Licensing Review

Section 01

What the review decides, and why it comes first

A photograph found on a website is not, by itself, an infringement. It may have been licensed through a stock library, supplied by a client who held the rights, published under an agreement that is still running or under one that ended some time ago. Licensing review is the stage at which Atlantic sorts these situations before any letter is sent and before any notice reaches a host, a search engine or an advertising network.

The question asked is narrow and practical: on the evidence available, does this use look covered, uncertain, or unlicensed? The answer decides what happens next. A use that is clearly covered is closed without any claim. A use where a licence is plausible leads to a request for the licence record, not to escalation. Only a use with no credible sign of authorisation moves forward as a possible infringement.

This order matters for the rights holder as much as for the recipient. A claim built on an unchecked assumption can collapse at the first reply and damage the credibility of every other file. A claim that has already survived a licence check starts from firmer ground.

Section 02

The signals we look for

Each occurrence captured by Atlantic (page URL, image URL, date and time, full-page screenshot, image file and SHA-256 fingerprint) is read for signs that a licence may exist. The review relies on what the page shows and on what the rights holder has told us about the distribution of the image.

• Licence history supplied by the rights holder: direct licences, client commissions, agency agreements, past invoices and any exclusivity granted.
• Stock-library context: an image-bank credit next to the photograph, a watermark-free file matching a stock version, or a page layout typical of a stock licensee.
• Contributor records: the libraries through which the image has been offered, the dates of upload and withdrawal, and the licence types those libraries sell.
• Editorial context: a news report, review or commentary where the image illustrates an event or a subject, which may point to an editorial licence.
• Signs of a client relationship: the image appears on the site of a company the photographer worked for, or of its distributor or agency.
• Prior correspondence: any earlier exchange between the rights holder and the same user.

None of these signals settles the question on its own. An image-bank credit can be copied along with the picture; a stock version can exist while the user never bought it. They are reasons to check, and the review records which signal was found and what was done with it.

Section 03

Category of use and commercial character

Licences are sold for specific uses, so the review identifies what the image is actually doing on the page. The same photograph can serve as the hero image of a product landing page, the illustration of a blog post, part of a printed brochure scanned online, or a thumbnail in a news archive. Each corresponds to a different licence category and, often, to a different price list at the library.

Atlantic also notes the commercial character of the use: whether the page sells goods or services, carries advertising, promotes a brand or generates leads. This assessment serves two purposes. It tells us which licence the user would have needed, and it supplies one of the elements later relevant to fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107, where the commercial or non-profit character of the use is part of the first factor. Atlantic does not decide fair use; it records the facts that a lawyer or a court would weigh, case by case, against the four factors.

References17 U.S.C. § 107

The category of use is recorded in neutral terms. Describing a page as commercial is an observation about the page, not a finding that the use is unlawful.

Section 04

Checking the scope of a licence

A licence exists only within its terms. Many disputes arise not because there was no licence at all, but because the use goes beyond what was granted. When a licence is shown or likely, the review compares the actual use with its scope.

• Medium: web, print, social media, video, packaging, outdoor display.
• Territory: worldwide, a region, or a single country.
• Duration: perpetual, a fixed term, or the length of a campaign.
• Print run or audience: number of copies, impressions or users covered.
• Editorial or commercial: an editorial licence generally does not cover advertising, product promotion or brand content.
• Licensee: whether the party using the image is the one that acquired the licence, and whether the licence allows sublicensing or transfer to a client.
• Specific restrictions: no use in logos, no sensitive subjects, no resale as templates, credit requirements.

A finding that a use falls outside its licence is stated precisely: which term is exceeded and on what evidence. A general remark that the use is “not covered” would not survive a reasoned reply, and Atlantic does not send one.

Section 05

Expired licences and uses that outgrew their terms

Time-limited licences are common in advertising, in campaigns and in some agency contracts. When the term ends, the right to display the image ends with it, but pages often stay online for years. The review therefore checks the dates of any licence against the date and time of each capture.

An expired licence is a different situation from a use that was never licensed. The user had a legitimate starting point and may simply have overlooked the end date. Atlantic treats it accordingly: the correspondence refers to the licence, states when it appears to have ended, and asks whether it was renewed. If it was not, the matter can usually be resolved by a renewal or a licence covering the period of continued use.

The same approach applies when a licence was valid but the use has grown beyond it: an image licensed for a website later reused in a printed catalogue, or a single-site licence now displayed across a network of franchise pages.

