Should You Ignore a Copyright Demand Letter? (EU)

The temptation is universal. A demand letter arrives over a single image you barely remember using, the amount is high, the threats sound generic, and your instinct says: throw it away, they will give up. This guide explains why that intuition is almost always wrong, the rare cases where it might actually be correct, and the minimum response that protects your position without committing to anything.

What actually happens when you ignore

The major enforcement agencies (Getty Images Licence Compliance, Copytrack GmbH, PicRights Europe GmbH, Permission Machine BVBA) operate automated case management pipelines. Each ignored letter progresses through stages, often without any human review until the final stages:

Each stage adds urgency, often adds costs, and changes the negotiating dynamics. The original €1,000 demand at stage 1 may be €1,800 at stage 3 (with administrative fees) and €3,500+ at stage 5 (with law-firm fees baked in and the rights holder less willing to settle below its actual investment).

The asymmetry: silence increases the cost; engagement reduces it. This is true even when the original demand was inflated.

Why agencies escalate

From the agency's perspective, the economics of pursuing claims are:

• Initial letters are cheap to send (automated, templated, low marginal cost)
• A percentage of recipients pay immediately or quickly settle; this funds the model
• Of those who don't pay, a percentage will pay after escalation; this funds the next stage
• Only a small fraction reach formal proceedings; those are expensive but high-value when they win

Ignoring places you in the cohort that the agency targets for escalation. The agency's algorithm is calibrated to escalate aggressively because the data shows escalation produces results.

What happens to the original four defences when you ignore

The four defences (originality, mandate, prior licence, limitation) are powerful when raised early. When raised late, they lose force:

• Originality: still available, but the operator's silence makes the argument harder to credibly present (why did you not raise this earlier?)
• Mandate: the agency has had months to shore up its documentation; what was a weak chain may become a stronger one
• Prior licence: still available, but the operator's failure to engage signals it likely does not have a licence
• Limitation: this one can actually improve with delay if the operator is patient enough and the use ended long ago

A measured first response that engages the defences keeps all four cards in play. Silence concedes three of the four through inaction.

The rare cases where ignoring may be defensible

Three narrow circumstances where the cost-benefit may favour silence over engagement:

The letter is genuinely fraudulent

A "Getty Images" letter from a Gmail address, demanding payment to a Bitcoin wallet, referencing an image that does not exist on your website. This is a phishing attempt. Document it (screenshot, headers) and forward to the relevant national consumer-protection authority if you wish, but you do not need to engage on the merits.

The check is simple: search for the company in a business registry, find the image on your site. If both fail, the letter is likely fraudulent.

The limitation period has clearly expired

The use ended in 2018, the demand letter arrives in 2026. Most EU national copyright limitation periods are 3-5 years from the rights holder's awareness. A use that ended 8 years before the letter is likely time-barred. The risk of formal proceedings against such a claim is low because the rights holder would not survive the limitation defence.

Even here, a one-line response noting the limitation period is preferable to silence: it preserves the defence in writing.

Genuine asset-judgment proof

In some jurisdictions, an individual or micro-business with no recoverable assets faces a different cost-benefit. The agency knows there is nothing to collect; the agency's escalation costs would exceed any recovery. This is not a moral defence but a practical one in narrow circumstances.

Outside these three cases, ignoring is the wrong move.

The minimum response that protects you

When in doubt, send the minimum response. It takes 15 minutes and converts the situation from "ignored" (high escalation risk) to "engaged" (high reduction potential).

Subject: Acknowledgment of your letter dated [date], reference [their ref]

We acknowledge receipt of your letter referenced above. We are reviewing the matter and will respond substantively within 30 days of receipt of the documentation requested below.

In the meantime:

1. We have removed the image referenced from our website.
2. We make no admissions in connection with the alleged use and reserve all rights and defences.

Please provide the following documentation in support of your claim:

• Proof of your mandate from the alleged rights holder to pursue this claim on their behalf
• Documentation of the rights holder's title to the specific image
• The basis for the damages amount, including the underlying hypothetical-licence calculation
• The dates during which you assert unauthorised use occurred

Pending receipt of the above, we cannot evaluate or respond to the settlement proposal.

This response:

• Acknowledges nothing on the merits
• Commits to nothing financial
• Buys 30 days of decision time
• Requests documentation that often reveals the agency's weak points
• Establishes a paper trail that converts later silence into the agency's problem (they did not produce the documentation), not yours

It is the minimum acceptable response. For the full negotiation process, see the Getty Images / PicRights demand letter response guide.

When you have already ignored several letters

Many people read this guide after they have already let one or more letters slide. The right move is the same: send the minimum response now, even if late. The escalation clock can sometimes be slowed by a belated engagement, and the reduction potential in the eventual settlement is still meaningful even from a late start.

A specific situation: if you ignored the first letter, the second letter arrived, you ignored that one too, and a law-firm letter just landed — the situation is more serious. Engage counsel within 14 days. The cost-benefit of professional advice tips strongly in favour of engagement once law-firm letters are in the picture.

After the matter resolves

Whether the matter settles for €0 (rare) or for a measured amount through negotiation, the prevention work afterwards is identical. The agencies maintain databases; they monitor the same domain; repeat claims are likely if the underlying issue (unlicensed images on the site) is not addressed.

Run an image copyright check, update the designer contract IP warranties, and verify the realistic cost structure in the how much does a copyright claim cost guide before the next letter arrives.

Final decision tree

• Is the sender a real company in a business registry?
• Is the image actually on or recently on my site?
• If yes to both: send the minimum response within 14 days, then engage the four defences
• If no to either: document the letter, do not pay anything, report if appears fraudulent
• Did I already let multiple letters slide? Engage counsel within 14 days
• After resolution: audit the rest of the site for other unlicensed images

---

This is technical analysis, not legal advice. For demands above €2,000, multiple-image claims, law-firm letters or formal proceedings, consult a lawyer who specialises in IP enforcement in your jurisdiction.