Financial demands from PicRights, when "copyright protection" becomes a business: our story with PicRights Italy and Reuters.

What is PicRights and how does it work?

PicRights is a private company with offices in Italy that monitors online images for major international photo agencies and media outlets, including Reuters, Associated Press, AFP, and Getty Images. Unlike a law firm, PicRights acts as a non-legal agent, and its goal is simple: to identify unauthorized uses of its clients' images and seek financial compensation for any use deemed "illegal."

The system is automated and relies on image recognition software. Once potential unauthorized use is detected, a "case" is opened on the company's portal ( https://resolve.picrights.com ) and a standard email is sent to the alleged infringer, attaching:

• A report with image details;

• A link to a protected portal with documentation of the alleged ownership of the rights;

• A financial request “as compensation”.

In many cases, the contested images are modified, adapted, or used in non-commercial contexts. However, PicRights still requires the removal of the image and the payment of fees ranging from several hundred to thousands of euros, even when the images are "simple photographs" with no artistic character.

In this article, we will recount our case from a factual and legal perspective, illustrating our strategies to oppose their request, and providing arguments based on the legal bases and sources of law. Although our analysis is based on Italian law, it is important to note that the above may not be applicable in all European Union or non-EU countries. If in doubt, we recommend always consulting your legal advisor for a specific assessment appropriate to your situation.

Our story: Managed Server Srl in the crosshairs of PicRights

On the morning of July 24, 2025, we received an email from PicRights Italy Srl, with the subject line: "Verify authorization for online use of images from Reuters News & Media Inc. – Ref. 2380-0835-0421 ." The email, from the very first lines, displayed a formal tone and an approach familiar to those who have had occasion to deal with similar requests.

The email contested our use of two photographs on our company website, one depicting the Microsoft headquarters sign and the other Google headquarters sign. According to the report, these photographs were part of the protected archive of Reuters News & Media Inc., and we had used them without a properly granted license.

We then removed and regenerated the disputed images with ChatGPT, and they resemble the following one. It should be noted that the two images, "the Microsoft and Google ones," were within a single collage-style image with the Amazon sign next to it. They came from some royalty-free photo source, going from memory, considering that we're not used to buying photos from commercial sites given the vast array of alternatives available on the market, both free and royalty-free stock photos like FreePik, for example. We can also generate photo-quality images using ChatGPT.

The communication was accompanied by an invitation to access a special reserved area, using a dedicated password, on the PicRights online platform ( https://resolve.picrights.com ), of which a screenshot of the login screen is shown below, where it was possible to view:

• screenshots of the disputed use;
• copies of the original images taken from the Reuters catalogue;
• documentation certifying ownership of the rights;
• the authorization granted to PicRights to act on behalf of Reuters.

Faced with these objections, we were asked to choose between two options:

1. Provide documentary proof of the license having been duly acquired through official channels;
2. In the absence of a license, we will immediately remove the images from our site and pay an amount equal to 1.060,00 €, as compensation for previous use.

Finally, we were reminded that PicRights does not operate as a law firm and that, while it cannot offer legal advice, it was authorized by the client to handle these compensation claims, even if the use was made in good faith and without commercial purposes.

Our reply of July 30, 2025 and the objections raised to PicRights

We responded formally, contesting the request on several grounds. As a company that has always been attentive to compliance with intellectual property laws, we were fully aware of the Italian regulatory framework governing copyright in photography. We are well aware of the technical and legal distinction between "photographic works" endowed with creativity (art. 2, no. 7 LDA) and "simple photographs" (art. 87 et seq. LDA), i.e., those lacking originality and subject to a more limited regime of protection.

In the case at hand, since the images depict the logos of two companies (Google and Microsoft) and lack any creative input, their legal classification immediately seemed to us to fall within the category of simple photographs, with all the consequences that this entails in terms of formal requirements and legal protection. We therefore felt it necessary to respond on the merits, emphasizing the lack of the minimum requirements for making a valid claim for compensation.

