Pixsy

Cobra

Cobra

In Memoriam. TPer Emeritus
Admin
Messages
115,214
Name
The real Chris
Edit My Images
No
Although I signed up some years ago, I never quite understood it.
I get a lot of matches from the likes of pinterest and other photo sharing sites.
Such as flickr. ( people taking my images and posting them as their own)
Some coming from the likes of India or South America too.

They have all come back with "outside our jurisdiction" or some such.
Today I got a "hit" from a company in the USA using a 10 year old image as a web site logo.
They never even bothered to remove the tiny watermark ( that I no longer use)
But its a 100% match.
Pixsy are chasing this one ...
 
Yes, I have seen only the 'deadend' matches so fingers crossed you see some value out of it :)
 
Box Brownie said:
Yes, I have seen only the 'deadend' matches so fingers crossed you see some value out of it :)
Click to expand...
Cheers Laurence.
I'm not that bothered TBH, but if I get a couple of quid out of it, it might buy me a coffee :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sky
Best of luck, they have been "chasing" a payment for one of my pictures for approximately 18 months. I had one (still there I think) on the daily star web site that they gave up on and another used by a local video company (who you would have thought would knew better) who just kept refusing to pay and they also gave up on that.
 
Mike.P said:
Best of luck, they have been "chasing" a payment for one of my pictures for approximately 18 months. I had one (still there I think) on the daily star web site that they gave up on and another used by a local video company (who you would have thought would knew better) who just kept refusing to pay and they also gave up on that.
Click to expand...
Cheers Mike, but what a bugger for you :(
As before I'm not really expecting much anyway, so it seems I won't be disappointed :D
 
If they think it's worth their while chasing it, you may be in for a reasonable pay-out.
 
The last company infringement one of mine they chased up ,ended going to the Louisiana state court , I had to sign online court papers and got a four figure payout ,my second largest from pixys . So don’t give up it’s in there own interests to push it through .
 
I've had a few successful cases with Pixsy, with the lowest being £25, and the highest being a few hundred. I quickly learned not to bother submitting infringements on youtube, twitter, pinterest or any country outside their jurisdiction (basically anywhere outside Western Europe and the Americas). Most of their matches were from my flickr account that I uploaded years ago and had forgotten about.

They pursued a few other cases, but when the companies refused to pay or denied responsibility (usually it was an employee from a few years ago they no longer have contact with etc.), it was going to be too expensive to take them to court for the amount being claimed, so they discontinued the case. I also had one case where Pixsy initially claimed a huge amount (about £3k). When the infringer claimed that amount would bankrupt the company and they would shut it down, Pixsy accepted a lower payment of under £300 of which I received about £125 after their costs and 50% were taken into account. All for almost zero effort from me, so I was happy.

I also use copytrack who operate a similar set-up. I've only had 2 successful low value cases (about £100 each) with them, but one was a case that Pixsy declined to accept. As copytrack can have unlimited uploads (you just request more from them), I now use that to find any matches. I then decide if Pixsy would have a reasonable chance with the case and then submit it manually, or submit it through Copytrack.
 
the black fox said:
The last company infringement one of mine they chased up ,ended going to the Louisiana state court , I had to sign online court papers and got a four figure payout ,my second largest from pixys . So don’t give up it’s in there own interests to push it through .
Click to expand...

Nice to hear that. They are not as keen on going to court in the UK by the looks of it. Still got a fair bit from them over last 12 months... It's definitely worth doing it.
 
As I suspected waste of time .. there goes my yacht :D
In reviewing your case, it appears that your image is hotlinked to and hosted on the following website: <flickr>

Please note that for matters of unlicensed use, it is the website host that is responsible for any infringement. Unfortunately we cannot hold websites who only display but do not host your content liable for unauthorized use of your work and are not able to proceed with your case at this time.
 
Last edited:
At least it didn't cost you anything (or does it?) and it was mostly their time.
 
(I still want my cut though!!! :p)
 
Nod said:
At least it didn't cost you anything (or does it?)
Click to expand...
No free, they take a cut once resolved
Curiously I followed the link they sent and its not hot linked oh well.
 
