Atlantic Image Defense LLC
Updated in 2026
15 min read
Some uses may already be licensed, remain ambiguous or lend themselves to a retroactive licensing discussion. Reviewing the context first can avoid unnecessary conflict.
Atlantic Image Defense LLC encourages creators to document the facts carefully before any platform notice, licensing discussion or legal handoff. A structured file keeps the matter clear and gives each next step a professional foundation.
Keep the evidence factual and easy to trace: screenshots, URLs, original files, publication dates, contributor records, licence notes and a concise chronology. Together, these elements reduce uncertainty and make a responsible review easier.
The essentials
Section 01
Finding one of your photographs on a website you do not recognise does not, by itself, show that the use is unauthorised. Images are licensed every day through agencies, stock libraries, direct sales, editorial syndication and client commissions, and the person who finds the copy rarely sees the paperwork behind it. A licensing review is the step that separates a use that is plainly unlicensed from one that may be covered, partly covered or covered once and no longer.
The review protects the rights holder as much as the recipient. A demand sent to a business that holds a valid licence damages credibility, invites a justified complaint and weakens every later letter in the same file. A notice sent to a host on the basis of an incomplete picture can expose the sender to criticism, and under US law a knowing material misrepresentation in a takedown notice can create liability under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f). A careful review costs little in comparison.
References17 U.S.C. § 512(f)
Escalation is not abandoned. It is simply placed after the question that should come first: is there a reasonable chance that this use was licensed? When the answer is yes, Atlantic asks for the licence record before anything else. When the answer is no, the file moves forward on a sounder footing, because the question has been asked and answered.
Section 02
Atlantic examines every occurrence for signs that a licence could be in place before any letter is prepared. None of these signals proves a licence. Each one is a reason to ask rather than to assert.
Signals point in the other direction too. A watermark removed or cropped out, a stripped credit, a mirrored or recoloured image, or the same photograph spread across unrelated sites with no credit at all make a licence less likely, though still not impossible. The review weighs the signals together. It does not treat one detail as decisive.
Section 03
Many disputed cases do not involve a use that was never licensed. They involve a licence that was real but has been outgrown. Licences are granted for a defined use, and the scope is usually written into the agency’s terms or the invoice. A use can fall outside that scope in several ways.
An older licence therefore needs to be read, not just found. “We bought it in 2015” is a useful starting point and often entirely true. Whether that purchase covers the present use depends on its terms. Some agency licences are perpetual for the uses they allow; others are limited in time. Atlantic asks for the record precisely so that the scope can be compared with the use actually observed, rather than relying on an impression on either side.
Section 04
A licence is a permission, and the record is the document that shows the permission and its limits. Atlantic looks for a record that links four things together: the image, the licensee, the grant and the scope.
Each element proves something specific and leaves something open. An invoice proves a payment but may not identify the image if it lists only a credit pack. A download history shows that an account obtained the file but not, on its own, the licence type chosen. A licence certificate in another company’s name proves a licence exists but not that it covers the user. This is why Atlantic asks for the combination that fits the case, not for a single document by name.
Under US law, a transfer of copyright ownership requires a signed writing (17 U.S.C. § 204). A simple non-exclusive permission is treated differently and may, in some circumstances, be established without a formal contract. That is one reason Atlantic asks for whatever record exists, including correspondence, rather than insisting on a particular form. What matters is that the permission can be identified and its scope understood.
References17 U.S.C. § 204
Section 05
A large share of licensing questions arise because the person who obtained the image is not the person now using it. A web designer, marketing agency or freelance content writer selects a photograph, sometimes from a stock account in their own name, and delivers the finished site to the client.
Whether the client is covered depends on the licence terms. Some agency licences allow a purchase on behalf of a client and require the client to be named, or allow the designer to transfer the licence for a single end product. Others are personal to the account holder and do not extend to anyone else. Many standard licences prohibit sub-licensing or the reuse of one image across several clients. A designer’s comp or preview image, often watermarked and licensed only for layout tests, is not a licence for publication.
