One day, a company you have never heard of writes that a photo on your website was used without permission and asks for a few hundred, or a few thousand, euros. In the Netherlands such a demand is often called a fotoclaim: a claim for money over a photo said to be used without a licence.
Many recipients either pay in a hurry or ignore it and make things worse. Neither is necessary. Whether a claim is justified can be checked step by step.
This article is written mainly for businesses in the Netherlands. It covers how claims arrive, the basics of the Auteurswet (Dutch Copyright Act), how to verify a claim, what not to do before paying, negotiation and where to get advice, and how to prevent the next one. It is not legal advice. If the amount is large, a deadline is close, or you have received papers from a court, consult a professional.
Main sources: the text of the Auteurswet (wetten.overheid.nl), press reports on two 2026 judgments of the Rechtbank Gelderland (ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2026:178 and ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2026:1937), a BNNVARA Kassa article of 11 April 2026, an explainer by the law firm Dirkzwager, Juridisch Loket's own information, and the Dutch judiciary's cost guideline for IP cases (February 2026). All checked on 1 November 2026.
| What you will learn | Short answer |
|---|---|
| How claims arrive | An agent finds an unlicensed photo by image matching and sends a demand (chapter 1) |
| The legal basis | Photos with creative choices are protected; transfers and exclusive licences need writing (chapter 2) |
| What to do first | Remove, save, ask for proof, reply in writing (chapters 3 and 4) |
| When paying makes sense | After use, rights and the amount are verified (chapters 5 and 6) |
| How to prevent it | Licence records, AI image checks, media audit, contracts (chapters 8 to 10) |
1. What a fotoclaim looks like
Fotoclaim is not a legal term. Notices usually come not from the photographer but from an agent that manages and collects on rights, or from a news agency or photo agency.
How the notice finds you
Reports describe a common pattern: image-matching technology scans public websites, and the agent contacts whoever published a match. Only publicly visible sites are found, but they are not only large companies. Small associations and self-employed people (ZZP) are included.
A notice typically gives the page URL, a screenshot, an amount, a payment deadline and bank details. What matters is that the letter is the sender's assertion, not something a court has decided.
Stages of the letters
The first contact is often a polite email or letter. Without payment, reminders can follow, then letters in the name of a bailiff (deurwaarder) or a lawyer. The tone hardens with each step, but a forceful letter is not proof that the claim is justified.
| Stage | Typical form | Your move |
|---|---|---|
| 1. First notice | Email or letter with amount and deadline | Remove, save, ask for proof |
| 2. Reminder | Repeat after deadline, warning of a higher amount | If you already replied, resend that reply |
| 3. Bailiff or lawyer | Letter announcing legal steps | Take advice; check deadlines |
| 4. Court summons | A dagvaarding (summons to appear) | Always take professional advice; never ignore |
From stage 3 on, deciding alone gets harder; even at some cost, one professional review is worth it.
Old posts and small sites are not exempt
Cases in the Kassa article include a photo posted about 14 years earlier and a small image in a 2021 article. Age of the post or size of the site is not a reason to expect no claim. Detection is automated, so assume size is not a selection criterion.
Where claims tend to start
From the situations DevNJ sees, causes fall into four groups. This is an operational grouping, not a statistic.
| Situation | What happened | What helps first |
|---|---|---|
| Material at build time | Photos supplied by an agency with no source record | Ask for sources in the contract |
| A new editor | An image found by search was saved and posted | Fix where material may come from |
| Old posts | A predecessor's image with no record | Media audit |
| Contributions | A guest's photo posted unchecked | Check rights on intake |
Most causes come down to "nobody knows who added it".
2. The legal basics: how the Auteurswet treats photos
Article 1 of the Auteurswet gives the maker (or successors) the exclusive right to make a work public and to reproduce it. Article 12 treats making a work available to the public online as making it public (source: Auteurswet on wetten.overheid.nl, checked 1 November 2026).
Putting a photo on your site can therefore be an act that needs the rights holder's permission.
When a photo is protected
According to the law firm Dirkzwager, a photo is protected when it bears the photographer's personal stamp, that is, creative choices. Composition, angle, lighting and framing are the usual material. Not every photo is automatically protected, and the claimant has to show that it is.
In a judgment of 4 March 2026 the Rechtbank Gelderland accepted that the photo in question was protected because of its composition, framing, angle and lighting. In its judgment of 14 January 2026, one reason for rejecting the claim was that the claimant did not explain the photographer's creative choices (both per press reports by Dutch IT Channel: March and January).
