You manage your company’s website and receive a letter from a lawyer demanding several hundred—sometimes several thousand—euros for the alleged unauthorized use of a photograph. The threat is serious: copyright infringement, criminal prosecution, and legal action within 14 days.

This type of formal notice is becoming increasingly common in France. It is sent out en masse by companies that specialize in identifying and collecting photography royalties on behalf of photo agencies. If you receive one, don’t panic, but don’t respond lightly either.

Here’s what you need to understand in order to respond effectively.

 

What this type of formal notice actually is

An industrialized practice

These letters are the result of a well-established process: a photo agency hires a third-party company to scan the web using automated tools (artificial intelligence, image recognition engines) to detect any use of images from its catalog on third-party websites.

When a match is detected, a demand letter is sent—often in bulk and in a highly standardized format—demanding a lump-sum payment as part of an “amicable settlement.”

This practice may resemble what legal scholars and certain courts refer to as “copyright trolling”: the exploitative use of copyright for the purpose of generating litigation revenue rather than for the actual protection of the work. The Court of Justice of the European Union, moreover, identified this practice in a judgment dated June 17, 2021 (CJEU, C-597/19). More recently, the Paris Court of Justice characterized the proceedings initiated by a typeface designer as abusive. The designer claimed damages of €30 million for the unauthorized use of his font by a clothing brand (Paris Court of Justice, 3rd Chamber, 3rd Section, March 25, 2026, No. 24/02354).

A very distinctive letter template

These formal notices share certain common features:

• They are issued by a lawyer or a specialized firm retained by the rights holder
• They allege infringement (Article L. 335-2 of the Intellectual Property Code) as well as unfair competition (Articles 1240 and 1241 of the Civil Code)
• They refer to previous follow-ups that may turn out to be fictitious
• They set a very short response deadline (usually 14 days)
• They offer payment through an online payment platform
• They may attach, as an appendix, a draft summons and a draft criminal complaint—intended to intimidate

What is the actual legal significance of these measures?

A limited but significant volume of litigation

In practice, very few of these cases actually go to court. A review of case law, however, shows that litigation does indeed exist. To date, there have been six court decisions in France on similar cases, handed down in courts as diverse as those in Paris, Lille, Bordeaux, Marseille, and Nancy, between March 2024 and June 2025.

The rulings vary: some result in awards (compensation for financial loss, compensation for emotional distress, unfair competition, Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure), while others result in the dismissal of the claims on the merits.

The central question: the originality of photography

Under French law, copyright protection is contingent upon the criterion of originality. According to established case law dating back to a 1965 ruling by the Court of Cassation, a work is original if it is new and distinct from the prior public domain. Although this criterion is not explicitly stated in the text of Article L. 111-1 of the Intellectual Property Code, it is implied by Articles L. 112-3 and L. 112-4 and established by the body of case law.

However, these formal notices generally fail to demonstrate the originality of the photograph in question. They merely assert the existence of a right without providing any evidence to support it. The Marseille Court (judgment of December 19, 2024, Case No. 22/12274) thus dismissed the claims, noting in particular that:

• The screenshot submitted as evidence was of poor quality and its authenticity was questionable
• The photograph in question featured a straightforward composition (with the subject centered)
• There was no evidence to establish the originality of the image

 

A Stronger Foundation: Parasitism

While copyright may be contested, free-riding, on the other hand, constitutes a legally stronger basis. This concept, derived from commercial case law, refers to the behavior whereby one economic operator follows in the wake of another in order to profit, without incurring any costs, from that other party’s efforts and know-how (Cass. com., Jan. 26, 1999, No. 96-22.457).

The advantage of free-riding for the claimant is that it does not require a situation of direct competition between the parties (Commercial Court of Cassation, April 7, 2009, No. 07-17.529). Any company, regardless of its sector, may be targeted.

It is generally on this basis that convictions are handed down when sufficient evidence of use is presented.

The often-overlooked issue: the actual harm suffered

The assessment of the damages suffered is supposed to be based on a rigorous method of identification and contextualization. Indeed, in addition to demonstrating the consequences of the damage, the party issuing the formal notice must also be able to justify the amount of damages sought by documenting the victim’s profile (what is their financial situation? what losses were incurred?…). To do this, it is customary to rely on a so-called “counterfactual” scenario, which allows one to reconstruct what would have happened if the harmful event had not occurred—in this case, the publication of the image.

However, in this type of correspondence, the amount of damages claimed is often not based on any objective or verifiable evidence. In the absence of relevant accounting data, courts typically reduce the estimated amount of damages.

What should you do in practice if you receive such a formal notice?

1) Don't rush into making a payment

The 14-day deadline applies only to the sender of the letter, not to the recipient. It does not deprive you of your right to defend yourself. The mention of a potential summons or criminal complaint is a tactic intended to intimidate, not a guarantee that legal action will be taken.

2) Verify that the situation is accurate

First, determine whether the image in question is currently on your website or has ever been on it. Also check whether you have a valid license to use it: a contract, a receipt from an image bank, or a contractual transfer. If so, provide the supporting documents to your attorney.

3) Assess the strategic importance of brand image

If the image has no strategic value for your communications, deleting it immediately is often the wisest course of action to put an end to any claims regarding its continued use. However, be sure to keep records of how these photographs were used (such as the number of views).

4) Don't respond on your own

These formal notices are drafted by legal professionals. An ill-advised response could be used against you, particularly to establish bad faith or a lack of objection. Consider consulting with an attorney specializing in intellectual property before responding.

5) Plan ahead

For your future communication needs, opt for stock photo sites with clear licensing terms (Shutterstock, Adobe Stock, Getty Images, Unsplash for royalty-free images, etc.). The cost of a subscription is far lower than the amounts claimed in this type of dispute—and especially lower than legal fees.

What we see in practice

At the firm At ALLY Avocats, we regularly assist companies that receive this type of formal notice. Our experience allows us to quickly identify cases with serious evidentiary flaws (unproven originality, questionable proof of use, fictitious follow-ups) and those requiring a swift resolution to limit risk.

Every situation is different. The analysis must be tailored to each individual case.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute personalized legal advice. For any specific situation, consult an attorney who specializes in intellectual property law. Have you received a letter like this? Contact us for an analysis of your case.

 

copyright cease-and-desist letter for images, unauthorized use of photographs on websites, copyright trolling in France, corporate photography copyright, what to do if you receive a cease-and-desist letter regarding images, photo agency copyright