Picrights Reviews 246

Mi è arrivata la lettera di PickRight con la richiesta di soldi a fronte dell'utilizzo di una foto, ho provveduto a consultare l'ufficio legale dall'azienda per cui lavoro, ecco cosa dice: Con il Provvedimento n. 30304 l’AGCM (Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato), pubblicato nel bollettino n. 35 del 3 ottobre 2022 ha sanzionato le Pratiche commerciali scorrette messe in atto da Photoclaim, una delle tante aziende che operano con lo stesso metodo.
In particolare, l’art. 90 della suddetta legge stabilisce specifici requisiti che gli esemplari delle fotografie “protette” devono soddisfare. Essi devono contenere le seguenti indicazioni (Tribunale di Napoli Sentenza n. 2573/2023 pubblicata il 09/03/2023)

Il nome del fotografo o, nel caso previsto dal primo capoverso dell’art. 88, della ditta da cui il fotografo dipende o del committente;
La data dell’anno di produzione della fotografia;
Il nome dell’autore dell’opera d’arte fotografata.

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. Per cui NON pagate, è una truffa.

Ho ricevuto un'e-mail da parte di questa azienda per uso improprio di immagini e richiedendo un risarcimento di denaro per presunte violazioni del copyright. Attenzione alla modalità in cui si presentano perchè il tutto (e la richiesta di denaro!) avvengono per una mail normale (che non ha valore). Dentro la mail però c'è un Link con un codice personale e usano questo sistema come conferma di lettura (sei entrato nel tuo link > quindi sei tu!). Si dichiarano per clienti, autori e/o titolari di diritti di cui però hanno un foglio scritto in carta intestata con una banale firma senza timbro e senza dati, tutto molto facilmente riproducibile anche da qualsiasi persona. Verificate l'immagine di cui parlano inserendola su Google e cercandola perchè spesso la si trova in vendita anche da altre parti. Se siete stati presi di mira forse siete piccole associazioni o siti web personali : la misura del riscatto sarà fissata su questo in modo che la spesa, non sembrando un'esagerazione, sarà pagata per paura oppure perchè "accessibile". Attenzione se avete i dati del WHOIS del dominio "liberi" perchè li useranno per farvi una raccomandata quando smetterete di rispondergli alle e-mail.
Come buon senso, rimuovete l'immagine che dichiarano "problematica". Bloccate +picrights.com come dominio mittente di posta.

This has got to be one of the worst companies! Charging 200$-300$ for a mere copyrighted photo being displayed on the site?! Totally unacceptable. They don't even give you a warning beforehand of anything. This has got to be one of my worst experiences.

Ing. Mario Regazzoni un giorno verrà a trovarti Staffelli di Striscia la Notizia...
Invio massimo ed automatizzato di email a firma di tale Ing. Mario Regazzoni, forse inesistente o forse la mente di questa truffa.
Spammano continuamente la casella di posta e minacciano inviando uno screenshot. RIDICOLI.

Similar experience to most others sadly - initial letter, then hounded by these charlatans like there was no tomorrow. We had shared a public information notice re. Coronavirus and they leapt all over this rubbing their grubby little hands together. Perhaps ask your clients to watermark their work to make it clear? Perhaps advise those that use your client's work to turn off sharing capabilities online? There are a thousand and one things you can do to protect copyright materials but you choose not to because hounding often innocent people and demanding ridiculous sums of money is easy gains. Anybody working anywhere within this group should hang their heads in shame. Grotesque.