Permission and transfer: writing is the default
Article 2 provides that copyright can be transferred in whole or in part, and that the maker can grant licences. A transfer or an exclusive licence needs a written deed, and only rights expressly stated, or necessarily implied by the nature and purpose of the agreement, pass.
This matters when you check a claim. If the sender cannot show that the photographer transferred or exclusively licensed the rights in writing, it is harder for them to enforce in their own name.
Employees versus commissioned makers
Article 7 treats the employer as the maker of works created in service, unless the parties agreed otherwise.
Conversely, photos by freelancers or agencies who are not employees stay with the maker unless otherwise agreed. A business that commissioned a site should not assume it owns the photos delivered with it.
Crediting and duration
Article 25 keeps certain moral rights with the maker even after a transfer, including the right to object to publication without being named. Under Article 37 copyright generally lasts 70 years after the maker's death, counted from 1 January of the following year. An old photo is not safe merely because it is old.
| Point | What the article says | Meaning for site owners |
|---|---|---|
| Making public (art. 12) | Online availability counts | Publishing may need permission |
| Transfer and licence (art. 2) | Transfer and exclusive licence in writing | Basis for checking the sender's rights |
| Employment (art. 7) | Employer treated as maker | Commissioned photos need an agreement |
| Moral rights (art. 25) | Right to be named remains | Follow attribution terms |
| Duration (art. 37) | 70 years after death | Old photos may still be protected |
3. What to do on the day the notice arrives
Little is needed on day one. Do it calmly and in order.
Remove the photo and keep records
Remove the photo from the site. Before that, save a dated screenshot of the page and note the file name, upload date and URL. Removing is not an admission; it stops further use from enlarging the claim. Kassa advises saying the use was unintentional, removing the photos at once and keeping screenshots as evidence.
Note: taking a photo down does not cancel a claim for use that already happened. It is the first step to stop things growing.
Check the deadlines and the sender
Put the payment and reply deadlines in your calendar. Note who the sender is (the rights holder, an agent, a lawyer, a bailiff), the contact details and the account holder's name. If the account holder differs from the sender, record that too.
Who to tell inside the business
Do not carry it alone. Share the facts with whoever runs the site, whoever posted the photo and your agency contact. Avoid writing "it was our mistake" in email or chat until the facts are established.
Attachments and links
Do not open attachments or links until you are sure who sent them. You can verify the claim from the text and your own site history; you do not need to click a payment link. Reply only to contact details you have looked up yourself.
4. Four checks on whether the claim is justified
The checks come down to four points. Fill them in one by one from your own records and the sender's answers.
Check 1: Is the photo protected?
Protection rests on the photographer's creative choices. If the sender has not explained them, you can ask what they are. Be aware, though, that many photos are likely to be held protected. You can argue only in limited cases such as plain record shots or near-identical photos in wide circulation.
Check 2: Is the sender authorised by the rights holder?
This is the strongest check. In the 4 March 2026 judgment (ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2026:1937), the photographer named in the claimant's database was not shown to be an employee, so copyright remained with him. Because the claimant could not show a written deed under Article 2 (a transfer or exclusive licence), it could not enforce, and the claim for EUR 450 was rejected (report; judgment on Rechtspraak).
In the 14 January 2026 judgment (ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2026:178), by contrast, the court accepted that the claimant could act on its own based on a licence agreement. Even so, the explanation of why the work was protected and the evidence of damage fell short, the claim for EUR 500 was rejected and the claimant was ordered to pay costs. In the counterclaim the court also declared that the defendant had not infringed ANP's copyright, and ordered ANP to pay the proceedings costs (EUR 201 for the main claim and EUR 2,296.25 for the counterclaim; Rv art. 1019h). The claim in this case was pursued by Visual Rights Group (the March case involved Permission Machine) (report; judgment on Rechtspraak).
Checked against the judgment texts (Rechtspraak), 1 November 2026. They are first-instance decisions and do not bind other courts.
Check 3: The actual use and its period
Establish when, where and at what size the photo appeared on your site. CMS revision history, your agency's delivery records and web archives such as the Wayback Machine help. Compare the period the sender asserts with your own records.
Check 4: How the amount is built
Letters may stack a licence fee, a penalty-style surcharge, investigation costs and legal fees; reports point to such stacking.
Dirkzwager's explainer describes damages for unlicensed use as based on the fee that would have been agreed had permission been requested, and mentions a court that did not apply a trade body's recommended rates automatically.