When a recipient says “my web designer chose it”, the useful answer is a request: ask the designer for the licence record and send it. If the designer licensed the image correctly for that client, the case is closed. If the designer did not, the question remains between the business and the rights holder. Responsibility for content chosen by a contractor depends on the jurisdiction, and the business may have its own recourse against the contractor, but the operator of the website is generally the party that published the image. Atlantic does not contact a recipient’s clients or contractors; the recipient decides how to obtain the record.
Agencies and resellers raise a related point. A rights holder who has placed images with an agency, directly or through a distributor, should check what that agency is allowed to license and to whom, because a licence granted by an authorised distributor binds the rights holder within its terms. This is a frequent source of genuine licences that the photographer did not know about.
Section 06
In most cases the party relying on a licence is the one expected to show it. Under US law a licence is generally treated as a defence that the user must establish, and similar practical logic applies elsewhere: the rights holder can show ownership and the use, and only the licensee can show the purchase. Where the existence of a licence is accepted and the disagreement is about its scope, the allocation of proof can be more nuanced and depends on the jurisdiction.
In practice, Atlantic does not rely on burden of proof as an argument. It asks for the record because the record is the fastest way to settle the question for both sides. A recipient who holds a licence usually finds it in minutes in an agency account or accounting system. A recipient who cannot find one has learned something useful too.
Several common responses are not licences and do not shift the question.
Section 07
When the review concludes that a licence is plausible, Atlantic’s first message is a request for the licence record, not a demand. It identifies the image, the page and the date of capture, gives the Case File reference (in the form AID-YYYY-NNNNN) and explains that the matter will be closed without any claim if a valid licence covering the use is shown.
The recipient can reply by e-mail or through the secure case portal, where the evidence summary is visible and where a licence certificate, invoice, download history or correspondence can be uploaded directly. Every reply, whichever route it takes, is filed in the Case File.
A reply stating that a licence exists, or a request for time to locate it, puts the matter on hold until a stated date. The date is specific, and it is communicated to the recipient. Nothing is sent during the hold: no reminder, no further letter, no notice to a host, search engine or advertising network. The hold gives the recipient a fair opportunity to check archives, contact a designer or ask an agency for a copy of an old invoice.
A recipient who needs a little more time, for example because a former agency account must be recovered, can ask for an extension before the date expires. Reasonable requests with a concrete explanation may be granted, always with a new date, which is recorded in the same way. Open-ended holds are not granted, because a case without a date has no defined next step.
Section 08
When a record is submitted, Atlantic checks it against the observed use. The questions are concrete.
When the record shows a valid licence covering the use, the Case File is closed. The closure is confirmed to the recipient in writing, with the case reference, so that the matter is clearly finished on both sides. If any notice had been sent to a host, search engine or network before the licence came to light, Atlantic withdraws it.
A record that cannot be read clearly, or that seems to concern a different image, leads to a precise follow-up question rather than a rejection. Mistakes in attaching the wrong invoice are common and easily corrected. The aim is to verify the licence, not to find fault with the way it is presented.
Section 09
Some records answer the question only in part. A licence covers the website but not the brochure; it covered two years, and the image has now been online for six; it was bought by a related company; it was an editorial licence and the image now sits on a product page.
In those situations Atlantic separates what is covered from what is not. The covered use is acknowledged as licensed and is not the subject of any claim. The uncovered part is described precisely, with reference to the licence terms and the evidence: which page, which medium, which period. The recipient is then invited to regularise that part, usually through an extension or a retroactive licence for the use that went beyond the original grant.
The same approach applies to a licence that has expired. The period during which the licence was valid is treated as licensed. The period after expiry is the subject of the discussion: it can be covered by a retroactive licence or a settlement. For the future, the recipient may renew the licence or remove the image, but removal does not cover the period already elapsed.
A partial or expired licence often shows that the user set out to license the image, and Atlantic’s correspondence takes that into account. The conversation is about bringing the use back within a licence, not about the conduct of a business that bought rights in the first place.
