FAQ

FAQ

Questions photographers ask before submitting an image case

These answers explain how Atlantic Image Defense LLC approaches image monitoring, copyright evidence, usage review, takedown preparation, licensing support and legal handoff files. They are informational and do not replace advice from qualified legal counsel.

Send the image reference, the suspected URL, the date you discovered the use, your original publication record, and any license information available. We first review the factual context before recommending any next step.

No. A visual match is only an indication that a review may be needed. A use may be licensed, authorized, editorial, covered by a platform agreement, or subject to legal exceptions. We review the available evidence before treating a matter as suitable for action.

Useful materials include original files, RAW files where available, creation dates, publication dates, stock-platform records, invoices, license records, screenshots, the full suspected URL, and any communication with the user or platform.

No. Atlantic Image Defense LLC provides image monitoring, copyright evidence organization, usage review, case-preparation support, and legal handoff files. Legal advice, litigation strategy, court filings, and formal legal representation should be handled by qualified counsel.

Yes. The workflow is designed for photographers and stock contributors who sell or license content through stock-image platforms and need visibility over image reuse, stronger records, and a responsible way to review suspected misuse.

Depending on the available evidence, the next step may be continued monitoring, evidence preservation, a platform notice, a licensing discussion, no action, or preparation of a legal handoff file for qualified counsel.

Photographers, videographers, visual artists, stock contributors, agencies, publishers, studios, brands, and authorized representatives of rights holders may submit a matter if they have a good-faith basis to believe that an image or visual asset is being used without proper authorization.

Yes, but only if you are authorized to act for the rights holder, such as an agency, assignee, licensee with enforcement authority, company representative, estate representative, or appointed agent. We may request proof of authorization before reviewing or preparing any action-related material.

Yes. Stock images may still require review if the use appears outside a license, if the image is used without proof of authorization, if attribution or license scope is disputed, or if the use appears copied from a photographer’s portfolio, publication, or production context. A stock-platform match does not automatically prove lawful use.

We review the claim carefully. A valid license may resolve the matter, limit the next steps, or show that no claim should be pursued. We may request license details, transaction information, image ID, account records, dates, and the licensed scope of use before forming any practical recommendation.

We do not control third-party websites or platforms. We can help prepare evidence and documentation for a platform notice, hosting complaint, takedown request, licensing communication, or legal handoff. Removal decisions remain with the platform, host, user, or competent legal authority.

No. Our approach is evidence-led and proportionate. We do not encourage blind claims, automated pressure, or unsupported accusations. A matter should be reviewed for ownership, context, possible licensing, jurisdiction, and factual accuracy before any rights communication is considered.

Compensation may be possible in some matters, but it is never guaranteed. Recovery depends on evidence, ownership, license history, jurisdiction, applicable law, the user’s conduct, commercial context, negotiation, and whether qualified legal counsel becomes involved.

Atlantic Image Defense LLC is not the U.S. Copyright Office and is not a government agency. Where copyright registration may be relevant, we may help organize supporting information for the rights holder or counsel, but official registration decisions and filings should be handled carefully by the rights holder or qualified professionals.

Requirements vary by country and by type of action. In the United States, registration can be important before filing certain copyright claims in court and may affect available remedies. For formal legal decisions, photographers should consult qualified counsel.

A copyright evidence file is an organized set of materials that may include screenshots, URLs, dates, original files, metadata references, publication history, licensing records, stock-platform data, correspondence, and a chronology of events. It is designed to make the matter reviewable and easier to understand.

A screenshot alone can be incomplete. The full URL, capture date, visible page context, surrounding text, commercial use indicators, and archived evidence help show where and how the image appeared. Online content can change quickly, so early preservation is important.

You may, but it is often safer to preserve evidence first. If the user removes or changes the page before documentation is complete, important context may be lost. If you already contacted the user, provide the correspondence so it can be reviewed as part of the timeline.

A removed image may still be reviewable if you have screenshots, archived pages, server records, third-party captures, correspondence, invoices, platform notifications, or other reliable documentation. The strength of the file depends on the quality and credibility of the remaining evidence.

Yes. Monitoring can be organized around selected images, portfolios, stock content, campaign visuals, or high-value assets. Monitoring helps identify suspected reuse, but each match still requires review before any conclusion is reached.

Yes. We may review still images, video frames, thumbnails, promotional visuals, composite graphics, and related visual assets. The analysis may require additional context, such as source files, project history, edits, typography, layout, and proof of authorship or rights.

Yes. Removal of a watermark, credit, metadata, or rights-management information may be relevant to a rights review. The issue should be documented carefully with before-and-after evidence, original files, publication records, and screenshots of the suspected use.

Modified use may still be relevant. Cropping, color changes, filters, overlays, compositing, AI-assisted edits, or layout integration do not automatically eliminate rights concerns. The matter should be reviewed through image comparison, source history, and the surrounding usage context.

We may review publicly available information, domain records, website notices, business details, platform profiles, and other visible indicators. We do not promise identification, and we do not use unlawful access, hacking, deception, or private surveillance methods.

We can organize evidence and review materials involving websites or users in different jurisdictions. However, laws, procedures, limitation periods, platform rules, and enforcement options vary by country. Local qualified counsel may be required for formal legal action.