If no credit was given
Some claims also say the photographer was not named. Under Article 25 the right to be named remains unless waived. In the January 2026 judgment as reported, however, the claimant's failure to substantiate damage from missing credit was one of the reasons for rejection. Credit can be an issue, but it does not fix the amount by itself. Check whether your licence had an attribution condition.
| What to check | Your material | Ask the sender for |
|---|---|---|
| Protection | The photo, similar photos | The photographer and creative choices |
| Transfer of rights | Invoices, contracts | A copy of the contract (transfer or licence) with the photographer |
| Use | CMS history, archives | The date they found it and screenshots |
| Amount | Comparable licence prices | A breakdown and the basis |
You need both your material and the sender's documents; do not conclude from one side.
5. What not to do before paying
Some actions are hard to undo.
| Do not | Why |
|---|---|
| Pay in full without checking | You lose the chance to challenge the basis; more claims can follow |
| Ignore the deadline entirely | Reminders and legal steps follow, and costs rise |
| Rush to call or pay the account in the letter | The notice itself has not been verified |
| Write "our mistake, we will pay" | You leave an unfavourable statement before facts are settled |
| Quietly swap the photo and say nothing | History is lost and you cannot later explain the period |
| Settle terms in a long phone call | A verbal deal is hard to prove later |
Check that the notice is genuine
A scam disguised as a claim is not impossible. Look up the sender in the KVK (Chamber of Commerce) register and compare with the account holder in the letter (KVK). Contact them through an official channel you found yourself, not the one printed in the letter.
It would be wrong to call a particular agent a fraud. Legitimate agents do act for rights holders. What you check is whether this notice, about this photo, is sent on behalf of this person.
If the claim is justified
If it turns out the claim is justified and the amount reasonable, paying is fine. Get written confirmation that the payment settles everything, and set in writing any continued use that is allowed.
6. How the amount is set: what reports and rulings show
Few sources allow a general statement on what claims cost. Only examples with a source are listed here.
Amounts in reports
The Kassa article (11 April 2026) describes claims in the name of the Rights Control department of Sucré Salé sas, a French photo agency: almost EUR 4,000 for three photos used about 14 years earlier by a nutrition expert, EUR 1,500 for one small image from a senior association in Veghel, and more than EUR 5,000 for one photo on a volunteer association's site in Hoofddorp. That association later found the same photo's licence would have cost about EUR 15. The company did not respond to the journalists.
Figure 2 shows that a claim and an offer or licence price can be far apart. But these are a few reported cases, not a market rate. You cannot say "it usually settles around X".
How courts think about it
Dirkzwager describes damages for unlicensed use as based on the fee that would have been agreed had permission been asked, and was cautious about applying a trade body's recommended rates as such. It also notes that claims are often reduced significantly.
Costs in litigation matter too. In IP cases, Article 1019h of the Code of Civil Procedure (Rv) allows the winning party's reasonable and proportionate costs, and the judiciary publishes indicative rates (February 2026, district courts).
If you lose, costs can exceed the amount claimed. Whether to fight should therefore be decided with a professional who has seen the amount and your chances.
| Item | Approach | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Damages basis | Fee that would have been agreed | Dirkzwager |
| Recommended rate cards | May not apply automatically | Dirkzwager |
| Costs | Reasonable and proportionate | Rv art. 1019h, Rechtspraak |
| Reduction | Reductions reported after objections | Dirkzwager, Kassa |
7. Negotiating and where to get advice
Once you have checked, write your reply. Keep it short, with facts and requests only.
What the reply contains
| Include | In outline |
|---|---|
| Receipt | The date you received the notice |
| Removal | The date the photo came down |
| How it was used | Facts only, such as not intentional, source being checked |
| Proof requested | Copy of the contract with the photographer, proof of authority, amount breakdown |
| Deadline | The time you need to answer |
Write the reply after the facts are checked. This list is an outline, not a template. If the amount is large, have a professional read it before you send it.
Negotiating the amount
If the claim is justified but you disagree with the amount, propose a reasonable figure in writing with reasons. In examples reported by Kassa, an offer of EUR 750 against almost EUR 4,000 was rejected, and a payment of EUR 85 against a claim of EUR 1,500 was not accepted by the sender, so success is not guaranteed.
Base the offer on comparable licence prices, the period and reach of use, and whether credit was given. Pictoright, the Dutch rights organisation, publishes general rules on photo use and exceptions where no payment is due (Pictoright).