Sadly, this company fails to show its legitimacy (copyright infringement) at the onset, it only proffers information on its copyright(s) if you sign into or access their weblinks, which my experience and my financial institution said to avoid. They should address 3 things: 1. A copy of the copyright, 2. Information as to the ownership of the copyright, and 3. The date of initiation of said copyright. That would add a lot to their claims from an appearance point as to validity. Next, would be asking how the user accessed it and if they had a license? That should all happen before a demand is made, or something is turned over to collection, or an attorney, Asking another to sign into a unknown website, register, and transfer money, simply due to a statement that they represent another and you owe them money- it is so similar to the Somalian scam that it's scary. My experience is that the plaintiff/representative doesn't give a hoot of the valuation/benefit of use, or consideration as to how, or when, the item/image was obtained. I was told they would not provide copyright information, and will only provide it (or copyright register the image) upon filing litigation. If asked they will provide a copy of a representation letter, but not without repeated inquiry to establish legitimacy. If you try to negotiate in good faith, and provide information on the images source, and use, you will find their financial demands fluid. They do not reflect the market of like or similar items, nor reflect the prior conversation, the current, or last offer (what is on the table), i.e. there is no relevance. But, they can take a threatening manner and take advantage of the naivety of individuals, like Uncle Al, or you, or me, that are unaccustomed to their world, due to this ugliness that is why some consider them "Trolls". I think many would respond with a "mea culpa" and in a positive fashion if presented fairly. But that doesn't seem to be the underlying purpose.

I'm not sure how this company operates, but it seems like they mostly just try to be as aggressive as possible to extort money out of people.

Requests made by troll copyrights are often abusive. Before paying, you should therefore ask yourself about the original character of the reproduced work. The courts are rigorous in recognizing the actual nature of a piece and thus apply copyright. However, PicRights often claims rights for images that are not, factually, original within the copyright. If you are in this case, you have little to fear (and PicRights knows it).In my case, the image used was not original, and it is unlikely that a court would have confirmed the request of PicRights. Indeed, a Google search shows that different photographers took several pictures of the same type without any originality can be claimed in terms of framing, lighting, or post-processing. It is likely that the photographers present were gathered in the same place and were therefore forced to adopt the same angle of view.

Unos autenticos estafadores... no trabajeis con ellos, tasas abusivas y malos modos

In 2020 I used an image from the web and didn't think it was still in my files as I soon discovered the term image copyright (I launched by business in 2020). All other images on my website and there are 100s are from copyright free images. I had missed this one image in a PDF when I was ensuring I was on track. As soon as PicRight wrote to me, I apologised and removed the image immediately, which had not been used for financial gain as the content to which it related was something I did free of charge in the pandemic to help others. PicRight wrote again saying it's not enough to remove the image. I refused to pay the fine and they threatened legal. I have today received the legal request and am about to engage with the Federation of Small Business Legal advice (where I'm a member) to seek advice as this really does feel like a witch hunt exercise on a small business that has not profited and has tried to obey rules and as soon as aware taken appropriate action. I shall see what they say. If they had found a website full of images and I was profiting from it, then I would understand but this company seems to have a heartless approach to how small businesses are starting out, and often with very little knowledge and trying to do their best to make a living themselves. That's not saying photographers don't deserve the right, they do, but I believe a once-warning would be a fair win-win for this.

scammy copyrights trolls who harrass people

Awful scammy company claimed to have sent prior notice on a date that they literally didn't when pressed on this instead of providing the notice they requested I open a suspicious link to view it (which I opened on a secure browser and spoiler alert, it actually didn't work).

The first opportunity I had to act on the notice I acted - but they still tried to threaten me with paying £430.

This company is hoping you miss their initial notices so they can come in strong threatening you and are so desperate to do this that they will fabricate prior notices.

The problem for non-profits, etc., getting an email from picrights is that these organisations may well be using these images properly (fair use); or may have paid for the image, but due to staff turnover or their web contractor changing, they cannot 'prove' ownership. To fight the demand on the basis of fair use is very costly in legal fees for a small organisation. Organisations like picrights is NOT interested in seeing the artist be paid; they are a volume-based business. Legal, possibly, ethical - not. They provide no methods for amicable resolution.

