Enter your website. PixCheckR reads your public pages and checks each image it finds for signs it may have come from Reuters, AP, Getty, stock libraries or news outlets: the images firms like PicRights and Copytrack pursue. The first check is free.
PixCheckR identifies possible image-rights issues for your review. Matches are not determinations of ownership, permission or infringement, and an image without a match is not confirmed as licensed.
Reconstructed example based on a real copyright demand received by a NZ organisation. We have rewritten and removed identifying details; this is not a copy of, or a quotation from, the original letter. The sender requested NZ$1,200 in that instance. A demand is an allegation, not a finding of infringement, and this amount is not presented as typical.
In that case, the organisation was told a news agency's photograph had appeared on its website without a licence. After an earlier letter from the agency's rights-enforcement agent, the agency's lawyers asked it to remove the photo, sign an undertaking and pay NZ$1,200 by a deadline, and said court proceedings might follow.
Reconstructed example based on a real copyright demand received by a NZ organisation. We have rewritten and removed identifying details; this is not a copy of, or a quotation from, the original letter. The sender requested NZ$1,200 in that instance. A demand is an allegation, not a finding of infringement, and this amount is not presented as typical.
Copyright infringement: use of our client's photograph
1.We act for a news agency. It says one of its photographs appears on your website, and its records show no licence for that use.
2.To settle its claim, our client asks you to remove the photograph, sign an undertaking not to use it again without a licence, and pay NZ$1,200 by [date]. It says this reflects a licence fee and its costs.
3.Our client says removing the photograph on its own will not settle the matter.
4.If the offer is not accepted by [date], our client says it may consider court proceedings.
PixCheckR can't settle or stop a claim for past use, and it isn't legal advice. It helps you find and deal with risky images before a letter arrives.
Real demands linked to PicRights, which acts for news agencies such as AFP, Reuters and AP. Follow each source link to check it yourself.
Each summary reflects only what the linked page says, checked on 4 October 2026. Most are first-hand accounts or lawyers' write-ups, not court findings, and we haven't verified them beyond the source. A demand is an allegation, not a finding of infringement, and these amounts are not presented as typical. PixCheckR isn't affiliated with PicRights or with any law firm or agency named.
Approximate conversions for comparison only, using recent European Central Bank reference rates.
NZ$700 initial demand
The owner removed the image within 10 minutes. PicRights said removal wasn't enough, reclassified the use as commercial when he pointed to Reuters' own listed licence price (NZ$183 + GST), then said the file had gone to external lawyers and earlier offers were withdrawn.
Outcome Settled for a reduced, undisclosed amount.
Sam Frost, first-hand account (opens in a new tab) · 27 July 2026
€585.75 to €2,000 ordered by the courts
Paris (27 June 2024): no copyright infringement because the photo lacked originality, but the company was ordered to pay €585.75 plus €3,000 in legal costs. Lille (29 March 2024): €2,000 pre-trial order. Marseille (19 December 2024): €800 for economic loss plus €800 costs.
Outcome Court orders; legal costs were added on top in two cases.
IntoTheMinds (Pierre-Nicolas Schwab), summary of the rulings (opens in a new tab) · 15 January 2025
Over R15,000 demand
The newspaper removed the images and tried to negotiate. The article reports PicRights "wouldn't move an inch" and that the matter made national news.
Outcome Final result not reported.
Strategic Marketing Tribe (Vicky Sidler) (opens in a new tab) · 21 January 2026
£1,492 demand, December 2023
The owner took the website down; the designer was no longer trading. A further demand followed in January 2024.
Outcome Final result not reported.
CJFox Law, reader comment on the article (opens in a new tab) · article 31 July 2024
News agencies and photo libraries use automated image matching to find their pictures online, then send claims through rights-enforcement firms. Removing the image or crediting the photographer after the letter arrives doesn't undo past use.
Every image it can find on your public pages: inline photos, background images and social-share pictures. For each one it reads embedded credit, byline and copyright fields, looks for agency and stock file-name patterns, checks where the image is hosted and reads nearby captions. The full report also searches the web for matching copies, which can surface agency, news and stock-library pages. Scans read public pages only and can miss images, for example behind logins or bot protection.
No. PixCheckR identifies possible image-rights issues for your review. Matches are not determinations of ownership, permission or infringement, and an image without a match is not confirmed as licensed. Keep licences and invoices for every image you didn't create, and get legal advice about any specific claim.
The free scan reads up to 50 pages, checks file details only and gives an overall likelihood (high, medium or low), the number of images to review and the likely owners. The full report (US$25 per website) reads up to 500 pages, adds web matching for copies online, lists every flagged image with reasons and the likely owner, lets you record decisions and gives you PDF and CSV reports. It includes three scans within 30 days so you can check your fixes.
Most free scans finish in under a minute. A full report on a large site can take several minutes because every image is matched against the web. You can leave the page open and watch progress, and your reports are saved to your account.
Services such as Cloudflare or SiteGround may block automated visitors. If the scan finds few or no images, allow-list the user agent PixCheckrScanner or relax bot protection briefly, then scan again.
Only with the owner's permission. PixCheckR is a self-audit tool for sites you own or manage. You must confirm permission before each scan, and we may block scans that look like misuse.
We don't keep full-size copies. Images are downloaded briefly to read their file details, then discarded. We store each image's web address, the details we read and our findings. Free scans keep no image previews and are deleted after 90 days. Full reports keep a small preview (up to 240 × 180 pixels) of each image for your PDF, deleted 12 months after the scan. For full reports, each image's address is sent to Google Cloud Vision to find matching copies online; if Google can't fetch it, we send the image file. See the privacy policy.
It depends on the image, how it was used and who owns it. Our example shows how one demand was set out.
Reconstructed example based on a real copyright demand received by a NZ organisation. We have rewritten and removed identifying details; this is not a copy of, or a quotation from, the original letter. The sender requested NZ$1,200 in that instance. A demand is an allegation, not a finding of infringement, and this amount is not presented as typical.
A PixCheckR full report for a whole website is US$25.
Don't ignore it, and don't pay straight away. Note the deadline. Check your own records for a licence or invoice, and if you have one, send it as the letter asks. If you can't find one, take the image down, but be aware that a letter may say removal alone doesn't settle the claim. Get legal advice. A full PixCheckR report helps you find any other risky images on the site before they lead to another letter.
Monitor checks your whole website every month, with no page limit. It web-matches every image added since the previous check and emails you only when a new image may belong to a news agency, stock library or other third party. The first check records a starting point, so pair Monitor with a full report to deal with images already on your site. US$9 a month per website, cancel any time.
The full report is a one-off payment in US dollars (USD), with no subscription or automatic renewal. Monitor is a US$9 monthly subscription that renews until you cancel; you can cancel any time from My reports, and it runs to the end of the month you've paid for. Payments are processed by Stripe; we never see your card details. If a scan or a Monitor check fails for a reason within our control and we can't fix it, we'll refund you. See the Terms and Conditions.
PixCheckR is a brand operated by International Public Safety Qualifications Authority Ltd, a New Zealand company, which sells PixCheckR reports in trade. Get in touch through our contact form.
A two-page summary of what PixCheckR checks, what the reports include and how pricing works.