In summary, we observed:

• The image used it does not coincide substantially with the contested one: it is a general graphic reworking, without any distinctive features attributable to Reuters;
• They were not present signatures, watermarks or metadata that indicated the authorship of the images;
• Our policies include the use of royalty-free material, AI-generated content, internal graphics;
• The formal requirements are not met provided for by art. 90 of the Copyright Law (absence of the author's name and year on the photograph);
• In any case, we have removed as a precaution the images.

Here is the full text of our response:

Dear PicRights Italy Srl
To the attention of Eng. XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Subject: Response to your communication of July 24 – Alleged unauthorized use of an image from the Reuters News & Media Inc. archive.

Gentlemen,

Following your communication of July 24, regarding our alleged unauthorized use of an image purporting to be from the Reuters News & Media Inc. archive, we would like to make the following observations and clarifications.

Following a thorough internal review conducted following the report received via email, we are able to state the following.

1. Failure to match the reported image

The image being reported does not appear to be identical, either in form or composition, to the one you reported. The analysis conducted shows that it is a modified graphic design, lacking any unambiguous, distinctive features attributable to the alleged original work. At most, it appears to be generically inspired by or similar to the image in question in terms of its theme, but there is no faithful, integral, or substantial reproduction of the claimed image.

2. Origin of the content and correctness of our actions

Our operations comply with criteria of diligence and transparency: we systematically adopt a company policy that provides for the exclusive use of:

• content generated through artificial intelligence tools “ChatGPT”;
• materials downloaded from reliable, royalty-free archives with explicit licenses;
• internal graphic processing for illustrative purposes.

In this specific case, the image in question does not contain any signature, watermark, EXIF ​​metadata, or any other identifier that would identify its attribution to Reuters or another protected entity. No information useful for identifying its origin was accessible, not even through a reverse image search using automated tools (e.g., Google Images).

3. Regulatory framework – Copyright and limits of protection

Law 22 April 1941, n. 633 (Copyright Law), distinguishes between:

• photographic works endowed with originality and creativity (art. 2, n. 7), protected for 70 years from the author's death;
• simple photographs (Articles 87 et seq.), which can be protected for 20 years only if the formal requirements set out in Article 90 of the same law are met.

This provision requires that each copy of the photograph, in order to be protected, must bear :

• the name of the photographer or client;
• the year of production;
• the possible author of the portrayed work.

The absence of such information makes it impossible, in principle, to assert rights against a third-party user in good faith, as also clarified by the Court of Naples, Ruling no. 2573/2023 , which reiterated the need to comply with formal requirements to establish a claim for compensation.

Furthermore, consistent case law—see, for example, Ruling No. 3768/2021 of the Court of Turin, Business Section —has excluded copyright protection for photographs that lack creative character or that merely document ordinary subjects, without the photographer's personal contribution in terms of composition, lighting, framing, or expressive message.

4. Concluding remarks

In light of the checks carried out and the regulatory framework mentioned above, we believe it is necessary to highlight the following:

• The image we published does not present any unequivocal elements that can be traced back to the reported work and appears at most as a generic graphic composition, devoid of creative content or distinctive signs.
• The image does not contain the mandatory information required by Article 90 of the Copyright Law, the absence of which, as is known, excludes any claim for compensation unless the user's bad faith can be proven.
• We cannot be held responsible for any malicious or intentionally harmful conduct. This use was made in absolute good faith and in accordance with corporate practices based on diligence and regulatory compliance.

Nonetheless, as a precaution and for collaborative purposes, we have already removed the image from our website , in compliance with the principle of prudence and without acknowledging any violation or responsibility.

This conduct, moreover, complies with the provisions of Article 90, paragraph 2, of Law No. 633/1941, according to which, in the absence of the required formal elements, cessation of use alone is deemed sufficient to protect any rights holder.

Therefore, we do not believe that the legal requirements exist to accept your request for financial compensation , and we believe that any further claim can only be evaluated in the presence of suitable documentation to clearly demonstrate:

• the creative and original nature of the image (pursuant to art. 2, no. 7 LDA);
• the presence of the formal elements required pursuant to art. 90;
• the actual ownership of the rights by the person who is assumed to have been damaged;
• the existence of bad faith behavior on our part.

However, in the interests of fairness and transparency, we remain available for any clarification or further discussion aimed at resolving the issue in a non-pretentious manner.

Yours sincerely.