Free help and paid help
Juridisch Loket offers free personal advice to people whose income and savings are below set limits. Eligibility looks at income from two years earlier, and the limits change each year; check its website (Juridisch Loket, checked 1 November 2026).
Above the limits, options are legal expenses insurance, a trade body, or an IP lawyer. The ACM told Kassa it receives reports about such claims but does not supervise copyright or civil matters (ACM).
| Where | Best for | Cost |
|---|---|---|
| Juridisch Loket | First orientation, free personal advice | Free within limits |
| Legal expenses insurance | Lawyer costs if you are insured | Per policy |
| Trade body | Cases from peers | Varies |
| IP lawyer | Large amounts, court papers | Paid; ask for an estimate |
8. Prevention 1: keep the licence for stock photos
Most claims come from "we had permission but no proof" or "we went beyond the licence". Step one is to keep the licence for every asset you use.
What to store
On the day you download an asset, save the licence text, source URL, photographer, the purchase or terms page, and the scope (commercial use, edits, attribution). Free libraries also have terms (for example Unsplash's licence). Creative Commons licences differ in attribution and commercial-use conditions (Creative Commons).
| Store | Why |
|---|---|
| Licence text and date | Terms may change later |
| Source URL and asset ID | Proof of origin |
| Photographer and attribution | Follow credit terms |
| Scope and term | Avoid use beyond the licence |
| Pages where used | Audit and removal |
Do not use "an image I found online"
Saving an image from a search and using it is the riskiest form: no source, no licence. Kassa also advises that when using internet images you should check terms on payment, credit and contact details, and not use the image if they are unclear.
9. Prevention 2: AI images and a CMS media audit
Points on AI-generated images
AI images reduce the work of buying assets. But an output may resemble an existing photo or work, in which case its rights holder may raise it. A person should check before publishing.
How rights in AI output are treated differs by country and case. Use such images on the assumption that you may not be able to claim exclusivity, and record the tool, the date and the prompt. The checks are covered in our earlier article, Automating blog images and diagrams: 8 things a human must still check, and are not repeated here.
Audit your CMS media library
Many CMSs hold years of uploads. Images where nobody knows who added them, when and from where are what lead to claims.
| Audit step | Do |
|---|---|
| 1. List | Export file names, dates and pages of use |
| 2. Fill sources | Sort into own, purchased, free library, unknown |
| 3. Decide on unknowns | Replace or delete if there is no evidence |
| 4. Record | Add a source column to a register |
| 5. Repeat | Review new uploads once a year |
10. Prevention 3: settle ownership in the agency contract
When a site is built or run by an agency, ownership of photos and images can become vague without anyone noticing. As chapter 2 showed, a work by a non-employee stays with its maker unless otherwise agreed.
What to put in the contract
| Item | What to settle |
|---|---|
| Source of materials | The agency states the origin and licence of materials it supplies |
| Transfer or licence | Whether rights transfer or are licensed, with scope and term |
| Warranty | A warranty against infringing third-party rights, and its limits |
| If a claim arrives | Who is contacted, who does what, who bears the cost |
| Register handover | Delivery includes the per-asset licence record |
Because Article 2 requires writing for transfers and exclusive licences, a verbal understanding is not enough.
If operations are outsourced
If someone else adds images, put "record source and licence" into the operating procedure. DevNJ also advises on these contract points and procedures. If you are considering outsourcing build or operations, see our services.
11. What to do in three common situations
The three situations below summarise what to check and what to do next. They are conditions and steps, not individual cases.
A claim over a photo your agency posted earlier
Photos posted by an agency may have purchase records or licences on file. Ask the agency for the source, then check the purchase record and the licence scope. If the use is within scope, reply with the evidence attached.
The sender does not show the basis of its rights
After removing the photo, ask for a copy of the contract with the photographer (a written transfer or licence). If none is shown and the deadline passes, decide the next step with professional advice.
No permission, and the period matches
If there is no source record and the period matches the claim, the claim is more likely to be justified. Ask for a breakdown, propose a reasoned amount in writing, and confirm in writing that payment settles everything.
| Situation | What to check | Next move |
|---|---|---|
| Photo posted by an agency | Purchase record and licence scope | Reply with proof if within scope |
| No basis for rights shown | Contract copy with the photographer | Take advice if none is shown |
| No permission, period matches | Breakdown and basis of the amount | Propose a reasoned amount in writing |
12. Checklist
From the day of the notice to prevention.
