Copyright Claim Letter: What to Do (and What to Avoid)

You open your inbox and there it is: a letter from Pixsy, CopyTrack, or PicRights. "Copyright infringement." "You owe €500 to €5,000." Your heart skips. The first thoughts go to the worst case: a lawsuit, six-figure claims, maybe you have to close the business.

Stop. This is not as fast or heavy as it feels.

This guide walks you through clear thinking when one of these letters arrives. You'll learn what's actually a risk, what's theatre, and which steps protect you. The good news: most situations resolve much less dramatically than the letters suggest.

What these letters actually are

The senders

Letters about image copyright on websites generally come from a handful of specialist firms:

• Pixsy and CopyTrack are automated claim services. They use AI to find unlicensed image use across the web.
• PicRights, Masterfile, and Getty Images Legal work for photographers and stock agencies.
• Shutterstock Legal defends its contributors aggressively.

These firms work on commission. They take a percentage of every settlement they secure for their client. That's important to remember: their opening letter is a negotiation position, not a fixed amount.

What they actually do

They scan millions of websites with search engines and image-recognition AI, looking for images used without a licence. When they find a match, they send a letter. The image really is on your site, and the image really is copyrighted.

That does not automatically mean you are guilty of the worst they suggest.

The fear response vs. the smart response

The letters are written to scare you. Legal-sounding language, official letterheads, large numbers. They suggest you must pay immediately, as if delay makes it worse. They use words like "infringement", "damages", "legal action".

It works. Many business owners pay on the spot to make the noise stop. That's understandable. It's also exactly what Pixsy and CopyTrack want.

The reality:

1. The letters are real. The image is on your site. The copyright is real.
2. The opening amounts are negotiable. Paying later does not put you in a worse position than paying within the deadline they stated.
3. You are not obliged to pay immediately. You have the right to negotiate, and most of these cases settle.
4. Total silence is unwise, but panic is unnecessary.

The smart response: stay calm, verify the facts, then act step by step.

Step 1: verify the claim

Before you pay anything or call a lawyer, check what's actually going on.

Check the image

Open your website and find the image the letter refers to. Is it really your site? Is the image still visible there? (Sometimes images have been replaced or removed since the scan ran.)

Do a reverse image search via Google Images or TinEye. Upload the image from the claim and see what comes up. Who is the original photographer? On which other sites does this image appear? That gives you context.

Check the EXIF metadata

If you have the original file, look at its EXIF data. Right-click, Properties, Details tab. EXIF can contain when and where the photo was taken, and sometimes who shot it. That helps establish whether this is really someone's original work.

The crucial question: where did you get the image?

This is the core point. Do you remember where you downloaded or selected the image?

• Free stock site (Unsplash, Pexels, Pixabay): you most likely have the full right to use it.
• Self-shot: it is your work; the claim is wrong.
• Paid stock site (Shutterstock, iStock): you have a licence. Find the receipt.
• "Somewhere on the web", no licence: the claim is probably valid.

This question determines everything that follows.

If the image was used without a licence

Let's face the honest scenario: you did use an image without the right licence. This happens more often than people admit. What now?

What does Dutch law say?

The Dutch Auteurswet (Copyright Act) gives photographers the exclusive right to reproduce and publish their work, in Articles 1, 12 and 13. Article 10 lists which works are protected, including photographic works. On infringement the rights-holder can demand damages under Article 27 Auteurswet: the loss the photographer suffered, typically the licence fee they would have charged. Article 27a Auteurswet adds a separate claim for the infringer's profit. Procedural costs in IP cases fall under Article 1019h Code of Civil Procedure, which entitles the winning party to recover the actual legal costs.

What counts as "actual loss"? It is not the same as the figures in the opening letter. In practice a court (or a settlement) decides what is reasonable. The main factors:

• How long was the image on your site?
• How much traffic does your site get?
• Did you use the image commercially?
• Is this your first infringement or a pattern?

Dutch courts (especially the Rechtbank Amsterdam, which handles many copyright cases) rarely apply the statutory maximums. They stick to actual loss.

Article 1019h: why most cases settle

Article 1019h is the critical lever. In copyright cases the winning party can recover full legal costs from the loser. If you lose against Pixsy in court, you pay damages plus their lawyer bill. Those bills can be substantial.

But it cuts both ways. If you win (because you had a valid licence or the claim was wrong), they pay your costs.

This is why most cases settle: the cost of continued litigation can dwarf the difference in the damages number.

How Pixsy and CopyTrack actually work

These firms are professional, but their commission model matters.

Pixsy and CopyTrack typically take 30 to 50 percent of any settlement. That means they are incentivised toward quick settlements, not necessarily the maximum amount. A fast €300 settlement is often better for them than a slow fight over €5,000.

