🔎 Reverse Image Search
Image search techniques made simple: upload a photo or paste a URL and search 6 engines at once. 100% free, nothing stored.
🔒 Your image is never stored on our servers longer than 24 hours and is never shared.
A copyright demand letter for a photo is a formal claim that you used a photograph without a licence, usually from Getty Images, PicRights or COPYTRACK. Do not pay the first figure. Remove the photo, check the sender is authorised, benchmark the fee against the real licence price, then reply in writing.
The letter usually arrives by email or post, and the amount demanded can run into hundreds or thousands of pounds.
A copyright demand letter is not a court order and it is not a fine. It is a private claim: the sender says you infringed their copyright and offers to settle the matter for a sum of money instead of going to court. That distinction matters, because it means you have room to check the claim and negotiate. According to GOV.UK, copyright protects a photograph automatically from the moment it is created, so the sender does not need to have registered anything in the UK to own the rights. In the United States, by contrast, the U.S. Copyright Office explains that a copyright owner must register the work before filing a lawsuit for infringement.
What Is a Copyright Demand Letter for a Photo?
A copyright demand letter for a photo is a letter from a rights holder, or an agency acting for one, saying a photograph on your website, blog, social media page or business listing was used without permission. The letter normally names the image, says where it appeared, gives a reference number and demands a payment by a deadline. It may also ask you to remove the image immediately and promise not to use it again.
Three names appear on most of these letters. Getty Images is the world’s largest stock-photo agency, and it enforces its own catalogue. PicRights is the enforcement agency that handles image-rights claims for Getty Images and other rights holders. COPYTRACK is a separate Berlin-based service that searches the web for unlicensed uses of its clients’ images and pursues payment on their behalf. All three use automated image-matching software to find unlicensed uses, much like the reverse image search tools this site covers, then send letters in bulk. That is why the letters can contain mistakes: the software matches an image, not the facts about who licensed it.
The amounts demanded are often far higher than the ordinary licence price. The figure usually bundles a licence fee with an “administrative” or “enforcement” charge, and it is calculated by the sender, not by a court. You are entitled to ask how the figure was worked out, and to pay only what is fair.
Is the Letter Genuine? How to Check Before You Pay Anything
Before you pay a penny, check that the letter is real and that the sender has the right to demand money. Genuine letters come from Getty Images, PicRights or COPYTRACK, but scammers also send fake demand letters, so do not trust a letter just because it looks official. Work through this checklist first.
- Check the sender’s identity. Search for the company name and the reference number independently. Do not use phone numbers or links printed in the letter itself; find the company’s official contact details yourself and compare them.
- Ask for proof of authorisation. The sender must show they act for the copyright owner. Ask for the name of the rights holder, the photographer’s name, and the agreement that authorises the sender to collect on their behalf.
- Ask for proof of ownership. Ask which photograph is involved, when it was taken, and who owns the copyright. If the image is yours, or you hold a licence, say so and show the evidence.
- Ask how the fee was calculated. Ask for a breakdown: the licence fee, the period of use, and any extra charges. A genuine agency can explain its maths; a vague total with no breakdown is a warning sign.
- Check the image yourself. Run the photograph through a reverse image search to see where else it appears and who claims it. If the same image is sold by several agencies, or appears on free-image sites, the sender’s claim to be the sole owner needs a closer look.
- Watch for scam red flags. Pressure to pay within 24 hours, payment only by gift card, cryptocurrency or wire transfer, threats of immediate arrest, or a sender whose email domain does not match the company name are all signs of a scam. Genuine agencies accept traceable payment methods and give you time to respond.
If the letter is genuine but the facts are wrong — you licensed the image, the image is yours, or the image is in the public domain — say so in writing, attach your evidence, and ask the sender to close the case. Keep a copy of everything you send.
What Should You Do First? A Step-by-Step Response Plan
Getting a demand letter is stressful, but the first hours matter most. Follow these steps in order, and do not let the deadline pressure you into paying before you have checked the claim.
- Do not panic, and do not ignore the letter. Ignoring a genuine demand letter does not make it go away; it can lead to court proceedings. But panic-paying is just as bad. Note the deadline, then work through the checks below.
- Remove the photograph. Take the image down from your website and any social media posts straight away. Removing it stops the infringement continuing and shows good faith. Keep a screenshot of the page before and after removal, with the date visible, as part of your evidence.
- Preserve your evidence. Save the letter, the page where the image appeared, any licence or receipt you hold, and the email or invoice from whoever supplied the image. If you are a photographer yourself, our guide to reverse image search for lawyers explains how to build a dated evidence pack.
- Check your licence. Did you buy the image from a stock site, download it from a free-image library, or receive it from a designer or agency? Find the licence terms. Many disputes turn on a licence that covered personal use but not commercial use, or a licence that had expired.
- Reply in writing before the deadline. Email or post a short, polite letter. Confirm you have removed the image, ask for the proof listed in the checklist above, and state that you will consider a fair settlement once the claim is verified. Do not admit liability, and do not agree a figure on the phone. Written replies create a record; phone calls do not.
- Make a counter-offer if the claim is valid. If you did use the image without a licence, you will probably owe something. Offer the fair market value of the licence — the price the image would have cost if you had licensed it properly — and ask the sender to justify anything above that. Section 4 below shows how to work that figure out.
