I Framed a Website; Now PicRights Wants Money!

Dear Rich: I build websites, and one of my clients is a small auto shop. The auto shop's website includes a listing of brands that they carry and includes links. Some of the links steer the user to the brand website. Some of the links allowed the user to stay at the auto shop website and to view the brand website within a frame. Several months ago, the auto shop got threatening letters and emails from PicRights.com, a photo rights company, saying that two of the framed brand sites each had a photo that was "copied" from one of their stock photo clients. Naturally, the auto shop nor I had any knowledge or control over what one of these brand companies or their web people used on those sites. I removed the links to those companies, and we told PicRights that via email. But the auto shop continues to get threatening letters including one from an attorney. 
We can't predict how the auto shop would fare if this matter proceeded to court (and we assume the auto shop doesn't want to litigate), but if we were a betting blog, we'd wager that the auto shop's liability would not exceed $1500. It's even possible that the shop would owe nothing. Here's why:
Framing and copyright. What makes framing different from typical linking is that instead of taking the user to the linked website, the information from that website is displayed in a special “frame.” When you’re viewing framed information, your computer is connected to the site doing the framing, not the site whose page appears in the frame. But in reality, the image isn't duplicated because the link is just HTML code pointing to the image or other material. (A similar result occurs when a single photo from one site is embedded in another site -- a process called "inlining.")
Conflicting case law. Framing and inlining are often used to deliver search engine results. Courts have held in two cases where search engines linked to thumbnail images, that such uses are permitted as fair use. In one of those cases, Perfect Ten, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals devised the “server test" in which the court ruled that if the allegedly infringing work is on your server, you infringed. Under the server test, the auto shop might prevail, assuming no copies of the infringing photos were stored on the auto shop servers. Complicating the analysis, a New York judge in 2018 rejected the server test in a case about an embedded Twitter photo. In other words, your case might achieve a different result in California than in New York. (Hopefully, an appellate court or the Supreme Court will resolve the difference between circuits.)
What should the auto shop do? You were wise to remove the framed links immediately as that demonstrates your good faith responding to the claim as well as limiting your potential damages. It's also reasonable for the auto shop to request proof that the images have been registered in the Copyright Office. If they haven't been registered before your posting, PicRights or the stock photo company could not claim statutory damages or attorney fees. Also, they can't sue you in federal court without the registration. (Although not conclusive, we found no copyright registrations under either complaining party's name in the Copyright Office database.) If they have registered the copyright before your posting, the minimum for damages would be $750 per photo (or $200 per photo if you were determined to be an "`innocent infringer"). Feel free to write to the photo rights company and share our information but don't expect a reasoned response. (If we analogize to fishing, the company's policy is to use drift nets, not catch-and-release.)
Will you get sued? Oddly, when we searched PACER, we couldn't find any records of copyright lawsuits filed either by PicRights or by the stock photo company claiming to own rights. Perhaps the companies sue under other names, but it's possible that they never file lawsuits, only threaten them. To be prudent, the auto shop should obtain an opinion from an attorney before blowing off the letter.
P.S. Dept. It’s possible that you may be threatened with contributory infringement. We believe that under Ninth Circuit standards, you would prevail.

What Should My Cease and Desist Letter Say?

From the PDR's Decayed Daguerreotypes
Collection (Portrait of Emma Bostwick)

Dear Rich — I just stumbled across a commercial venture’s Web site that uses my photograph at the top of their main page and their about page, without permission or credit. I registered the image with the Copyright Office long ago. I don’t want to be a hard ass — I’d be happy to license the image for my regular fee or see it taken down. Do you have language you recommend for when I first email the firm? 
The communication you send to an infringer -- commonly referred to as a cease and desist letter -- should convey proof of your ownership, a summary of the rip-off, a demand that the infringer stop its activity, a proposed resolution, and request for a response within a fixed time period.
To threaten or not to threaten? Although many cease and desist letters threaten legal action, you’re probably wiser not to do so at this stage. As attorney Stephen Fishman writes in the Copyright Handbook, "The specter of imminent legal action is likely to make the other person paranoid, defensive, and unwilling to cooperate. It may also send him straight to a lawyer." (Also a letter that threatens a lawsuit may enable the infringer to justify what's known as a declaratory action.)
The right tone. The tone of the letter is up to you (and your lawyer if using one) but we recommend remaining dispassionate rather than being angry, sarcastic, or using legalese. Keep in mind that if the matter escalates, your letter could become an exhibit in a court battle. So don't say anything that you wouldn't want a judge or jury to see, as well.
Sample cease and desist letter. Here's a suggested opening salvo:

Dear Sir or Madam: I recently became aware that your website has published two of my copyrighted photographic images: "Title of photo 1" (URL for infringing material) and Title of photo 2" (URL for infringing material). I created these images in June 2005 and subsequently registered them with the U.S. Copyright Office (a digital scan of the Certificate of Registration is attached). I own all of the rights in these photographs. Because I never authorized you to reproduce these images, it appears that you have infringed my copyright.

I am hopeful that we can resolve this matter in a nonlitigious manner and am prepared to grant you a license for your past and future use based on my standard fees. If I don't receive a response within ten days of receipt of this correspondence, or if you disagree with my assessment, I will pursue my legal rights. As your attorney can advise you, I would be entitled to reasonable compensation in the form of statutory damages as provided under federal law. I look forward to speaking with you.

Ideally, cease and desist letters should be sent by some method that guarantees proof of delivery.
P.S. Dept. If the website refuses to respond or own up to the infringement, you can consider filing a DMCA notice.

Can a Legal Notice Be Sent By Email?

Dear Rich: I got a cease and desist notice by email. Is that legal? How can they prove that I got it? Yes, a cease and desist letter has the same legal effect whether it is sent by U.S. mail, email, or as a text message. The two laws that confirm the acceptability of electronic notices are “UETA” (the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act), adopted in all states except Georgia, Illinois, New York and Washington, and “ESIGN” (Electronic Signatures In Global and National Commerce Act), a federal law. Unless some other law prohibits it, UETA and ESIGN permit the use of typical electronic notices. Put another way, under both of these laws, a legal notice cannot be denied admission in court simply because it is electronic (and not on paper). The key to admission in these cases is demonstrating authenticity of the email and receipt. So, if a lawyer sends you an email cease and desist notice, under UETA, that email is considered to have been “received” when your email server (the one connected with the your email account) receives the message from the lawyer. The email protocol used when sending email over the Internet confirms your address. However, demonstrating receipt may require discovery mechanisms to obtain your email server records. Note, that you are considered to have “received” the email even if it falls into your spam filter, provided that you have the ability to obtain the message from the filter or have control over the filter’s settings. Lawyer's often use a system such as RPost (http://www.rpost.com/) when sending electronic email notices.