Their opening letters always start high. "You are guilty of infringement and must immediately pay €3,000." That is their negotiation posture, not their floor. In practice many cases settle at 30 to 60 percent of the opening demand.

This is not a scandal. It is how legal negotiation works. They open high, you decline, and you land somewhere in the middle.

What NOT to do

Don't quietly delete the image without documenting

Tempting, but resist. Deleting the image without documenting what was there can work against you if the case escalates. You want a paper trail showing what you did and when. Keep screenshots, the removed file, and a copy of the letter. Anything can become relevant.

Do remove the image eventually (you don't want a continuing infringement), but only after you've captured the relevant evidence.

Don't admit fault in writing

Do not respond with "yes, I used it without a licence, I'm sorry" or anything like it. Any written admission can be used against you.

Keep correspondence businesslike, careful, and short. "I have received your letter. I am reviewing the situation and will be in touch." That's enough.

Don't ignore a formal dagvaarding

A dagvaarding (court summons) is not the same as a demand letter. It is a formal court document. If you get one, take it seriously and call a lawyer immediately.

Ordinary demand letters from Pixsy can wait a week. A dagvaarding cannot.

How negotiations typically go

Most of these cases never reach a courtroom. They end in settlements. That is good news: settlements are faster, cheaper, and more predictable.

The typical timeline:

Week 1. You receive a letter demanding €2,500.

Week 2-3. You respond briefly: "I have received your letter. I will remove the image and am open to discussing a reasonable settlement."

Week 3-4. They respond with either the same claim or a middle position (€1,500 to €2,000).

Week 4-6. You negotiate. "What is reasonable for a small website that used this image for three months?" Many cases settle for €300 to €800.

Week 6-8. Settlement reached. You pay; they send a release letter; it is over.

Important: get everything in writing. Save all email correspondence. When an amount is agreed, get a written release/waiver letter from the claimant confirming the case is closed.

When you need a lawyer

You don't need to hire a lawyer on day one. The first phase you can run yourself. But there are points where professional advice is worth it:

1. The claim exceeds €5,000. This is the threshold where litigation becomes realistic.
2. You receive a dagvaarding. No longer a negotiation phase.
3. You are uncertain about your legal position, e.g. you might have had a licence but cannot prove it.
4. Negotiations have stalled and neither side is moving.
5. The claimant threatens escalation, e.g. contacting your payment provider or hosting company.

A copyright-specialist lawyer typically charges €200 to €350 per hour. A single consultation often saves much more than that.

For en-NL readers wondering about Belgium: Belgian copyright is codified in Book XI of the Wetboek van economisch recht / Code de droit économique, introduced by the Law of 19 April 2014. Before 2014 the basis was the Law of 30 June 1994 on copyright and neighbouring rights. The procedures and damages ranges are broadly similar.

Prevention

All of this is avoidable. Going forward:

Use free, licensed images. Unsplash, Pexels, and Pixabay offer millions of images that are explicitly free for commercial use.

Buy licences for professional photos. Stock agencies like Shutterstock, iStock, and Adobe Stock are inexpensive (€10 to €50 per image) and give you full rights.

Check EXIF and source name. If you find an image online, always check the source. Who claims to be the photographer? Is it registered in the metadata?

Take your own photos. Photograph your business, your team, and your products yourself. Unique content and zero copyright risk.

Document everything. Make sure you can prove where every image on your site came from. Keep links, licence proofs, receipts.

Action plan

If a letter arrives:

Today. Read the letter carefully. Note the image, the claimant, and the amount. Breathe. This is solvable.

Tomorrow. Find the image on your site. Run a reverse image search. Check your files to see where you got it.

This week. If you can prove lawful use (licence bought, self-shot, or free-stock source), reply with the evidence: "This image was sourced from [source] on [date]", with proof.

If you had no licence, reply calmly: "I have received your letter. I will remove the image and am open to discussing a reasonable settlement." Say nothing more.

Next week. Remove the image. Document the removal. Negotiations begin. Stay businesslike. Many demands drop from €2,500 to €600-€1,000 after negotiation.

Settlement. Get everything in writing. Pay only when you have a formal release/waiver document confirming both parties agree.

This feels heavy now, but you are not alone and you have options. Thousands of small business owners have been through this. So can you.

For the legitimacy of CopyTrack and Picright specifically, see CopyTrack and Picright claims explained. For Getty Images letters specifically (different model, different negotiating posture), see Received a Getty Images letter.

---

This article is technical analysis, not legal advice. Consult a lawyer for advice tailored to your situation.