Amazon Product Image Usage on a Website

HKB777

New Member
Jurisdiction
Texas
I have a small site and one of my editors wrote an article with links within it that hyperlink to Amazon products since she is an Amazon affiliate and Amazon allows(encourages, actually) us to use their product images. They actually make sellers sign a statement giving Amazon and any affiliates the right to use the images for advertising purposes. And Amazon makes affiliates sign a statement that they will use the images only to link to their site. We follow all their rules, always.

I received a letter from ImageRightsInternational that one of the product images violates the rights of their client, Annie Leibovitz. The product image is of the Vanity Fair magazine that had images of Caitlyn Jenner on the cover, photographed by Ms. Leibovitz. The actual magazine image is hosted at Amazon, by the way.

Amazon itself says we have done nothing wrong, but I removed the page until this could be sorted out. Amazon also has affiliates sign an agreement that Amazon will not intervene legally in website disputes so they won't provide legal help. Meanwhile the Image Rights company says Amazon is wrong and I have no right to have this image displayed on my site and owe them $3000 for prior use. And that removing the page shows guilt, even though I told them I admit nothing but using Amazon product images, no other ones. They offered to settle for a reasonable amount and told me to make an offer.

Now they say if I don't pay the $3000 they are escalating it to a lawsuit. I asked an intellectual rights attorney who said that I am probably in the right and for a fee he would write them a letter but he would not say for sure that I am right.

The company is located in Boston, and I am in Texas.

Do you have any advice on what I should do next?
 
Amazon is not the boss of whoever owns the rights to the photo.

From the internet:

ImageRights International provides intelligent image search and copyright enforcement services to photo agencies, professional photographers and media companies worldwide to ensure that their intellectual property rights are protected and that they are compensated for the unauthorized use of their copyrighted works. ImageRights, the only company to have fully automated copyright registration with the US Copyright Office, has made copyright enforcement a truly integrated component of its clients' daily workflow. Through its in-house license compliance team and global network of copyright attorneys, ImageRights has recovered more than $8 million in settlements and awards on behalf of its clients.

Looks like those people are serious and successful at recovering money for their clients.

Might be worth a couple hundred for the attorney to write the letter in the hope that they back off.

Otherwise, it's up to you.
 
Do you have any advice on what I should do next?

Yes. Retain the services of the lawyer with whom you consulted.

By the way, if you own a copy of the magazine, you are free to use an image of the magazine for purposes of selling it, even though you don't own any rights in the photograph on the cover. That's very basic copyright law.
 
Yes. Retain the services of the lawyer with whom you consulted.

By the way, if you own a copy of the magazine, you are free to use an image of the magazine for purposes of selling it, even though you don't own any rights in the photograph on the cover. That's very basic copyright law.

Hi, thanks for that information. Since Amazon is a sales site, and the image is used to sell it, and my link to that site is to sell it, it seems like it would be okay. I would have retained that lawyer if he had said I was in the right but his statement was "probably" in the right, which gave me pause. So I decided to investigate further. And ask a different lawyer. Again, thanks.
 
I think you are getting hustled.

You aren't using the original image, you are using an image of the magazine cover, which I don't think the photographer has any control over.
Any claim of impropriety should be directed at the host site, not those who link to it.

I agree, if it isn't cost prohibitive, obtain the services of the attorney to write the letter. That will probably make this collector/scammer go away.

Do not pay or agree to pay unless your own legal counsel recommends it. You have no legal obligation to acknowledge or reply to the letters you received regarding this. Doing so will only keep them interested in you as a possible income source.
 
Amazon is not the boss of whoever owns the rights to the photo.

From the internet:



Looks like those people are serious and successful at recovering money for their clients.

Might be worth a couple hundred for the attorney to write the letter in the hope that they back off.

Otherwise, it's up to you.
I think you are getting hustled.

You aren't using the original image, you are using an image of the magazine cover, which I don't think the photographer has any control over.
Any claim of impropriety should be directed at the host site, not those who link to it.

I agree, if it isn't cost prohibitive, obtain the services of the attorney to write the letter. That will probably make this collector/scammer go away.

Do not pay or agree to pay unless your own legal counsel recommends it. You have no legal obligation to acknowledge or reply to the letters you received regarding this. Doing so will only keep them interested in you as a possible income source.


