FAQ

FAQ

Questions photographers ask before submitting an image case

These answers explain how Atlantic Image Defense LLC handles image monitoring, evidence, rights review, case resolution and international legal handoff. When a matter requires jurisdiction-specific legal action, it is coordinated with qualified counsel.

Send the image reference, suspected URL, date of discovery, original publication record and any available licence information. We review the factual context first, before recommending a next step.

Atlantic reviews the visual match alongside protected-work records, authority, licensing context, publication history and available evidence. The matter is classified only after that review has been completed and documented.

Useful material includes original files, RAW files where available, creation and publication dates, stock-platform records, invoices, licence records, screenshots, the complete suspected URL and any communication with the user or platform.

Atlantic manages rights, evidence and case administration under documented authority. If jurisdiction-specific legal advice, court filings or formal representation are required, the case record is prepared and handed to qualified counsel in the competent jurisdiction.

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

Depending on the evidence available, the next step may be continued monitoring, preservation of evidence, a platform notice, a licensing discussion, no further 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 when they have a good-faith basis for believing that an image or visual asset is being used without proper authorization.

Yes, provided you are authorized to act for the rights holder, for example as an agency, assignee, licensee with enforcement authority, company representative, estate representative or appointed agent. We may ask for proof of that authority before reviewing or preparing material connected with an action.

Yes. A stock image may still require review if the use appears to fall outside a licence, if no proof of authorization is available, if attribution or licence scope is disputed, or if the image appears to have been copied from a photographer’s portfolio, publication or production context. A match on a stock platform does not, by itself, prove that the use is lawful.

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

Atlantic can prepare and administer platform, host or service-provider procedures supported by evidence and document the resulting case record. Any removal or disabling is carried out by the relevant provider, recipient or competent authority under the applicable rules and law.

Atlantic uses an evidence-led, documented review of rights, authority, licensing context, responsible parties, jurisdiction and factual accuracy before consequential rights communication. Where the record remains unresolved and supports escalation, the matter may progress through the appropriate platform, counsel or legal channel.

Where the documented rights, use, valuation basis and applicable law support it, Atlantic can administer an amicable compensation or retroactive-licence proposal and, if unresolved, prepare the matter for qualified legal escalation. Any judicial recovery is pursued through the competent legal process.

Registration is treated as a jurisdiction-specific rights record. Where relevant, Atlantic can organize supporting information for the rights holder or counsel. Formal filing and registration are completed through the competent authority by the rights holder or an appropriately qualified professional.

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 collection that may include protected-work records, screenshots, URLs, dates, publication history, licensing records, platform records, correspondence, integrity identifiers and a chronology of events. Its purpose is to make the factual and rights record easy to trace and review.

A screenshot on its own may be incomplete. The full URL, capture date, visible page context, surrounding text, indicators of commercial use and archived evidence help establish where and how the image appeared. Because online content can change quickly, early preservation matters.

You may, but it is often safer to preserve the evidence first. If the user removes or changes the page before documentation is complete, important context can be lost. If you have already made contact, provide the correspondence so it can be included in the timeline and reviewed.

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 will depend on the quality and credibility of the evidence that remains.

Yes. Monitoring can be organized around selected images, portfolios, stock content, campaign visuals or high-value assets. It can identify suspected reuse, but every 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. Depending on the case, the analysis may also require source files, project history, details of 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. It should be documented carefully with before-and-after evidence, original files, publication records and screenshots of the suspected use.

A modified use may still be relevant. Cropping, colour changes, filters, overlays, compositing, AI-assisted edits or integration into a layout do not automatically remove rights concerns. The matter should be reviewed through image comparison, source history and the surrounding context of use.

Atlantic reviews lawful public sources relating to businesses, domains and platforms, and records both the source and the level of confidence attached to professional contact information used for case administration.

We can organize evidence and review material involving websites or users in different jurisdictions. Laws, procedures, limitation periods, platform rules and enforcement options vary by country, however, and formal legal action may require qualified local counsel.

Timing depends on the number of images and suspected URLs, the availability of source records, the complexity of the licensing context and whether additional documentation is needed. A straightforward initial review will generally require less work than a multi-image evidence file.

Avoid public accusations before the evidence has been preserved, aggressive messages sent without review, altered screenshots, incomplete or misleading information, or claims of ownership you cannot support. A defensible process depends on accuracy and proportionality.

Contact with a recipient or platform must remain within the documented service scope and be supported by verified authority, preserved evidence and the human authorization recorded for the matter.

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.

Submitted matters are assessed against protected-work provenance, authority, observed use, licence context, evidence quality, jurisdiction and the action requested. That assessment determines whether the record proceeds, requires clarification, is corrected or is closed.

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

Atlantic gives priority to clear protected-work provenance, documented authority, complete source and occurrence references, preserved observations, licensing history, publication chronology and corroborating records that allow recipients, platforms, counsel or competent authorities to trace the case.

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

Atlantic applies documented security controls, preserves evidence, requires human review and manages cases with regard to jurisdiction. Resolution may proceed through licence verification, amicable terms, provider procedures or referral to qualified legal counsel; judicial outcomes are determined through the competent legal process.

Use the Submit a Case form or contact us by email. Provide the suspected URL, image reference, basis for your ownership or authority, date of discovery and any available licence or publication records.
Advanced questions and limits

How Atlantic evaluates authority, evidence and international case progression

This expanded guide explains Atlantic’s approach to authority, monitoring, evidence, licensing, recipient responses, notices, payments, retention and international case progression, including referral to qualified counsel where a matter requires jurisdiction-specific legal action.

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

How does Atlantic verify rights-holder authority?

Atlantic reviews the protected-work record together with the available authorship, ownership, assignment, agency and mandate documentation relevant to the case. The resulting authority record is used to determine whether Atlantic has a documented basis to administer the matter and which rights and territories are within scope.

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?

Similarity is an evidentiary starting point for documented review. Case qualification considers access and copying indicators, ownership and authority, licence scope, applicable exceptions, jurisdiction, damages context and responsibility for publication together with the preserved record.

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

03

How are external notices authorized?

Consequential external notices require documented human authorization and a sufficiently complete case record. The selected notice route is matched to the relevant platform, statutory framework, jurisdiction and available evidence, including any applicable counter-notice process.

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 triggers documented review of both positions and their supporting records before the case assessment is maintained, corrected or escalated.

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 ↗

Atlantic administers rights, evidence and case-resolution workflows under documented authority. Judicial remedies and compulsory measures are pursued through competent authorities and qualified counsel where applicable.

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