Not responsible
In June 2025, ANP’s stock photo agency asked Mr. X’s company – unfortunately, parties in court rulings are always anonymized – to pay €391.29 for using, without permission, a photo belonging to an ANP client. X immediately took the photo offline but refused to pay. His main argument: I am not responsible for the use of the photo because I instructed someone else to build the website. I did not know the photo was being used without permission.
Count proceedings
When ANP and X fail to reach an agreement, the stock agency goes to court. There, ANP demands that X not only pay the requested licence fee of €391.29, but also reimburse the costs ANP incurred in this case.
Legally, the case is not very complicated. ANP’s client owns the copyright in the photo and X used that photo without paying for it. That is a straightforward infringement. The judge dismisses X’s claim that he is not to blame. It does not matter that someone else placed the photo. A website owner may be expected to ensure that no infringing material appears on his website. “Even unintentional infringement of copyright is at the expense and risk of the infringer,” according to the judge.
Costs
And the costs? What does X now have to pay? The District Court provides a neat breakdown. The standard fee for using a photo for a period of one year is €105. Because X failed to mention the name of the photographer, an additional 25% in damages is added: €26.25. To detect this infringement, ANP engaged a private investigation agency, which charged €209. In addition, ANP incurred costs in its initial attempts to obtain payment without legal proceedings: €51.04. Finally, there are the legal costs of the court case itself: €463.73. This brings the total to €855.02, plus statutory interest.
Better to pay
Hmm, that is more than double what ANP initially asked for. And on top of that, a lot of time, stress and hassle – and in the end, no photo on your website. Next time, it might be better just to pay. That is also the fair thing to do.
One final caveat: before paying, do check carefully whether the photo you used without permission is in fact protected by copyright. Occasionally, it turns out that a photo submitted to a stock agency is not protected by copyright. Chiever once received a claim for the use of a photo on our website that had been taken by a monkey (!) (see our earlier blog). When it became clear that no rights subsisted in the photo (animals cannot hold copyright), the claim was quickly withdrawn. And a few weeks ago, a photo claim by a stock agency was rejected by the court because, in the judge’s view, the agency had insufficiently substantiated that the photo was sufficiently original to qualify for copyright protection.
Bas Kist
Banner photo by Vlad Shalaginov on Unsplash