Hi,
Thanks for that. I told them the same thing regarding it's the magazine cover not the original. They are unfazed and say the image is copyrighted. Will see about getting a letter I guess. So ridiculous. Never made a dime on the page. :(
 
Do you have any advice on what I should do next?


I'm a lawyer.
When other lawyers send me letters threatening to do this or that, I never respond.
When lawyers call me to threaten me, I hang up the call, and instruct my staff to take no more calls from "Big Shot".

I only concern myself with OFFICIAL matters involving the legal process, summons, subpoena. lawsuit.

To respond to anything NOT on the above list is only to encourage, excite, and appease the stalker/scammer.

Yes, all unsolicited calls or calls from anonymous parties are scammers or stalkers.

I never fret about lawsuits, especially letters demanding I pay tribute.

You want my money, come sue me for my money.

I only give my money (left over after the IRS confiscates their UNFAIR share) to my grandchildren, my church, and the charities I support.

All others sue me.

In your case, you've more than complied by taking down the image.

Frankly, I side with you, that only a court can demand you take it down.

Talking about NOT being sued, only encourages someone to sue you.

Cease all communications with the scammer, and respond only to a lawsuit.

There are two ways a Boston based scammer can sue you, if you're smart.

One, the lawsuit is brought in small claims, which MUST be in the county, place, and precinct where you reside.

Any other attempts to sue you in Texas will fail.

The other is in federal court, but, in federal court diversity jurisdiction cases; the MINIMUM jurisdictional amount is $75,000.

The scammer can forget federal court.

If you live in Dallas city, the correct court might be municipal court.

In Dallas county, it is the JP court in your place and precinct.
 
I'm a lawyer.
When other lawyers send me letters threatening to do this or that, I never respond.
When lawyers call me to threaten me, I hang up the call, and instruct my staff to take no more calls from "Big Shot".

I only concern myself with OFFICIAL matters involving the legal process, summons, subpoena. lawsuit.

To respond to anything NOT on the above list is only to encourage, excite, and appease the stalker/scammer.

Yes, all unsolicited calls or calls from anonymous parties are scammers or stalkers.

I never fret about lawsuits, especially letters demanding I pay tribute.

You want my money, come sue me for my money.

I only give my money (left over after the IRS confiscates their UNFAIR share) to my grandchildren, my church, and the charities I support.

All others sue me.

In your case, you've more than complied by taking down the image.

Frankly, I side with you, that only a court can demand you take it down.

Talking about NOT being sued, only encourages someone to sue you.

Cease all communications with the scammer, and respond only to a lawsuit.

There are two ways a Boston based scammer can sue you, if you're smart.

One, the lawsuit is brought in small claims, which MUST be in the county, place, and precinct where you reside.

Any other attempts to sue you in Texas will fail.

The other is in federal court, but, in federal court diversity jurisdiction cases; the MINIMUM jurisdictional amount is $75,000.

The scammer can forget federal court.

If you live in Dallas city, the correct court might be municipal court.

In Dallas county, it is the JP court in your place and precinct.


Hi, BIG THANKS FOR THIS REPLY !
 
Hi, BIG THANKS FOR THIS REPLY !

For your protection, start a log and document everything beginning with the moment the image was posted WITHOUT your express permission.

You might need that at some point, unless you want to just toss the towel in with 30 crisp, one hundred bills for the scammer!
 
I would have retained that lawyer if he had said I was in the right but his statement was "probably" in the right, which gave me pause.

Copyright law is a somewhat specialized field that most lawyers don't have any or much knowledge of. It certainly will be better to have the letter written by someone who understands the applicable law.
 
if you own a copy of the magazine, you are free to use an image of the magazine for purposes of selling it, even though you don't own any rights in the photograph on the cover

Hi, I have searched all over and I can't find anything related to this on the copyright website. Could you point me to the relevant paragraphs and/or statute about that? I really want to understand this. Thank you in advance.
 
It's a matter of fair use, but reading the statute won't do you a ton of good. It's largely a matter of case law. You could run a Google Scholar search for something like "right to use image of copyrighted work in order to advertise lawfully owned copy."
 
It's a matter of fair use, but reading the statute won't do you a ton of good. It's largely a matter of case law. You could run a Google Scholar search for something like "right to use image of copyrighted work in order to advertise lawfully owned copy."
Thank you so much for your reply.
 
Back
Top