Marco Marcoaldi – CTO – Managed Server Srl

PicRights's response of August 7, 2025

A few days after our detailed reply, PicRights Italy Srl sent us a second communication, in which they fully reiterated their initial position, demonstrating their intention to pursue the compensation request despite the technical and legal considerations we raised.

Specifically, we were told that, even though we had modified the original images, they would still be considered "unauthorized derivative works." According to PicRights's argument, the simple act of reworking protected content does not invalidate the copyright, and therefore does not legitimize its use without the owner's explicit permission. We were reminded that only Reuters News & Media Inc., as the owner of the rights to the photographs, can grant or deny a license for the use, even partial, of its content.

PicRights further highlighted that the images in question are regularly catalogued on the ReutersConnect portal ( https://www.reutersconnect.com/ ), complete with metadata, including the author, location and date of capture, and editorial context. This, they argue, constitutes proof of legitimate ownership of the rights and the validity of the financial claim.

Interestingly, while acknowledging that these are simple photographs (i.e., devoid of artistic value), PicRights insisted that compensation for previous use should still be paid. In their view, our good faith, the lack of identifying information about the author, or the immediate removal of the images were of no avail: the payment request remained untouched.

In summary, PicRights confirmed that:

• the images, even if modified, constitute an unauthorized derivation of the original;
• Authorization can only be granted by Reuters;
• the images are officially published with all the required metadata;
• Even for simple photographs, previous use generates an obligation to compensate.

Their request therefore remained unchanged: removal + payment.

Our final reply of July 30, 2025

We responded through official channels, firmly reiterating our position, drawing on our in-depth knowledge of the Italian copyright law framework and, in particular, its implications for photography. We did not simply reject the request outright, but instead formulated a detailed technical and legal response, based on established case law and a detailed application of Law No. 633/1941.

We were fully aware that, in our case, these were two simple photographs of company signs, lacking the originality, creativity, or personal contribution of the photographer that would elevate the images to the rank of "original works" fully protected under Articles 1 and 2 of the Copyright Law. Not only were the images devoid of any artistic value, but they also lacked the minimum formal elements required to activate the protection reserved for simple photographs, governed by Articles 87 et seq. of the same law.

Lastly, but not least in terms of ethical, moral, and legal value, the image had been recovered as is from some photographic stock and therefore we were unaware of the fact that it was subject to copyright and enjoyed copyright, since it did not contain any watermark or author's name that could have led us to imagine this.

For these reasons, we deemed PicRights's compensation request unfounded, specifying that in the absence of the substantive and formal requirements, no compensation can be claimed. We also recalled that the use was made in absolute good faith, without any intent to cause harm, and that the images were promptly removed upon receipt of the notification.

The key points of our defense:

• The images do not have creative or artistic character, but they are simple photographs (company signs);
• The ones are missing formal requirements for legal protection (author's name and year inside the image);
• There was no no malice or harmful intent: the use was made in good faith;
• The jurisprudence of merit and legitimacy excludes compensation in such cases;
• We reserve the right to take any action in the event of further claims, including the request for conviction for vexatious litigation.

Full text of the final reply:

Dear PicRights Italy Srl,

We follow up on your communication and, as already extensively stated in the previous note sent to you via certified email, we reiterate in full what has already been stated there.

While formally acknowledging today the ownership of the rights to the disputed images, we firmly dispute the existence of any obligation to compensate our company. Our reasons, both technical and legal in nature, are based on a consolidated position of the Supreme Court of Cassation , which clearly distinguishes between artistic and simple photographs pursuant to Law No. 633 of 22 April 1941 , specifically Articles 87, 88, 89, and 90.

In the case in question , we are clearly dealing with two photographs depicting company signs ("Google" and "Microsoft") , devoid of any artistic value , creativity, originality, or subjective interpretative contribution from the author. These images, given their simplicity and evident documentary function, cannot be classified as creative works of the mind , as per Articles 1 and 2 of Law 633/1941, but rather fall within the residual discipline of simple photographs , subject to related rights and not to full copyright.

