PicRights is a copyright enforcement company that acts for news agencies, including AFP, Reuters and AP. It finds images online with automated reverse-image search and asks website owners to pay for past use. Unresolved matters are sometimes passed to law firms such as Higbee & Associates. Many cases settle privately, so most public detail comes from the people who received the demands and from lawyers' write-ups.
One US legal-marketing firm says the demands it sees typically range from $600 to $1,400 (Optimize My Firm). The cases below show the range is wide, and that removing the image doesn't always end the matter.
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own listed licence price (NZ$183 + GST), then said the file had gone to external lawyers and earlier offers were withdrawn.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
Over US$2,000 demand for one photograph
The lawyer obtained the copyright registration deposit copy (which the claimants had refused to provide). The photo wasn't in the registered work.
Outcome The lawyer refused to proceed on the claim without the deposit copy.
CJFox Law, lawyer's article (opens in a new tab) · 31 July 2024
US$800 past-use fee
A follow-up said that unless the company replied within 14 days, the offer might be withdrawn and the matter referred to a copyright lawyer, with the demand increased for legal costs.
Outcome The author reports no legal action had been taken at the time of writing.
Blue Media (Dr William Sen) (opens in a new tab) · 18 June 2024
Almost US$2,000 demand
The recipient received an email and then a posted letter.
Outcome Final result not reported.
Blue Media, reader comment on the article (opens in a new tab) · article 18 June 2024
US$1,700 demand
The blogger removed the images. Emails followed from PicRights and then from a law firm the blogger believed was Higbee & Associates.
Outcome The blogger reported hearing nothing further for a year.
Reddit r/COPYRIGHT, first-hand post (opens in a new tab) · March 2021
US$500 per photo two photos, used about 10 years earlier
The blogger said AP and Reuters confirmed they had engaged PicRights. The blogger planned to remove the images and check the rest of the blog for images with unknown licences.
Outcome Final result not reported.
Reddit r/COPYRIGHT, first-hand post (opens in a new tab) · April 2022
€98 demand
The image was free to use with attribution, but the credit hadn't been added. The site replaced the image.
Outcome The site chose not to pay unless the matter escalated; nothing further reported.
WebmasterWorld forum, first-hand post (opens in a new tab) · 24 April 2024
If you've received a demand, don't ignore it or pay straight away. Note the deadline, check your licence records and get legal advice. PixCheckR isn't legal advice and can't settle a claim.