Section 10
If the hold date passes without a record, or if the recipient replies that no licence can be found, the matter returns to the graduated correspondence at the stage where it stood. Each letter states a dated deadline and is accompanied by an evidence PDF. The recipient can still upload a licence at any point, and a valid licence shown late closes the case just as one shown early would.
A statement such as “we definitely bought it, but we cannot find the invoice” is taken seriously but is not, on its own, a licence record. Where the rights holder’s own sales reports or contributor records can confirm or exclude a sale matching the use, Atlantic checks them. If those records show a licence, the case is closed even without the recipient’s paperwork. If they show no matching sale for the relevant period, the recipient is told so, factually, and the discussion moves to how the use can be regularised.
When correspondence receives no response at all, later stages may include a complaint to the hosting provider of the content, notices to search engines or advertising networks, a last-resort letter and, ultimately, transmission of the file to qualified counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. Atlantic is not a law firm and does not give legal advice; when a matter calls for legal action, it is counsel who advises and acts. The licensing review remains part of the file at every stage, showing that the question of a licence was asked and that time was given to answer it.
Section 11
For many unlicensed or over-scope uses, the most proportionate outcome is a licence granted after the fact. A retroactive licence covers the use already made and can, if both sides wish, cover continued use on defined terms. It turns an unauthorised use into a licensed one and gives the business a document it can keep with its records.
A proposal for a retroactive licence or an amicable settlement is a proposal. It is not a court decision and it is not an established debt. It reflects the use observed: its medium, duration, territory, prominence and whether it was commercial or editorial. A recipient may discuss it, provide information that changes the assessment, or decline it. The reasons for a proposal are explained so that it can be evaluated on its merits.
Settlement discussions are confidential. Atlantic does not publish anything about recipients and does not contact their clients. Once an agreement is reached and recorded in the Case File, the matter is closed and any notices sent to hosts, search engines or networks are withdrawn. Payment and confirmation can be handled through the secure case portal under the same case reference.
A retroactive licence is not a reward for an unlicensed use, and it is not a penalty. It is the commercial arrangement that would normally have been made at the outset, now made later and reflecting the use actually observed. That is what makes it proportionate, and it is why a licensing review so often leads to a resolution rather than to a dispute.
Section 12
Rights holders can submit an image and the suspected uses through the platform. Atlantic verifies the authority to act, captures the evidence and reviews each occurrence for signs of a licence before any letter is sent. It helps to include whatever licensing information you already have: agency names, contributor sales reports, known clients and the terms of any direct licences. The more complete that picture, the sooner a licensed use can be closed and an unlicensed one addressed on a clear factual basis.
Section 13
Objection
“We bought that image in 2015, so we are covered.”
Answer
That is a useful starting point and often entirely true. Whether the purchase covers the present use depends on its terms, which is why Atlantic asks for the record and compares its scope with the use actually observed.
Objection
“My web designer licensed it, so it is covered.”
Answer
Whether a client is covered depends on the licence terms: some allow a purchase on a client’s behalf, others are personal to the account holder. The simplest step is to ask the designer for the record and send it; if it covers that client, the case is closed.
Objection
“Prove that I don’t have a licence.”
Answer
No one can prove the absence of a document held by someone else. Atlantic asks for the record because it is the fastest way to settle the question for both sides, and where the rights holder’s own sales records can confirm a licence, Atlantic checks them.
Objection
“I credited the photographer.”
Answer
Crediting the author is good practice and may matter under rights-management rules. It is not, however, a permission to use the image.
Objection
“It was on a free image site.”
Answer
Such a site cannot grant a licence it does not have unless the image was placed there by the rights holder or someone authorised to license it. When an image is genuinely published under a free licence by its author, Atlantic treats that as a licence and checks its conditions.
Objection
“I don’t owe you anything.”
Answer
A proposal for a retroactive licence or a settlement is a proposal; it is neither a court decision nor an established debt. The recipient may discuss it, provide information that changes the assessment, or decline it.
Atlantic supports photographers and rights holders with image monitoring, evidence organization, licensing review and responsible case preparation.
Ask for a case review