The Alamy Demand Letter Command Center

Permission Machine is a real company (UK company number 11747843) that operates as an enforcement agent authorized by Alamy. The underlying copyright claims are based on real images in Alamy’s library. However, Permission Machine is a claims management company, not a law firm and not the copyright owner. Under the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, only the copyright owner (the photographer) can bring infringement proceedings. The demand is a settlement request, not a court order. Consult a qualified IP attorney before responding.

Typical demands range from 400 to 634 GBP per image. A common breakdown is: 250 GBP for “missed license fee and compensation,” 150 GBP for “dossier creation costs,” and 40–100 GBP for “recovery and communication costs.” Some demands add a 25% admin fee. A 15% discount is offered for settlement within 7 days. The actual Alamy license for the same image is typically 35–50 GBP for online use, meaning the demand represents approximately 8–14x the legitimate license value.

The Fair Licensing Settlement Portal (fairlicensing.alamy.com, also accessible via fairlicensing.pamediagroup.com) is Alamy’s direct enforcement platform. Recipients receive a case ID and PIN to log in, view the claim details, see the disputed image, and make payment. The portal represents Alamy’s institutional approach to enforcement at scale, separate from the third-party agents Permission Machine and CopyrightAgent. If you have received a claim through this portal, do not make payment until you have independently verified the claim.

This is the critical legal question. Alamy is typically a non-exclusive licensee of images in its library — the photographer retains copyright ownership. Under UK law (CDPA 1988, Section 96), only the copyright owner can commence infringement proceedings. Neither Permission Machine nor CopyrightAgent are copyright owners. To actually litigate, they would need the photographer’s direct involvement. Across 200+ documented forum posts on Copyright Aid, no confirmed cases of Permission Machine or CopyrightAgent proceeding to court judgment have been identified. However, this does not guarantee they will not pursue your specific claim. Consult a qualified IP attorney.

Ignoring the demand entirely is not recommended. While documented evidence suggests these claims rarely proceed to court, the underlying copyright claim may be valid. What typically happens: follow-up demands arrive with escalating language over 1–6 months, possibly including referral to a “legal team.” Forum evidence shows that some cases go quiet after the legal team referral with no further contact. However, the copyright owner (the photographer) retains the right to pursue the claim independently at any time. The safest approach is to verify the claim forensically, respond professionally with documented evidence, and consult an IP attorney.

Potentially, yes. Documented cases show web developers receiving demand letters from Permission Machine and CopyrightAgent for images they placed on client sites. The person who acquired and placed the image can be held primarily liable — not just the site owner. In one documented case, a client paid the full 500 GBP demand to CopyrightAgent and then sought reimbursement from the web developer. If you build websites for clients, documenting your image sourcing workflow is essential protection for your practice.

All three are enforcement channels for Alamy, but they operate independently. Permission Machine Ltd is a Belgian-founded company (UK company 11747843) that uses proprietary reverse image search to find unlicensed usage and issues demand letters on a commission basis (approximately 33% of recovered settlements). CopyrightAgent is a Danish firm performing similar automated matching. The Fair Licensing Portal is Alamy’s own direct enforcement platform. You may receive demands from one, two, or even all three channels for the same image — they are not coordinated to prevent overlap.

Yes. Permission Machine’s parent company, Visual Rights Group, had its business model “roundly condemned by a court in Belgium.” While this ruling does not directly apply in the UK or other jurisdictions, it provides context about how at least one European court has evaluated the legitimacy of their enforcement approach. This is relevant context when evaluating how to respond to a Permission Machine demand, though it should not be treated as legal guidance for your specific situation.

Yes, this has been documented. Alamy’s enforcement agents use automated image matching that does not cross-reference license records. In one documented case, an Alamy contributor received a copyright claim from CopyrightAgent for their own photograph on their own website. If you hold a valid license — whether from Alamy directly or from another stock vendor for the same image — your license documentation is your defense. Use PicDefense to generate a forensic audit that includes stock source identification before responding.

For single-image claims under 500 GBP, a well-documented forensic evidence package (Defense Kit) showing proof of license or free source may be sufficient to resolve the dispute without legal representation. Some recipients have successfully responded with counter-offers at or near the actual license value without legal counsel. For larger claims, multiple-image demands, or any demand that has escalated to a formal legal letter, consulting an intellectual property attorney in your jurisdiction is recommended. PicDefense provides forensic data and risk intelligence — we are not a law firm and this guide does not constitute legal advice.