Pursuant to Article 90 of the aforementioned law, the enjoyment of rights to simple photographs is expressly subject to the presence, within the photograph itself , of the photographer's name and the year of production . These information must be visible and incorporated into the photograph : it is not considered sufficient – ​​nor legally valid – to include them in an appendix, in the metadata, in the editorial context of the page, or in any separate form. In the absence of these requirements, no legal protection exists , and therefore no compensation or damages are legitimately due under current legislation.

In our case, the disputed images do not include the name of the author or the year of production within the photograph , thus failing to meet the minimum conditions required by law for the possible assertion of economic or moral rights.

In light of the above, we invite you to reevaluate the merits of the claim made , also taking into account the most recent case law on the merits and in the Supreme Court, which has repeatedly excluded the right to compensation in similar cases, precisely by virtue of the failure to comply with the requirements imposed by the relevant legislation.

In conclusion, we reiterate that we will not give further follow-up to any communications of the same nature.
In the case of reiteration of claims that we consider to be unfounded, we reserve the right any appropriate initiative to protect our company, including in court, including any request for conviction for frivolous litigation, pursuant toart. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which expressly provides for the possibility for the judge to condemn the losing party to pay damages when the legal action has been started or continued with bad faith or gross negligence, or is manifestly unfounded.

Should you decide to take legal action, we will take care of asserting all technical and legal arguments in our defense , also reserving the right to take action for compensation for any direct or indirect damages, including legal fees , arising from any legal dispute not supported by any legal basis.

Sincerely,
Marco Marcoaldi
CTO – Managed Server Srl

The legislation and legal basis underlying our challenge.

Our position is not based on mere subjective assessments, but on specific regulatory references contained in Law No. 633 of 22 April 1941 (Copyright Law), which provides detailed regulations on the different types of photographic images and their respective forms of protection.

According to Italian law, a distinction must be made between:

1. Photographic works (art. 2, n. 7 LDA): images featuring originality, creativity, and the author's personal contribution, which are afforded full protection, identical to that of intellectual works. The term of protection is 70 years since the author's death.
2. Simple photographs (articles 87-92 LDA): images that document reality without creative character, that is, without stylistic choice regarding framing, lighting, or message. In this case, protection is more limited and is based on related rights and not on actual copyright. The duration of protection is 20 years from the date of production.

In our specific case, the contested images simply depicted the corporate logos of Microsoft and Google, elements devoid of any artistic or creative connotation. It therefore seems clear that they were simple photographs, subject to the residual and less protective regime of the law.

But there's more: for even simple photographs to enjoy legal protection under Article 90 of the Copyright Law, the image must visibly and contextually display :

• the photographer's name or the rights holder;
• the year of production;
• the author of the portrayed work, if different.

The absence of even one of these elements renders the image unenforceable against third parties in the absence of demonstrable and verifiable bad faith. In other words, a person who uses a photograph without these indications in good faith cannot be held civilly liable for its use, either for compensation or for contractual obligations.

This principle has been reaffirmed by several Italian court rulings , including Ruling No. 2573/2023 of the Court of Naples , which emphasized that compliance with the formal requirements set forth in Article 90 is a necessary and preliminary condition for exercising any right to compensation. Similarly, the Court of Turin , with Ruling No. 3768/2021, highlighted that not all photographs are automatically protected, especially when the element of creativity is missing.

Given this regulatory framework, our challenge is based on solid, well-documented grounds, consistent with prevailing case law. Anyone wishing to invoke the protection of simple photographs must comply with the legal requirements and demonstrate that the contested image is actually recognizable as protectable.

In our case, none of the images contained any indication of authorship or temporal references on the photograph itself. Without such information, any financial request would be invalid and considered legally unjustified .

A reflection on the PicRights method: legitimate protection or systematic "abuse"?

An online search for "PicRights" on major search engines uncovers dozens of documented cases, both in Italy and internationally, that describe experiences very similar to ours. Forums, blog posts, Reddit discussions, and professional platforms report numerous reports from users and companies who have received nearly identical compensation claims for the use, sometimes minimal or accidental, of copyrighted images.

It should be noted immediately that these online reports present a highly fragmented and sometimes emotionally charged picture. Some users even label companies like PicRights with strong terms such as "scam" or "fraudsters," which further fuels confusion and mistrust. However, it is important to clarify that PicRights and its affiliates, including PicRights Italy Srl, are real, legally incorporated companies with active VAT numbers and regular registration in the commercial register . They act on behalf of legitimate entities—in this case, Reuters News & Media Inc.—and act for the purpose of protecting copyright.