- Recorded the date the photo was removed
- Saved a screenshot of the page, file name and upload date
- Put the payment and reply deadlines in the calendar
- Looked up the sender in KVK or similar
- Searched your own records (purchase, delivery, CMS history)
- Asked the sender in writing for proof of rights and a breakdown
- Did not write "our mistake, we will pay"
- For large amounts, consulted Juridisch Loket or a lawyer
- Decided to keep licences in a register
- Audited CMS media and replaced images of unknown origin
- Put source and ownership terms in the agency contract
13. Summary
- A fotoclaim is the common name for a demand over a photo allegedly used without permission; the notice is only the sender's assertion.
- Take the photo down, save the page, and reply in writing within the deadline.
- Check four points: protection, the sender's authority, actual use and period, and the basis of the amount.
- In two 2026 judgments of the Rechtbank Gelderland the claims were rejected, but they are first-instance decisions and bind no other court.
- Reported amounts vary widely and cannot be generalised into a market rate.
- Prevention comes down to licence records, AI image checks, a media audit and the agency contract.
- If the amount is large or court papers arrive, take professional advice.
If you are unsure how to organise image sources or review your build and operations contract, get in touch. Legal judgments should come from a lawyer or another professional. More articles are in the column list.
Sources used
- Auteurswet — wetten.overheid.nl: articles 1, 2, 7, 12, 25 and 37
- ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2026:178 — Rechtspraak: judgment text, 14 January 2026
- ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2026:1937 — Rechtspraak: judgment text, 4 March 2026
- Rechtbank Gelderland wijst fotoclaim ANP af — Dutch IT Channel: report on the January judgment
- Rechtbank wijst schadeclaim ANP af wegens ontbrekende bewijslast — Dutch IT Channel: report on the March judgment
- Foto van internet gebruikt? — BNNVARA Kassa: 11 April 2026; example amounts and advice
- Aangeschreven wegens inbreuk op foto — Dirkzwager: steps to verify, how damages are reasoned
- Rechtbank Gent stelt werking Permission Machine aan de kaak — Dutch IT Channel: 2021 report on a Belgian judgment
- ANP/Permission Machine verliest rechtszaak — Dutch IT Channel: 2022 report
- Indicatietarieven IE-zaken rechtbanken (Feb 2026) — Rechtspraak: cost guideline for IP cases
- Onze werkwijze — Juridisch Loket: who gets free advice
- Pictoright: general guidance on photo use
- KVK: checking a company's registration
- ACM: the consumer and market authority
- Unsplash License: an example of a free library's terms
- Creative Commons licences: types of licence
All checked on 1 November 2026. Laws, rulings and thresholds change. This article is not legal advice; consult a professional about your own case.
FAQ
- What is a fotoclaim, and should I pay it straight away?
- A fotoclaim is the common name for a demand for money over a photo allegedly used on your website without permission. You do not have to pay at once. First take the photo down, save screenshots, and ask the sender for proof that they are authorised to act for the rights holder. Paying immediately makes it harder to challenge the amount later.
- I received a Permission Machine claim. Can I ignore it?
- Ignoring it is not advisable. After the deadline, reminders and letters in the name of a bailiff (deurwaarder) or lawyer can follow. Nor do you have to pay in full at once. Within the deadline, remove the photo, keep records, ask for proof of the rights, and reply in writing.
- How do I judge whether the amount claimed is reasonable?
- Courts have looked at the fee the rights holder could have charged if permission had been requested. The figure in the letter is only a starting point. Use the period of use, the placement, what comparable licences cost, and whether the photographer was credited, and ask the sender to explain how the amount was calculated.
- My web agency chose the photo. Who is responsible for the claim?
- Usually the business that publishes the photo is the one addressed. If the agency supplied the material, the contract and any warranty about third-party rights may let you recover from the agency. Without written terms this is a common dispute, so record the source of materials and who holds the rights when you commission a site.
- Can I get a copyright claim over an AI-generated image?
- Yes. If a generated image closely resembles an existing photo or work, its rights holder can raise it. How rights in AI output are treated differs by country and case. Have a person check for resemblance before publishing, and record the tool and the date of generation.
- Where can I get advice, and does it cost anything?
- In the Netherlands, Juridisch Loket offers free personal advice to people whose income and savings are below set limits, which change each year, so check its website. If you are above them, options include legal expenses insurance, a trade body, or a lawyer who specialises in intellectual property.
Planning a site that has to work in both markets?
Get in touch
