Received a PicRights Letter in the UK? What to Check Before Paying

PicRights is one of several settlement agencies active in the UK that send demand letters on behalf of image rights-holders alleging copyright infringement on business websites. Receiving one is common and can be alarming, but the letter is the start of a process, not its end, and the demanded amount in the letter is almost never the amount you should pay. The appropriate response depends on whether the infringement claim is genuine, who actually owns the rights, and what the realistic damages exposure under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 actually is.

If you have received a PicRights letter, run a free scan at /uk/en/scan to identify other images on your site that may need attention before more letters arrive.

How PicRights operates in the UK

PicRights International operates in the UK as an authorised agent for image rights-holders. It is instructed by agencies such as Reuters, AP Images and individual photographers to identify unlicensed uses of their images, contact the users and seek settlement. PicRights uses automated image-recognition technology to locate images that match its clients' catalogues on commercial websites.

PicRights' UK letters typically include: the image in question or a reference to it, the name of the rights-holder it claims to represent, the claimed date range of infringement, and a settlement demand intended to resolve the matter without litigation. The demand includes a payment deadline, often 14 to 30 days, and references potential litigation if payment is not made.

PicRights is not a solicitor's firm and its letters are not formal legal documents. They are commercial settlement demands. The legal basis of any subsequent claim would be under section 96 of the CDPA 1988, brought by the rights-holder in IPEC or the High Court.

Step 1: verify the agency represents the rights-holder

Before taking any action, verify that PicRights actually holds authority from the specific image's copyright owner. This is not always the case.

Check the image metadata. If the image is still on your site, right-click and inspect the file or check the source. Many images contain EXIF or IPTC metadata identifying the photographer and agency. Compare this against the rights-holder PicRights claims to represent.

Look up the image in the agency's catalogue. PicRights' letters typically include a reference code or catalogue number. Search the referenced agency's website for that image to confirm it exists in their catalogue and that the described ownership is consistent.

Check PicRights' authorisation. PicRights should, if asked, be able to provide evidence of its authority to act for the specific rights-holder on this image. Agencies have sub-licensed collections in different ways and PicRights' authority may not extend to all images in a given agency's wider catalogue.

If PicRights cannot confirm its authority for the specific image claimed, the letter should be treated with significant scepticism and a solicitor should be consulted.

Step 2: verify the infringement claim

Assuming PicRights represents the rights-holder, the next step is to verify whether the infringement actually occurred.

Does the image appear on your site now or in an archived version? Use the Wayback Machine at web.archive.org to check whether the image was present on your site during the period PicRights claims. This establishes the duration of any infringing use, which directly affects the notional licence fee calculation.

Was the image licensed? Check your records for any purchase receipt, licence download confirmation or CMS history. Many SMBs use images without keeping records of their source. If you have evidence of a legitimate licence, that is a complete defence.

Was the image obtained from a Creative Commons or free-use source? Check the source where you obtained the image and verify the terms. Note that some free platforms host images listed as free-use without the actual rights-holder's knowledge or authority. This is a known problem on several aggregator sites. A downloaded image claimed to be CC0 that is actually a Getty image remains infringing.

Step 3: calculate the realistic settlement range

If the infringement is genuine, the damages under CDPA section 96 are calculated using the notional licence fee. The question is: what would a legitimate licence for this specific use have cost?

For news agency images (Reuters, AP), the editorial web licence for a UK small business website is typically in the range of £150 to £500 for one to two years of use. For commercial advertising photography, the range is wider and higher. Check the agency's current pricing for the equivalent licence type and duration.

PicRights' initial demand will typically be two to four times the base licence fee, incorporating enforcement overhead. Settlement in the range of one to two times the base licence fee is often achievable on a without-admission-of-liability basis.

Additional damages under section 97(2) of the CDPA are available for flagrant infringement, including cases where infringement continued after notice. If you received a previous letter about the same image and ignored it, the section 97(2) risk is real. See Sheldon v Daybrook House Promotions [2013] EWPCC 26 for how courts treat post-notice continuation.

Step 4: respond and negotiate

Once you have verified the claim and calculated the realistic range, respond in writing. Do not ignore the letter. Non-response eliminates your opportunity to negotiate and may be treated as evidence of bad faith in subsequent proceedings.

A reasonable response acknowledges receipt of the letter, requests evidence of PicRights' authority for the specific image if not already provided, confirms whether the image was used (if it was), identifies any available defences, and invites settlement at a figure based on the actual licence value rather than the demand amount.

Settlement offers made on a without-prejudice basis are not admissible as evidence of liability in any subsequent proceedings.

When to involve a solicitor

Seek legal advice before responding if: the demanded amount is above £5,000, the letter implies previous letters were sent that you did not receive, the claimed infringement involved a high-value commercial image, or PicRights' authority to represent the rights-holder is unclear. A solicitor with IP experience can quickly assess the claim's legal strength and negotiate more effectively than a business owner who is unfamiliar with the applicable law and settlement conventions.

Avoiding future letters

The best position is to receive no further PicRights letters after resolving the current one. This requires addressing the underlying source of the problem: images on the site that lack documented licences.

Conduct an image audit. For each image on your site, maintain a record of: where it was obtained, the licence type, the licence scope (commercial use, web, duration), and the purchase or download date. For images sourced from free platforms (Unsplash, Pexels, Pixabay), note the specific licence terms in effect at the time of download, as these platforms have changed their terms over time.

Remove any image where you cannot establish the licence. The risk of leaving an unlicensed image in place is that another demand letter arrives for it, potentially with a claim that the letter is a repeat (triggering the section 97(2) flagrancy risk).

For ongoing image sourcing, use platforms with clear commercial licences (Getty's subscription service, Adobe Stock, Shutterstock) and keep download receipts. Alternatively, use images under verified Creative Commons Zero (CC0) licences where the rights-holder has explicitly waived all rights.

The scanner at /uk/en/scan can identify images on your site that appear in known agency catalogues, flagging them before the next demand letter arrives. It does not provide legal advice on infringement status but identifies images to investigate further.

What PicRights can and cannot do in the UK

PicRights can send demand letters, pursue negotiated settlements and refer matters to UK solicitors instructed by the rights-holder. It cannot issue court proceedings in its own name (unless it holds an assignment of the claim, which is unusual). It cannot obtain a court judgment against you without the rights-holder's involvement in litigation.

The practical enforcement route if a PicRights settlement is not reached is: PicRights refers the matter to the rights-holder, the rights-holder instructs UK solicitors, solicitors send a formal pre-action protocol letter under the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct, and if no resolution is reached the solicitors issue proceedings in IPEC.

This process takes time and costs the rights-holder money. Rights-holders pursuing SMB-level claims typically do so where the infringement was significant in duration or value, where a pattern of infringement exists across a business's website, or where the business has been unresponsive. Single-image claims against co-operative businesses that settle promptly at a reasonable notional licence fee are rarely worth litigating.

Understanding this enforcement dynamic is important for calibrating your response. The goal is not to avoid paying anything (if the infringement was genuine, some payment is appropriate) but to pay an amount that reflects the actual licence value, not the inflated initial demand.

For the underlying copyright framework, see UK Copyright Act 1988: how image claims work. For Getty-specific letters, see received a Getty Images UK letter.

---

This is technical analysis, not legal advice. Consult a solicitor for specific guidance on copyright demand letters.