Section 06

Requesting the licence record and the dated hold

When a licence is plausible but not confirmed, Atlantic asks for the licence record before going any further. The request is made in the Case File, under a reference of the form AID-YYYY-NNNNN, and the recipient can reply through the secure case portal or by e-mail. Replies by e-mail are filed in the same Case File.

• Useful documents: the licence certificate or download record from the library, the invoice or order confirmation, the agreement with the photographer or agency, or the contract with the agency or designer who supplied the image.
• The record should identify the image, the licensee, the date and the licence type.
• Where the user received the image from a third party, the record of that third party’s licence is relevant, together with any right to pass it on.

A reply, a licence claim or a request for time puts the matter on hold until a stated date. Nothing is sent during the hold. If the record arrives and covers the use, the file is closed. If it covers part of the use, the review states which part remains open. If no record arrives by the date, the matter resumes on the basis of the evidence already collected.

In most legal systems, a party that relies on a licence is expected to be able to show it. Asking for the record is therefore not an accusation; it is the ordinary way of establishing whether the question exists at all.

Section 07

The usual answers, and how the review treats them

Recipients often respond with a short explanation rather than a document. Each one is assessed for what it actually establishes.

• “We found it on Google.” A search engine indexes images; it does not license them. Finding an image online does not grant any right to reuse it.
• “It was on a free image site.” Such sites have their own terms, and images are sometimes uploaded there without the author’s authority. The review checks whether the photograph was in fact distributed there by the rights holder and on what conditions. A licence granted by someone who did not hold the rights generally cannot pass rights they did not have.
• “We credited the photographer.” A credit is good practice and may be a licence condition, but it is not a licence.
• “Our web designer chose the image.” The designer’s licence, if any, is precisely the record requested. Whatever the arrangement with the contractor, the site operator is generally the party that published the image; how responsibility is shared depends on the jurisdiction.
• “We have removed it.” Removal ends the ongoing use. It does not erase the use already made, and the review still needs to know whether that earlier use was licensed.
• “The photo is old.” Age does not end protection while the copyright term runs, but it can make an old licence or an expired agreement more likely, which the review checks.
• “It is fair use.” Fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107 is decided case by case. The review records the relevant facts (commercial character, nature of the work, amount used, effect on the licensing market) without presenting a conclusion either way.

References17 U.S.C. § 107

An answer that leaves the licence question open is answered with a precise request, not a counter-argument.

Section 08

Possible outcomes

A licensing review ends in one of four ways, and the Case File records which one and why.

• Closed as licensed: the record covers the use. The file is closed without any claim, and any notice previously sent to a host, search engine or network is withdrawn.
• Licence regularised: the use was not covered, or no longer covered, and the user acquires a licence for the use made and, where wanted, for continued use. The Case File records the agreement and is then closed.
• Amicable settlement: where regularisation is not suitable, for example because the rights holder does not wish to license that use, the parties may agree a settlement for the use already made. Any figure discussed is a proposal, not an established debt, and settlement discussions remain confidential.
• Continuation of the correspondence: no record is produced, or the record does not cover the use, and no agreement is reached. The matter moves on to the graduated correspondence and, where needed, to the further stages described on our enforcement support and legal handoff pages.

A Case File is closed only when a valid licence or other authorisation is shown or, failing that, when an amicable settlement is reached and recorded. A demonstrated identification error is corrected, not settled.

Section 09

Why this protects the rights holder, and how to start

Atlantic is not a law firm and does not give legal advice. The review is a factual sorting exercise, not a legal ruling, and its conclusions are never presented as a court decision. Its value lies elsewhere: it filters out claims that would not hold, so that the rights holder does not pursue a licensee, offend a client or face an argument that a notice misrepresented the facts. Under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f), a knowing material misrepresentation in a takedown notice can create liability, and a documented licence check is one of the clearest ways to show that a notice was sent in good faith.

References17 U.S.C. § 512(f)

The files that go forward are stronger for it. Each one carries a record of the signals examined, the request made, the hold granted and the answer received or not received. When a matter later reaches a host, or counsel in the relevant jurisdiction, that record shows that the other side was given a fair opportunity to produce a licence before anything else happened.

To start, submit your images through the platform with whatever licence history you hold: library accounts, client agreements, invoices and exclusivity terms. The more complete this history is, the faster the review can separate licensed uses from those that deserve a closer look.