Timing depends on the number of images, the availability of source records, the number of suspected URLs, the complexity of the licensing context, and whether additional documentation is needed. A simple initial review may be faster than a multi-image evidence file.

Avoid making public accusations before evidence is preserved, sending aggressive messages without review, altering screenshots, submitting incomplete or misleading information, or claiming ownership you cannot support. A defensible process depends on accuracy and proportionality.

No. Contacting a platform, website owner, user, or third party should be based on the scope of the service agreed with the client. We focus on review and preparation first, and any external communication should be authorized and supported by evidence.

We treat submitted case materials as business-sensitive information intended for review. However, ordinary website forms and email are not perfect security channels. Do not submit unnecessary sensitive personal data, passwords, payment information, or privileged legal materials unless a suitable process has been confirmed.

Yes. A matter may be declined if the evidence is insufficient, the submitter lacks authority, the use appears licensed, the claim appears abusive or misleading, the requested action is inappropriate, or the matter requires legal advice beyond our role.

A stronger file usually includes original source material, clear publication history, reliable dates, complete URLs, screenshots with context, licensing records, proof of authorship or assignment, and a factual chronology that can be reviewed by a platform, counterparty, or counsel.

A case may be weaker if the image source is unclear, the submitter cannot show rights or authority, the suspected use lacks reliable evidence, the image is widely licensed, the URL is missing, screenshots are incomplete, or the claim depends only on a visual similarity without context.

Yes. We can organize a legal handoff file containing facts, evidence, chronology, URLs, screenshots, ownership materials, licensing context, and open questions. The attorney remains responsible for legal advice, strategy, and formal representation.

No. We use reasonable safeguards and a professional process, but no website, email system, platform procedure, or rights matter can be guaranteed. We do not guarantee removal, compensation, settlement, litigation outcome, or any specific legal result.

Use the Submit a Case form or contact us by email. Provide the suspected URL, the image reference, your ownership or authorization basis, the date you discovered the use, and any license or publication records available.
Advanced questions and limits

The most important answer is often what the platform cannot decide automatically

This expanded guide addresses recurring questions about authority, monitoring, evidence, licensing, recipient rights, notices, payments, retention and international scope. It complements the shorter questions above and does not replace advice from qualified counsel.

  1. 01Authority
  2. 02Evidence
  3. 03Licences
  4. 04Notices
  5. 05Responses
  6. 06Retention
  7. 07Jurisdiction
01

Can Atlantic confirm that I own an image?

Atlantic can review records that support authorship, ownership or authority, but it does not issue a court judgment on title. Ownership can depend on employment, assignments, inheritance, joint authorship, agency terms and national law.

A source file is important but may need corroboration through publication history, contracts, witnesses, contributor records or registrations.

02

Does a high similarity score prove infringement?

No. Similarity supports technical review. It does not establish access, copying, ownership, licence scope, exception, jurisdiction, damages or responsibility for publication.

A reviewer must inspect the image, page and available rights records.

03

Can Atlantic send a takedown automatically?

No consequential external notice should be sent without human authorization and a sufficiently complete record. Statutory and platform notice requirements differ, and counter-notice rights may apply.

An incomplete or inaccurate notice can harm the requester, recipient and platform.

04

What happens when the recipient disputes the claim?

The dispute is recorded and the matter returns to review. The recipient may provide a licence, identify the correct entity, challenge ownership, explain an exception, correct facts or request counsel communication.

A dispute does not automatically prove either side correct.

05

Can data be deleted immediately?

Account access can be suspended, but evidence, audit, legal, financial and security records may need to be retained. Permanent deletion requires dependency checks, retention review and authorized approval.

Privacy rights are handled according to applicable law and may be limited by legal claims, contracts, security and recordkeeping obligations.

Legal and institutional references

These links point to official or institutional sources. Their inclusion does not mean that every text applies to every matter.

17 U.S.C. § 107 — Fair use Fair use is a fact-specific limitation assessed through statutory factors; a technical match does not resolve that analysis. Open official source ↗ 17 U.S.C. § 512 — Online service-provider notices Notice-and-takedown procedures contain formal elements, counter-notice mechanisms and service-provider-specific conditions. Open official source ↗ EU Regulation 2016/679 — GDPR Where applicable, personal-data processing requires a lawful basis, transparency, minimization and rights handling. Open official source ↗ Berne Convention — WIPO official text International copyright protection is implemented through national laws; the applicable rules and remedies vary by country. Open official source ↗

General information only. Atlantic does not issue judicial determinations, guarantee outcomes or replace counsel licensed in the relevant jurisdiction.

Submit a structured request
Atlantic Image Defense LLC

Atlantic supports photographers and rights holders with image monitoring, evidence organization, licensing review and responsible case preparation.

Trust and Transparency Center

Company

Legal and trust

Contact

Atlantic Image Defense LLC
54 State Street, Ste 804
PMB 17418
Albany, NY 12207
United States

contact@atlantic-image-defense.com privacy@atlantic-image-defense.com copyright@atlantic-image-defense.com
Submit a Case

© 2026 Atlantic Image Defense LLC. All rights reserved. Active company registered in New York under DOS ID 7924876, Filing Number 260526002009.

Made in United States of America