then you want to put your hand out for a licence fee of $450 per annum because I used your image on my website and sold 2 $15 plants.
Wow. Vultures. and to claim person is a 'professional' photographer when there is nothing noted on his linked in remotly relating to photography. What a joke.
THe images were immediately removed and I have tried the DMCA approach suggested in your article. Fingers crossed for a positive result
Hi Jennifer, thank you for your comment! I am sorry to hear this has happened to you as well but glad you found the advice in my article to be helpful. Hopefully, all is resolved with a positive outcome for you. Warm regards, Rachel
This has just happened to me.
I blog for fun, and have 1 product on my website. Literally, made 0 pounds (not about the money for me).
But, they want 350 pounds.
I removed the image instantly.
Should I respond to the email or just ignore it?
this company (PIXSY) contacted me for a photo I used on our company website demanding $ 1,348 , I did my research and found out that they are just a scam ! , do you know a way to report them specially there emails are spamming me with threats ! those guys are scam artists
Got the same harassing email from Pixsy for a creative commons photo I found/used (and which is still displayed on Wikipedia).
I totally understand the need to protect creative artists copyright but I make very little money from my site (and believed the photo used was freely available as part of a creative commons license) apart from a few dollars via Google ads (enough for a coffee and a sandwich each month) and yet I'm being asked to pay £450 (approx. $700).
I can't afford to pay for it. I've removed the image immediately and hope the above information - "the DMCA exempts the user from liability for infringement as long as the site owner promptly deletes that image upon being informed of the copyright" - offers me some protection.
Pixsy are going to get themselves into trouble. They'll push it too far and find themselves taken to court for harassment.
They target anyone and everyone with this unscrupulous scare tactic, demanding money and threatening legal action against many bloggers/webmasters who have either never profited from their sites or made such little in revenue it would take them years to pay Pixsy's fees.
I completely agree that copyright should be upheld and that a creator's work deserves to be protected in law. I am a photographer myself so I know exactly what it feels like to have your images unfairly used.
But, every situation has context, and Pixsy's business model is scandalous. A friend of mine was signed up to their service and was notified by a third party that he was been chased for money on behalf of my friend and one of his images. My friend had no knowledge of this and gladly gave his blessing for the image to be used with an agreed credit/attribution. Despite this, Pixsy continued to chase for its fees. WHY? Because that's how it makes money. It is profiting from photographers' work in the most underhand and disgusting way.
Back in 2018, for a publisher I was freelancing with as a photographer no less, we received an email from Pixsy demanding thousands of pounds for a third party image the publisher had used on their website. The image had been uploaded by a digital editor on work experience. The publisher took the image down immediately. With some of its own legal backing, it requested that Pixsy, if it so wished, proceed with legal proceedings. After a few more harassing emails, they stopped and they went quiet. Pixsy's model is to target the vulnerable, to extract a quick buck, and move on.
Nasty pieces of work.
"It's like saying that as long as you stop speeding when a police officer pulls you over you won't get a ticket."
Wrong. Wrong. WRONG.
Anyone caught by a police officer for a speeding offence should have a license to drive. Hence they have assumed knowledge of the road and MUST play the rules. You can't apply this example here.
Copyright is a minefield. The problem with Pixsy is not necessarily the issue of copyright infringement but the way they are attacking those who have mistakenly re-used an image they either thought was free to use or published an image without acquiring a license or proving attribution properly because of a lack of knowledge.
Once this has been brought to the attention of the webmaster, they should be given the opportunity to rectify the situation without a penalty fee. The easiest being to take down the offending image.
Once the image has been removed, it's the end of the issue. If the photographer then wants to take it further, they have every right to pursue it through the courts. But I find it hard to believe a judge would agree to ask a webmaster who clearly makes no money from their website to pay such extortionate fees for an image they mistakenly used and removed once they were told about the copyright infringement.
Pixsy's model of taking probably at least a 50% cut of these "charges" is scandalous. It's a legal form of those horrible spam emails people get about paying hundreds of $$$ to delete compromising images of them taken from a computer hack.
Photographers must take more responsibility. The ones supporting Pixsy are essentially fishing. They're uploading images online and then lying in wait for someone to re-publish... then BAM... you owe $700! If you're that important, watermark your images, de-list them from Google searches, or don't upload them at all. And, at the very least, given "offenders" who clearly haven't profited from your images the chance to remove them from their platforms.
Thanks Rachel for the informative post. I think if more photographers were aware of the harm that Pixsy is causing under the pretense of protecting photographers' intellectual property, they would think twice before signing up with them. Recently, my girlfriend was hit with a Pixsy shakedown, so on her behalf I contacted the photographer to confirm that he was indeed working with Pixsy intentionally. Then I wrote him the following email:
I'm not sure you're aware of Pixsy's business practices, which in my opinion are predatory and unethical. From a quick Google search, it's fairly easy to see evidence of how much their business relies on shaking down individuals for using non-infringing imagery (e.g., creative commons photos).
Even in cases like yours, where the imagery is copyrighted, the DMCA allows the blogger a safe harbor, as long as the infringing content is removed once she is notified (as my girlfriend did immediately). Companies like Pixsy are disregarding this point of law, and now she might have to hire a lawyer to defend her rights under the DMCA.
As a photographer myself, I understand the frustration with illegal use of my imagery. But I refuse to do business with companies like Pixsy, who are somewhere between mobsters and scam artists. I encourage you to find a different, more ethical partner to protect your intellectual property.
Just thought you might like to know. Keep up the great work!
Great post regarding these copyright bullies. It's pure extortion. As others have written, images are posted on sites as 'photo-bait' for the unwary to use on their sites. Then the troll comes in and demands exorbitant fees for an image that is worth little to nothing and easily replaced with a one dollar (or less) stock image.
Even if they won a lawsuit where they were awarded a ten times settlement, that would amount to $10 max.
Of course they don't deserve anything.
I think the best way to avoid this is to use original images or buy images for use from stock image sites.
But if the trolls come after you for an inadvertent use of an image, perhaps ask for:
1. evidence of sales of said image
2. price garnered by these sales
3. evidence of copyright registration of the image in question