How to prove copyright infringement occurred

After the "evidence" has been taken down.

[surfgatinho]

In the past I have used the services of a lawyer to obtain retrospective license fees from companies that have used my photos without permission.

This worked fine but it seemed the lawyers bill took up the majority of the payment. I was happy to do this as most cases were highly aggravated - i.e. competitors.

Anyway, now in the UK, the court procedure has been massively streamlined and I intend to go ahead without the used of a lawyer. My biggest worry though is how to prove the infringement occurred.

Most infringers will immediately remove the offending images so what have I got? I do take a screengrab and get a friend to sign it, but that's pretty much it.

In many cases the Wayback Machine (archive(dot)org) can provide some evidence, but generally not photos. I can easily extract the file-created date using a small script - but without someone who understands this countersigning it I don't see how it can withstand a denial.

Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Chris

[aakk9999]

IANAL but:

What did your lawyer use to prove somebody used your photos without permissions? Can't you use the same?

Or was it the fact that it was a lawyer contacted offending companies why you got your payment for retrospective licence and you may not be so sucessful without the offender receiving a lawyer's letter?

[fathom]

cache views remain for a while in Google.

[fathom]

That said, while you are well within your rights to request a fee for use if they refuse or pretend they didn't use it this is a dangerous game to play without a lawyer.

Lawyers are indeed SHARKS!

But they have specialty training to deal with legal matters - you don't. That's your real issue... go to law school.

[surfgatinho]

What did your lawyer use to prove somebody used your photos without permissions

It never came to that. So yes, I think the headed paper and legal gravitas made them take it seriously.

That said, while you are well within your rights to request a fee for use if they refuse or pretend they didn't use it this is a dangerous game to play without a lawyer.

From my experience most lawyers don't have a clue about IP issues. The ones that do are even more expensive. However, most of my issues are in a very narrow field and whilst a good lawyer may be able to find some wriggle room, it would be cheaper for the infringer to pay up.

Here in the UK since 2012 IP cases can be heard in "Small Claims Court" if under a fairly substantial amount. The case is heard by a judge with NO lawyers present. It is also relatively cheap to bring a case.
Previously copyright cases would have to be held in High Court which cost a fortune.

I'm fairly confident I can get this to work for me and have enough cases in the pipeline that I can learn through a few mistakes.

I suppose I could contact the court direct and ask their advice. Just thought someone here might have some suggestions.

[fathom]

From my experience most lawyers don't have a clue about IP issues.

If you hire a personal injury or family law attorney you are correct.

But IP attorneys are worth every penny. Since the UK system is much more lax (like the Canadian system) you could possibly do everything yourself but I would still have an IP firm on retainer/speed dial.

Handing a firm $3K-$15K in trust and never using it is peace of mind.

As you stated, infringing parties simply bow to their wishes and you need that unless you would rather never collect a shilling.