This really is the epitome of a predatory bottom feeding enterprise. In my case, their AI image searchbot found a small, generic image on page 26 of a non-profit powerpoint presentation, given several years ago. The image was never even visible on my website, it could only be accessed via an obscure text link. It has never actually been downloaded or seen by anyone, was just there as a reference.
Suddenly, I get threatening emails demanding I pay $250 or this will be sent to a law firm . . . to sue me for $250, for a "supposedly" copyright image deep within a voluntary, non profit presentation, not even visible to the public???
Of course, I actually support artists, photographers and so on being paid for their work, but that's not what is going on here. There was never any commercial anything associated with this. Apparently Picrights has been getting evermore desperate, trying to scrape money out of even the tiniest, non profit entities and individuals, but this case is particularly extreme.
I'm just a person, not a company or organization, there was never any income from any of this, nor was there any copyright info apparent with this image.
Picrights might get a few dollars out of the tiny prey they harass with this, but there is a rapidly growing negative PR connected to all this.
It would be to Picrights own interest to maybe have a less predatory policy with their copyright "protection" business.

Hey Readers:

Notice how PicRights always responds to claims it is a scam or fraud -- never to claims that what they are doing is predatory or unscrupulous.

Doing my research, everything what they are doing is within the law. They are enforcing existing copyright laws. So they are NOT a scam or a fraud. However many of who they are targeting are the small. Individuals who may have innocently used an image without knowing the law. Complete lack of understanding. Often people without access to legal help. So it is predatory.

Notice in PicRights responses, how they use their "clients" as a shield. They say they are working on behalf of their clients. But let's think about it. PicRights created a whole bunch of bots to scan the entire web looking for internet signatures that match the images of their clients. And then once these bots find something, their servers fire out an email. So they are picking up EVERYTHING. Anything from major publications (who know copyright) and a whole bunch of others -- most of the small and uninformed. But is PicRights really working on behalf of their clients or just taking advantage of the fact they had an idea that could squeeze people and companies for money with the full extent of the law on their side? Something with such scope and size to reach everywhere. And if they got something wrong (pinging someone who already had paid for usage) no biggie to PicRights. Just move on and get the next one. (BTW...it is a big deal to someone who had purchased rights because they have to take time out of their day to prove they paid for it.) In many ways, PicRights is like 2020's version of those annoying telemarketers working over crammed phone-banks in faraway countries, jamming our phone lines. When telemarketers got a wrong number or an angry person, they'd hang up and move on, leaving frustration and stress in their aftermath. Except what PicRights is doing is somehow legal and enforceable, and backed by a law firm that will threaten the crap out of people who don't want to go along for the ride. Don't get me wrong, the creators of PicRights and their competition had to have the idea and hire a whole bunch of programmers and then they needed to keep the operation afloat, but are they really adding value to the world? Are they getting the "bad guys off the street?" Are they educating, enlightening, creating value? And really, are their clients really the victim here? I get it. These clients have intellectual property. They own it. It sucks to have it stolen. But is a blogger who didn't know they were stealing content really the bad person? I know legally they are responsible. But morally, are they responsible? Is PicRights a moral company? Makes you think, doesn't it. But shoot, I'm really glad that AFP and AP and their other clients can get some windfall from the small people. Hell, if I had a staff full of photographers or image creators, I too would probably hire PicRights too. Nothing like getting some passive revenue by hiring a whole bunch of predatory entrepreneurs.

Oh, you will also notice how PicRights hides themselves and their ownership under a whole bunch of shell companies spread across the globe. Congrats to the lawyers of the Höfinger family for keeping themselves private while again preying on the little guys.

And if PicRights were to respond to my use of the term predatory, it wouldn't be if your auto-sent letters were a cease and desist. If your letters were a claim of copyright and told people to remove them, then you would be working to keep non-licensed copyrighted material off the internet. And then if you offered to have the user pay for usage, then you'd be providing a service -- helping your clients to get well-deserved income and educating users on image usage and intellectual property. But you don't do that, do you?

All that being said, it should be really interesting to see how AI affects PicRight's business. Can AP and AFP and their clients really claim ownership when their images have been so modified to create something entirely new. (Have fun!)

Sincerely,
A target of your predatory business (AND a creator of intellectual property)

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.