Don't panic. Don't ignore it either.

A photograph managed by 79 Pixels was found on a website that you own, operate, or are commercially responsible for, and we have no record of a licence for that use. Our letter identifies the image, the page it appears on, the date we documented it, and a case reference.

Copyright in a photograph belongs to the photographer from the moment it's taken. Using it commercially without permission — even unknowingly — requires a licence, and that's what the letter is asking you to put right.

Healthy scepticism is sensible — copyright demands are a known scam format. Genuine 79 Pixels correspondence always includes a case reference, identifies the specific image and URL, and comes from an @79pixels.net address. Our payment links go to a secure card-payment page, and we never ask for payment by gift card or cryptocurrency.

If you want to verify independently: don't use the contact details in the letter — come to this website yourself and email info@79pixels.net or call one of the numbers on our contact page, quoting your case reference.

This is the most common reply we get, and we understand it. But search engines index images; they don't license them. The same is true of "free wallpaper" sites and images re-posted on social media. Unless the source explicitly grants a licence (and you've complied with its terms), copyright still applies.

Not knowing is genuinely common — which is why our first letter proposes a licence fee rather than anything more dramatic. Innocence affects how a matter resolves; it doesn't make the use licensed.

That's useful to know, and worth raising with them — many agency contracts make the agency responsible for clearing image rights, so you may be able to pass the cost on. Legally, though, the operator of the website is responsible for what it publishes, so the matter still needs resolving with you (or with your agency directly, if they take it on — we're happy to deal with them).

Taking the image down stops the infringement continuing, and we do take it into account — but it doesn't license the use that already happened, which is what the fee covers. Think of it like settling for a stay that's already occurred: leaving the hotel doesn't void the bill.

The good news: by the time we write to you the use is already documented and the fee already assessed, so removal won't increase it — and resolving promptly keeps it at the initial level.

The fee is based on what a licence for that use would have cost: the nature of the use (commercial vs. personal), the prominence and duration of the use, the size of the image, and the photographer's actual licensing history for comparable uses. It is an assessed commercial rate, not an arbitrary penalty.

If you think the assessment misunderstands your use — for example, the page was a draft, or the site is non-commercial — tell us. We'd rather correct an assessment than argue about it.

It can. Our fees are assessed on the nature of the use, and we approach good-faith, non-commercial and charitable uses differently from commercial ones. If resources are genuinely tight, ask us about staged payment — a sensible plan beats a stand-off for everyone.

The case doesn't lapse — it progresses. Our process moves from an initial licence enquiry to a formal demand, then a final demand, and then assessment for legal action. Every step is documented, and the evidence (screenshots, archives, metadata) was preserved before we ever wrote to you.

We'd genuinely rather not litigate — court is slow and expensive for both sides — but we do follow through, and resolved-early is always the cheapest outcome. If you've received a letter and aren't sure what to do, a one-line reply is enough to keep the matter in conversation.

Yes. Reply with your case reference and the basis of your dispute — for instance, you hold a licence, the site isn't yours, the image isn't the one we identified, or you believe the use is covered by an exception (fair use / fair dealing rules are narrow, but they exist). We review every dispute against the evidence and reply with our position. If we got it wrong, we close the case and say so.

Usually, yes — that's rather the point. Once the past use is settled we can include or add a forward licence so the image stays where it is, on clear terms. Many cases end with the website keeping the photograph legitimately.

We act for professional photographers and image libraries under written agreements — typically exclusive licences or direct authority to enforce. Our letters identify the photographer and the work, and we can evidence the chain of rights for any case on request. We never write about images we don't have authority over.

Pay online by card via our payment page — choose the currency that matches your letter (GBP, USD, AUD or EUR) and include your case reference. Once payment clears you receive written confirmation that the matter is closed and a licence record covering the use. Keep it with your business records — it's your proof the use is resolved.