copyright
Can copyright infringement claims be negotiated without a lawyer?
<p>I don't understand how the "damages" amount is decided on for image copyright. Trying to claim one million vs 1000 isn't much different if the person doesn't have the money to pay for it. </p>

<p>What are the options of an individual who is not part of a business if they get hit with a massive copyright claim that is unaffordable? Is it best to contact and try to negotiate or best to just sweep it under the rug and see if it progresses to the point of a proper copyright claim?</p>

<p>I got a claim from a company called copytrack asking for 1400 in damages for one single image. This is a huge amount of money considering I run this website as a hobby and it would take me 2 years to even earn that much before I consider the costs associated. </p>

<p>I live in the EU and copytrack is based in Germany (not the same EU country as me). It looks like the copyright holder is American, but they have not given me any information. It was a simple <em>you have infringed on our client's image, pay us right away to avoid legal issues</em> kinda message. I don't want to blindly pay but at the same time, I am worried.</p>

<p>Edit: To add some more specific data. The email does not mention me or anything about me. Nor does it mention the copyright holder. It just says this image violates copyright. This could very well be a scam as they may not represent the copyright holder at all. I am in a dilemma as I do not know whether I should respond and dig myself into a hole or if i should send this very suspicious email to my spam folder which might also be the wrong thing to do. </p>

<p>You can certainly ask for evidence that the image is under copyright, who the rights holder is, and that this firm has authority to represent the rights holder. You could also ask on what basis they have valued the rights.</p>

<p>There are scammers who send out such notices without ever being authorized by anyone. If they collect, they keep the money. If they don't, all it cost was a letter or email. </p>

<p>You might want to research the reputation of this firm. I know nothing about them.</p>

<p>If a copyright infringement claim actually comes to trial, damages are based on lost actual or potential profits to the rights-holder, plus unlawful profits, if any, by the infringer. In addition, punitive damages are sometimes assessed against 'willful' infringers, particularly if they seem blatant and unrepentant. </p>

<p>Without knowing how the rights-holder markets or might market the image, there is no way to guess what that might be. </p>

<p>But you might want to review your policy on images. If you host many images  without proper permission,  a valid claim is likely, sooner or later. How did the image in question get onto your site, and what efforts, if any were made to check its copyright status? You really should not display any image unless you know who holds the copyright, and that you have permission or the right under some exception to copyright.</p>

<p>If you aren't confident that you have the right to display the image, you should take it down until you can confirm that, whether you respond to the claim or not.</p>

<p>A Google search on "Copytrack reviews" shows that a number of photographers and image creators do use this form, and have collected small settlements. They indicate that the rights-holder checks on automatic matches found by Copytrack's software, and the large majority are false positives. Of the remainder, only a small proportion, the reviewer says, are pursued. The rights-holder sets an initial amount to ask for the rights, but copytrack often cuts this, it is said.  Most of copyttrack's money is made by out-of-court settlements, on which they take 30%, but some on court cases, in which they take 50%. If the rights-holder is not diligent in discarding false positives, they may well be asking for money when their client actual created a similar but different image. </p>

<p>According to people who use their service, they often settle for 1/3 
or less of the initial asking price. They have to operate in bulk, with not too much time spent on any one case, to make money on this.</p>

<p>If such a case actually went to court, they would need to hire a lawyer, and prove that their client owned the rights on the exact image you had up, and prove what kind of income the rights holder got from the image, and how your hosting it harmed their business, or their plausible potential business. Or they could prove how you profited, or both. Having taken the image down would not stop such a case, but it would be likely to reduce any damage award. </p>

<p>Possibly useful links:</p>

<ul>
<li><p><a href="https://www.livingthedreamrtw.com/2018/08/copytrack-review.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Copytrack Review – Great For Monitoring Copyright Violations</a></p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/copytrack-extorsion-letter/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Extortion letter Info</a></p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2018/11/27/copytrack-a-german-photography-ico-thats-getting-sued-over-where-it-sent-the-money/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Copytrack — a German photography ICO that’s being sued over where it sent the money</a></p></li>
</ul>

<p>I can't advise you want to do, but those facts may be helpful.</p>

<p>Copytrack itself says that it will ask you to form a post licensing agreement. That means they will ask you to license the picture after they found you to be using it without permission.
<a href="https://www.copytrack.com/service/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.copytrack.com/service/</a></p>

<p>If you were asked to take it down or license it and you did not, you are probably in violation of the copyright. If this is the first letter, they sent you, just tell them you will take the image down. I think they will be ok with that.</p>

<p>You need to take the image down right now though, so you do not violate it anymore. </p>
