Getty Images / PicRights Demand Letter: EU Response Guide

A letter arrives. Sender: Getty Images Licence Compliance, PicRights Europe, Copytrack GmbH or Permission Machine BVBA. Subject: an image on your website. Amount demanded: anywhere from €300 to several thousand euros per image. The instinct is either to pay immediately to make the problem go away or to throw the letter in a drawer. Both reactions are wrong.

This guide covers how to respond to a copyright demand letter from a major enforcement agency under EU law. It treats the four common defences (originality, mandate, prior licence, statute of limitations), the realistic settlement ranges and the recurring patterns these agencies use. For specific national specifics (e.g. Spain's mera fotografía protection or Belgium's enterprise court thresholds), see the country-specific guides in the same cluster.

The agencies and how they operate

Four major agencies handle the bulk of small-business demand letters across the EU:

• Getty Images Licence Compliance: Getty's internal enforcement, often using scraping technology to find unauthorised uses of stock images
• PicRights Europe GmbH (Switzerland): third-party enforcer working for multiple rights holders, particularly Associated Press, AFP and others
• Copytrack GmbH (Germany): image-tracking platform that pursues claims on behalf of photographer-clients
• Permission Machine BVBA (Belgium): enforcement agency for several Belgian and Dutch news agencies

All four operate similarly: they scan the web for unlicensed use of images they represent, identify the website operator from WHOIS or public business registries and send a settlement demand. The amounts demanded are typically far above what a court would award, but the letters are designed to extract a quick settlement before the recipient examines the legal basis.

The legal framework

Photo copyright in the EU sits on two layers:

The originality threshold from Painer matters because it determines whether the work qualifies for full Article 2 protection. A purely mechanical record shot of a product or building may fall below the threshold, dropping into national related-rights regimes with lower damages.

For damages, Article 13 of Directive 2004/48/EC sets out the lump-sum hypothetical-licence method as one calculation option. National courts have consistently held that the hypothetical licence is the price the rights holder would have agreed for the use, not a punitive multiplier of that price.

The four defences

Most demand letters have one or more weak links. The matrix below summarises the four defences. Detail follows.

1. Originality

The image must qualify for copyright protection. If it is a bare functional record shot with no creative composition, no chosen viewpoint, no lighting decisions, no post-production work that reflects personality, the Painer threshold may not be met. In that case, the agency must fall back on national related-rights protection (where it exists), which is typically narrower and time-limited.

Practical test: would two photographers presented with the same brief produce visually identical results? If yes, the originality threshold is harder to meet. If no, originality is likely present.

2. Mandate

The agency must prove it has standing to enforce the right. For Getty Images, the standing is usually clear because Getty owns or licences the images. For PicRights, Copytrack and Permission Machine, the standing chain is more contested: agency → rights holder → original photographer. Each link must be documented.

A common practical move is to request, in the first written response, "proof of mandate from the alleged rights holder authorising your collection of damages on their behalf, and proof of the rights holder's title to the image". A weak chain often results in the demand being withdrawn.

3. Prior licence or fair use

If the image was downloaded from a stock site with a licence covering the use, produce the licence. If a previous owner of the site held a licence and the licence travelled with the site sale, produce the documentation. If the use qualifies for a national exception (criticism, quotation, parody under the InfoSoc Directive Article 5 exceptions), articulate the basis.

Note: "I found it on Google Images" is not a licence. Neither is "the image was already on my site when I bought the business" without a documented IP-transfer clause.

4. Statute of limitations

Each EU member state sets its own limitation period for civil copyright claims, typically 3 to 5 years from the rights holder's awareness of the infringement, sometimes longer. For uses that ended more than the limitation period before the demand letter, the claim may be time-barred regardless of the underlying merit.

Document when the image was removed from your site (preferably with a Wayback Machine snapshot) and the agency's letter date. If the gap exceeds the national limitation period, raise it explicitly.

What to do in the first 48 hours

Three actions, in order.

1. Remove the image and preserve evidence. Take it off the site, off the CDN cache, off any backup that may still serve it. Take a screenshot before removal showing the image in context. Save a Wayback Machine snapshot of the page if one exists. Note the date and time of removal.

2. Do not respond in writing acknowledging the infringement. A written acknowledgement of unauthorised use is a settlement-negotiation problem. It short-circuits the four defences before you have a chance to use them. Even a "we are sorry, we will pay" email becomes evidence.

3. Ask for documentation. Request, in writing, proof of agency mandate, proof of the rights holder's title, the original date of first publication of the image and the agency's basis for the damages calculation. This is the minimum the agency needs to take to court anyway. Asking for it now reveals weaknesses early.

Realistic settlement ranges

Public data is thin because the vast majority of cases settle privately without published judgment. Practitioner reports across EU member states indicate the following typical ranges for a single image used on a small-business website:

These are not promises of outcome. They are practitioner observations of what typically resolves. A specific case may settle higher or lower depending on the rights holder's evidence, the use, the recipient's response and the national jurisdiction's damages practice.

A demand of €5,000 for a single non-prominent image on a small-business blog is high. A documented response that engages the four defences, removes the image and proposes a measured counter-offer often brings the final amount well below the initial demand.

What never to do

Do not ignore the letter. Even if you believe the claim is weak, silence is treated badly in subsequent proceedings and weakens your negotiating position. A short, measured written response within two weeks is the minimum.

Do not pay the full amount without negotiating. The initial demand is a starting position. Paying it in full means foregoing the natural reduction that almost every case sees through documented response.

Do not acknowledge the infringement in writing. A response like "We will pay as soon as possible" is a settlement-discussion problem. Stick to factual statements: "We have received your letter dated X. We have removed the image referenced. We request the following documentation as the basis for our response."

Do not use the image again. Even after the matter resolves. The agency monitors the same domain for future incidents and a repeat use is treated as aggravated.

Do not assume a takedown closes the matter. Removing the image does not extinguish liability for past use. The matter still needs to resolve through settlement or formal proceedings.

When to engage a lawyer

A demand below €2,000 for a single image on a small-business website is often resolvable through informed self-response. A demand above €5,000, a demand naming multiple images, a follow-up after a partial response or any threat of proceedings warrants professional legal advice.

Many EU IP firms offer flat-fee consultations for first-response letters in the €300-€500 range, well below typical settlement reductions. The economics favour engagement.

After the case resolves: prevention

The same agencies tend to find the same site repeatedly. After one matter resolves, audit the whole site:

• Inventory every image and document its licence source
• Remove anything without a documented licence
• Sign written contracts with photographers transferring or licensing rights for the intended use
• Use only stock sources with clear commercial licences (free stock photo sources)
• Set up a quarterly audit cycle

For ongoing detection, see the image copyright check tool and the website scan for copyrighted images.

Final response checklist

• Image removed from production, CDN cache and recent backups
• Screenshot and Wayback snapshot of pre-removal state preserved
• First written response sent within 14 days, factual and non-acknowledging
• Request for agency mandate, rights-holder title and originality documentation sent
• Limitation period checked against the dates of removal and complaint
• National counsel consulted if demand exceeds €2,000 or involves multiple images
• Full site audit of remaining images scheduled
• Written contract with web designer or agency updated to include IP warranty

---

This is technical analysis, not legal advice. Copyright enforcement and damages calculation vary by EU member state. For demands above €2,000, demands naming multiple images or formal proceedings, consult a lawyer who specialises in IP enforcement in your jurisdiction.