This is the trouble with a lot these days ,the thieves have found ways around the law
 
Mike.P said:
Can you not replace the picture on Flickr with something more "suitable" so that it shows that instead :)
Click to expand...
What a great idea Mike (y)
I'll give that a little thought as to what :D
But as above, unless I misunderstand the term its not hot linked.
(Clicking on the image does nothing)
 
Last edited:
Cobra said:
As I suspected waste of time .. there goes my yacht :D
In reviewing your case, it appears that your image is hotlinked to and hosted on the following website: <flickr>

Please note that for matters of unlicensed use, it is the website host that is responsible for any infringement. Unfortunately we cannot hold websites who only display but do not host your content liable for unauthorized use of your work and are not able to proceed with your case at this time.
Click to expand...

Flickr settings -> Privacy -> Allow others to share your stuff -> NO.

There is no benefit, only negatives.
 
Cobra said:
But as above, unless I misunderstand the term its not hot linked.
(Clicking on the image does nothing)
Click to expand...
Hot linked means the image is being pulled-in using it's flickr url rather than actually copied/hosted on their website's server... that's why it's not an infringement; they didn't copy it.
 
gramps said:
Got my first case progressing, be interesting to see how it goes. :)
Click to expand...
Just be patient, the American legal system seems to take forever, but they have come through for me a few times, you may well have to fill in a few forms, but in the end, all mine have been settled out of court once the court papers had been filed.
 
Not that I have that many pictures online so it's probably not going to be a problem, but is the unauthorised use of pictures uploaded to, for example, Flickr, a common occurrence? I must confess, I have never considered that people would trawl photo websites looking for pictures they could steal. Makes me wonder if I should be putting copyright info on all my pictures.
 
Cobra said:
I hope you have better luck than I did Roger (y)
Click to expand...
It has been used in the UK for both a printed journal and online, so I am hopeful ... Pixsy have accepted it and are proceeding.
 
I’ve also got a case that they are pursuing, first time for me too. The photo has been used on a us travel site so will have to be patient and see what comes of it. It’s encouraging that some people on here have had successful claims, though unfortunate for those not so lucky.
 
I have total faith in this company , they are limited in what they can do but when it works o.k it’s a good feeling
 
ShinySideUp said:
Not that I have that many pictures online so it's probably not going to be a problem, but is the unauthorised use of pictures uploaded to, for example, Flickr, a common occurrence? I must confess, I have never considered that people would trawl photo websites looking for pictures they could steal. Makes me wonder if I should be putting copyright info on all my pictures.
Click to expand...
That’s a yes ,most of my stolen shots are from pre copyright days .. but don’t think that stops them .. and although primarily a wildlife photographer ,my two largest payouts have come from a holiday snap and a fairground snap ,both in excess of four figure sums
 
the black fox said:
That’s a yes ,most of my stolen shots are from pre copyright days .. but don’t think that stops them .. and although primarily a wildlife photographer ,my two largest payouts have come from a holiday snap and a fairground snap ,both in excess of four figure sums
Click to expand...

Pre copyright days? :thinking:
 
the black fox said:
Before I knew enough about p.p to add copyright to my photos I.e =late 90’s early 2000’s
Click to expand...
Ah! I see.

Obviously the thing about copyright infringement is that the author has rights whether the copyright information is embedded in the image or not and where any corporate bodies and their 'agents' cannot claim lack of knowledge without AFAIK showing clear evidence of their attempts to trace the copyright holder.

Though sadly all too often, it seems, 'they' chance their arm to try to get away with it......in effect hiding behind possibly industrial level infringement(s) across businesses globally :(
 
Box Brownie said:
Though sadly all too often, it seems, 'they' chance their arm to try to get away with it.....
Click to expand...

Well, let's face it, if you put a picture of a garage door, for example, on the internet and the South Bolivian Garage Door Company steal it and use it in their product catalogue in South America, the chances of you seeing it and hence objecting to their use of it are pretty small.
 
Well it looks like they found one to purse
21 hits from last month, and one they are taking on ...
Off to google Yachts and mansions (y)

:D
 
I tried Pixsy a few years ago but their matching algorithm was so crap it was not worth bothering with. Even when it's on the least matchy setting it's matching photos that were not mine and were just similar. On the default setting it was even more rubbish. A round circle on a dark background would be matched to a face for example. It was comically bad.

Have they improved their matching method so it's actually matching properly now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top