Being billed for use of photo

Bull Sh** you can't. You use anything of anyone's without permission and they can send you a bill. You can refuse to pay it but if they can prove it's theirs, they can force you to pay in court - and since you swiped it, they get to name their price.

The trick to this one is that someone is charging for use of something that isn't even theirs.

What I would do first is to see if the site trying to charge you is still using the photo - then take mine down - and contact the owner about the guy who tried to charge you..........

Then I would figure that it's pretty crooked (and can get complicated) to use someone else's material without permission and start dealing straight myself.

Sounds like some kind of phishing scam to me.

I definitely wouldn't pay anything...the most I would do would be to remove the image.

I saw let the owner "Push" some more before worrying one bit about it.

garbage...if you pay the bill you are an idiot...if the communication did not come from a lawyer then you dont have to pay anything...if you get contacted ny their lawyer, THEN contact yours...you dont have to do anything at this point...

sure he can. doesn't make it valid or lawful

emphasis mine. there's an abundance of details missing there, and I'm betting that it includes following proper DMCA protocol if this was a US case.

you are welcome, content that I create is for any one to use the way they want and I store it here:

sucesssecret | Come and learn how to earn online!

If you want to re-use any thing, you are mostly welcome, you don't even need to ask for permission, lol.

I wouldn't have a problem with the mods deleting all legal advice threads. They generally have more bad advice than good. The gung-ho amateurs get pretty vocal with their bad advice and it drowns out the few people that know what they are talking about.

You don't know that. You have no idea what the terms of use were, what credits were required or what fees were paid for use of the image.
What you do know is the OP admits he "grabbed" the image without having any rights to use it.

I think "supposedly" is a key word here.

This could a serious - or not so serious - problem for the OP and his client. It may be fun to give quasi-legal advice but the OP would be a fool to take it.

Sunil, you don't know far enough.

In the US, there's a difference between copyright infringement, which would seek actual and punitive damages, and simple billing for service (like an unpaid license for using an image).

If the person sending the bill is simply seeking what could be construed as licensing fees backdated to the time of posting, they could easily file such a claim in most small claims courts. As long as you pay the small fee, and what you seek is within the limits of that court, you can indeed send a bill and sue for non-payment.

As far as admitting responsibility (not 'liability'), that has nothing to do with the ability to file a suit. It may have some bearing on how likely you, as defendant, would be to prevail, but that's a different kettle of fish...

Here's the reality:

The OP has not come back to this thread to explain further. We don't know who contacted his client - the site owner himself or owner's attorney.

We don't know how much the bill was or who owns the image rights.
He has not answered whether the client and "other site owner" are in the same country or not.

I wonder how many other clients have images on their sites that were "grabbed and edited"....

Well, i can say with certainty (from experience) that several points in this post are just flat out wrong.

I think its damn funny that you accuse others of acting like lawyers and then in the same post go on to offer legal advice...all be it very bad legal advice. I am not a lawyer or qualified to give legal advice, but i have had more experience with lawyers than most folks simply due to my being so active in online business for so long.

no lawyer or even smart person will advise you to have any contact with someone who has made any hints that they might even possibly come after you via legal proceedings.... the only thing you can do is hurt your case...thats it. You can't say one single thing to make it better. You can only provide evidence that WILL be used against you later.

also, if you steal an image, there is a ton of legal precedent that puts the value at astronomical values. Maybe its not "name your price", but its damn near...a quick google search will confirm that.

As for the need to follow the dmca principals before initiating litigation...Again that is just plain wrong. The dmca standard was adopted as an easy alternative to full on litigation. Essentially its another option, but not necessary at all.

If you steal content from me, I am under no obligation at all to file a dmca...none. I can go straight to litigation. Most choose not to go that route because the dmca system actually works pretty well, is much easier, and much cheaper for all involved...but its not required for me to protect my content at all via litigation.

As far as how much the bill is for? Its basically irrelevant. Along the same lines, even if its for $20 and most here would say "just pay it"....That could very easily get you into a really big pickle. Essentially by paying a small fee you are admitting guilt and thus opening yourself up to other legal action...unless you have ever "i" dotted and "t" crossed. That is definitely something the crooked among us do.

I could go on and on....

I am not a lawyer, but I have team of friends who are layers and I been involved in to over 40 cases either for my self or helping them. Also because law is something I am really interested in we often discuss stuff with them and share opinions. Then see results - court decisions. So basically, from the information provided in the original post he does not claim they provided any thing to prove their rights for the image and it is only letter-bill that came through. Also Here in UK you must keep every thing related to the business for many years, I don't know if this is the same in Philippines, but if it is not, other side probably does not has any proof as well.
Also I am not supporting any one stealing something from someone including images or text or what ever it is. I did it at the very beginning of my business practice, around 18 years ago, when I had no clue, it is wrong. I had people who stole stuff from my site, in fact my ex business partner stole my old site design, even my translation, that I spend few month to complete manually in a very pro way... But because the template was bought from other company who sells them I was not able to make here remove it. I charged that company for double sale as I bought it for sole use (it was an option to tick and add £45 to the price for solo use). Then when I separated from my business partner, she bought the same template from the same company.
Well after that company paid my bill the are out of the business, by the court decision. Business owner was charged fine as well. What ever, but I still have solo right for that template and she bought the right to display 2 years after I got solo rights. In the documents my solo rights are in place for 100 years.
Court dismissed my claim against her 3-4 times as soon as she provided right to display paper.

If he takes your advice he is making one of the biggest mistakes normal people make when dealing with legal issues. They talk to much and try to handle things like other normal daily things are handled. This aint a dispute with your wife who will probably forgive, forget, and move on. These people want money that was stolen from them.

You also advise him that he is under no obligation to pay at all.... of course we dont have all the facts, but he basically admitted they probably lifted the image...Given that he IS very likely under obligation to pay. It will just come down to how much and if the accuser decides to enforce the law.

sure, and watch how quickly the suit gets throw out when it comes to light that without having provided the alleged infringer with a takedown notice, and after being unable to prove damages for the alleged infringement which you just discovered. DMCA is subject to procedural law. if you're claiming damages, that's a different topic.

The OP lists himself here as an "outsourcing expert". What kind of expert would walk away and leave his client swinging in the breeze?

Are we to think this is the only time his service has "grabbed and edited" images for client sites?

If nothing else - there's an outsourcing lesson here for site owners.