Worked example. Imagine Emma, who runs a small bakery in Manchester. She used a photograph of a wedding cake on her blog in 2023, downloaded from a site she believed was free. In November 2026 she receives a letter from PicRights demanding £950 for the image. She removes the photo the same day and screenshots the page. She emails PicRights asking for proof of authorisation, the photographer’s name, and a breakdown of the £950. She then searches for the same image on Getty Images and finds the equivalent small-web-use licence listed at a far lower price. She replies in writing, offers the fair licence value, and asks PicRights to justify the rest. The figures in this example are illustrative, and the outcome of a real case will depend on the facts, but the sequence — remove, verify, benchmark, reply in writing — is the same in every case.
How Much Should You Actually Pay? Benchmarking the Licence Fee
The single most useful thing you can do after verifying a claim is to find out what the photograph would have cost to license properly. The sender is only entitled to the fair market value of the use, plus any damages a court would award — not an invented figure. Benchmarking gives you a number to negotiate from.
| Agency | Acts for | How they find images | What they ask for |
|---|---|---|---|
| Getty Images | Its own catalogue | Automated web crawling and image matching | Licence fee plus enforcement costs |
| PicRights | Getty Images and other rights holders | Image matching across the web | Settlement based on licence value |
| COPYTRACK | Photographers and agencies | Reverse image search of its clients’ work | Licence fee, often on a no-win-no-fee basis |
To benchmark a fee, search for the same photograph, or a closely similar one, on the agency’s own website and note the licence price for the same size and use. Then check two or three other stock sites for comparable images. If the demand is several times the licence price, ask the sender in writing to explain the difference. According to the U.S. Copyright Office, the owner of a registered work can claim statutory damages in the United States, which is one reason American demands can be larger — but in the UK, where there is no copyright register, the starting point for negotiation is the licence fee itself.
When you make a counter-offer, put it in writing, explain how you reached the figure, and give the sender a reasonable time to respond. If the sender accepts, get the settlement in writing before you pay, and make sure it covers the past use and confirms the matter is closed. Never pay by a method you cannot trace.
A Real Case: The Photographer Who Received a Demand Letter for Her Own Photo
The best-known example of a demand letter going wrong is the case of Carol Highsmith, an American photographer. Highsmith had donated her entire archive of photographs to the Library of Congress, making them public domain. Getty Images nevertheless sent her a demand letter claiming she had used one of her own photographs without a licence and asking her to pay a settlement fee. She sued Getty Images for $1 billion, arguing that it had charged for photographs it did not own. The case was settled out of court, and Getty did not change its enforcement process. The story was reported by the Los Angeles Times and PetaPixel at the time.
The lesson is not that every demand letter is wrong. It is that these letters are generated in bulk by automated systems, and mistakes happen. A letter can be sent for an image you own, an image you licensed, or an image that is in the public domain. That is why the verification step in this guide comes before any payment, and why a calm written reply is more useful than either panic or silence.
When Should You Get a Lawyer, and How Do You Stop It Happening Again?
Most demand letters are settled without a lawyer, but there are times when professional advice is worth the cost. Get a solicitor if court proceedings are threatened or started, if the amount demanded is large, if the sender will not provide proof of ownership, or if the same agency has sent you several letters. A short consultation can cost less than paying an inflated demand, and a solicitor’s letter often produces a faster, lower settlement than a letter from the recipient alone.
In the UK, small copyright claims are heard in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court’s small claims track, which deals with claims worth up to £10,000, according to GOV.UK. That keeps the cost of a court case proportionate, but it also means a rights holder can sue without spending a fortune, so do not assume a claim will disappear. In the United States, statutory damages can reach $150,000 per work for wilful infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 504, according to the U.S. Copyright Office, which is why American demand letters often quote much larger figures. If you are a photographer on the other side of this process, our guide to how to register copyright for photographs explains why registration matters before you can claim those damages, and our companion article on the sending side explains how to send a copyright demand letter if someone has used your own photo.
To stop it happening again, licence every photograph you use, keep the licence receipt, and check images before you publish them. A quick reverse image search before use can reveal whether a “free” image is actually a stock photograph. If a designer or agency supplies images for you, ask them in writing to confirm they are licensed, and keep that confirmation. And if a takedown notice follows a demand letter, our DMCA counter notice guide explains how the 10–14 business-day restore process works when a removal was wrong.
This article is general information about copyright demand letters, not legal advice. Copyright law differs between the UK, the EU and the United States, and the right course of action depends on your facts. If you are unsure, speak to a solicitor before you pay or sign anything. For the official position, see GOV.UK’s copyright guidance and the U.S. Copyright Office.
FAQs
Should I ignore a copyright demand letter for a photo?
No. Ignoring a genuine copyright demand letter for a photo will not make it go away, and the sender may escalate to court, where costs grow. Instead, remove the image, check the claim in writing, and reply before the deadline. If the letter is a scam, asking for proof of authorisation will usually expose that.
How long do I have to reply to a copyright demand letter?
The letter itself states a deadline, so read it carefully and diary the date. Reply in writing before that date, even if only to confirm you have removed the image and to ask for proof of the claim. If you need more time to check the facts, say so in writing and ask for a short extension.
Can I be sued if I have already removed the photo?
Yes. Removing the photo stops the infringement continuing, which helps your position, but it does not erase the period when the image was used without a licence. The rights holder can still claim a licence fee for that past use. That is why a settlement should be agreed in writing and should confirm the past use is covered.
What if I did not know the photo was copyrighted?
Not knowing does not remove liability, because copyright exists automatically and the law does not require a copyright notice on the image. However, an innocent mistake can reduce what you owe, especially if you remove the image promptly and cooperate. Keep evidence of where you found the image and what the site claimed about its licence.