For this very reason, they should never be ignored , hoping that everything will resolve itself or that these entities will not take legal action. Such a request, if ignored, can actually result in civil litigation , with increased legal costs and further damages.

At the same time, however, if you have solid technical and legal arguments , as in our case, it is legitimate—and often necessary— to challenge such requests , both in terms of their validity and proportionality. The sums requested by these companies are often disproportionate to the type of use made, and are based on automatic mechanisms that do not always take into account the context, good faith, or the actual legal protectability of the images.

In light of this, some important considerations are necessary, which also emerge clearly from the vast documentation available online:

• It is correct to send automated compensation claims to subjects who operate in good faith, without prior consultation or an attempt at mediation?
• It's legitimate demand payment even when the images do not meet the minimum legal requirements for protection?
• It is ethically justifiable that images devoid of any creative or expressive value become an instrument of economic pressure?

For our part, we will continue to maintain a rigorous and transparent policy , based on original content, certified royalty-free archives, and in-house productions. But we believe it is important to clarify these practices , to protect not only our company, but also all businesses that operate online with integrity and responsibility.

These dynamics, while legitimate from a business perspective, risk devolving into systematic pressure , often based on fragile and not always proportionate legal foundations. It is essential that those receiving these types of communications are able to clearly evaluate the content of the request and, if necessary, initiate a reasoned and documented response , avoiding knee-jerk reactions or silences that can prove counterproductive.

In conclusion, what should I do if I receive a request from PicRights?

Each case is unique and must be analyzed with caution, method, and care. The first thing to do is to precisely understand what is being contested and which images are the subject of the alleged infringement. It is essential to carefully examine the photograph in question: where it comes from, whether it has been altered, whether it contains identifying information, and in what context it was used.

If the photograph is simple or has merely documentary value—for example, generic shots of buildings, signs, common objects, or news photos devoid of artistic intent—and mandatory elements are missing, such as the author's name and surname and the year the photo was taken , which are visible within the photograph as required by art. 90 of the Copyright Act, you may want to consider formally contesting the request , just as we did in this case.

Our response emails , published in full in this article, can serve as an operational example for setting up a technical and respectful dispute, useful for asserting one's rights and overturning the claim for compensation.

A different discussion applies if the photograph being reported falls within the category of photographic works pursuant to art. 2, no. 7 of the Copyright Act. In this case, we are talking about images with a clear artistic intent , characterized by compositional, lighting, message, or framing choices that express the author's creativity. Examples include:

• Expressive artistic portraits;
• Fashion or advertising photography with clear creative direction;
• Landscapes built with recognizable technique and style;
• Award-winning or signed works by recognized photographers in the sector.

In these cases, the legitimacy of the request is generally stronger , and a dispute may be weak, if not unfounded. If you still believe the amount requested is disproportionate to the actual use, our advice is to attempt an amicable negotiation : many similar cases have resulted in out-of-court settlements amounting to even a quarter of the initial amount requested . This type of agreement allows you to avoid legal fees, quickly close the case, and limit the financial damage.

Finally, a broader consideration: today, there are numerous free and royalty-free sources that provide professional images, usable without having to pay royalties. Sites like Pexels, Unsplash, and Pixabay (to name a few) offer comprehensive libraries with clear and open licenses. And for those seeking greater originality, systems like ChatGPT or DALL E now allow you to generate AI images so realistic they're indistinguishable from a real shot.

Therefore, unless you have a specific need for a photograph taken by a specific photographer or linked to a particular event, it no longer makes much sense to purchase images from certain stock photography companies , taking into account that many of these selling companies have complex — if not even anachronistic — policies and costs.

On this note, as a side note, we still smile back to the episode back in 2008, when Getty Images refused us the license to use a photographic portrait of Marlene Dietrich ... by a photorealist tattoo artist! Perhaps it wasn't in their policy. Or perhaps, simply, he was too ahead of his time.

Copyright must be protected, but not used as an improper commercial lever.