Copyright Infringement Letter in Singapore: What to Do When You Receive a Demand Over a Photo

Short answer: If your company receives a copyright infringement letter over a photo, do not ignore it and do not pay at once. Take the image down, preserve evidence, look for your licence, and ask the claimant to prove ownership. Under the Copyright Act 2021, statutory damages are capped at S$10,000 per work, and claims must be brought within 6 years.

A copyright infringement letter in Singapore usually arrives by email, often months or years after someone uploaded a photo to the company website, blog or social media page. It names the image, attaches a screenshot, asserts that the sender owns the copyright and asks for payment by a short deadline. This is a recipient playbook for business owners: how to test the claim, what the Copyright Act 2021 provides, how to respond and negotiate, and how to stop it happening again.

Raffles Corporate Services works with a panel of experienced Singapore law firms who offer cost-effective and efficient legal service and advice. This article is general information only and is not legal advice.

What is a copyright infringement letter in Singapore?

It is a letter of demand from someone who says they own the copyright in an image your company used, asking you to stop and usually to pay. It is not a court document, and receiving one does not mean a lawsuit has started.

The sender may be the photographer, a business that licenses images on behalf of photographers, or a law firm.

The letter matters because copyright in Singapore arises automatically. IPOS confirms there is no need to file for registration to get copyright protection, so the claimant does not need a certificate to have rights. What is protected and how ownership is proved is covered in our guide to copyright protection for Singapore businesses; this article deals with being on the receiving end.

What does the Copyright Act 2021 say about using someone else’s photo?

The Copyright Act 2021 gives the owner of an artistic work the exclusive right to copy it, to publish it if unpublished, and to communicate it to the public (section 113). Uploading a photo to a website or social media account involves copying and communicating it, so doing that without a licence can infringe.

Under section 501(2), the General Division of the High Court has jurisdiction in civil matters under the Act. Any court proceedings are conducted by a Singapore Advocate and Solicitor acting for the company.

What should you do in the first 48 hours?

Preserve evidence, take the image down and diary the deadline. Do not admit liability, pay, or argue by email before you know the facts.

1. Record the date received, the sender, the deadline and the exact images and URLs complained about.
2. Screenshot each page as it stands, with the date, before changing anything.
3. Take the image down everywhere: website, blog, social media posts, email templates, brochures and marketplace listings. Continued use after notice can look flagrant, which is a factor for additional damages (section 307) and statutory damages (section 308).
4. Find out who uploaded the image and when: a staff member, web designer or marketing agency.
5. Search for licence evidence before replying.
6. If the deadline is close, acknowledge the letter briefly, say you are looking into it, and avoid admissions.

Our article on how a company should respond to a lawyer’s letter of demand covers the general handling of demand letters.

How do you check the claimant’s ownership and your own licence?

Ask the sender to prove they own the photo or hold an exclusive licence, and search your own records for a licence. If you acted under a licence binding on the owner, there is no infringement (sections 101 and 146).

On the claimant’s side, check:

• Authorship. The author is the default first owner (section 133). A sender who is not the photographer should explain how they acquired rights.
• Assignment. A transfer of copyright is valid only if in writing and signed by or on behalf of the assignor (section 138).
• Exclusive licence. Valid only if in writing and signed by or on behalf of the owner (section 142). A non-exclusive agent has no right of its own to sue under section 153, though it may act for someone who does.
• Image history. A reverse image search shows where else the photo appears and when it first appeared. A free-licence release, or a later appearance on the claimant’s site, is relevant.
• Identity. Compare the original with what you used. Different photos of a common subject are not copies of each other.

On your side, look for:

Is it fair use if the photo was only on our website?

Possibly, but rarely for ordinary marketing use. Fair use is a permitted use under section 190, and section 191 requires the court to consider all relevant matters, including four listed factors:

• the purpose and character of the use, including whether it is commercial or for non-profit educational purposes;
• the nature of the work;
• the amount and substantiality of the portion used; and
• the effect of the use on the potential market for, or value of, the work.

A business that uses a whole photo to decorate a commercial page will usually find these factors difficult, because the use is commercial, the whole work is copied, and the use replaces a licence the owner sells. Fair use depends on the facts, so take advice before relying on it. Two common misunderstandings: crediting the photographer does not by itself create a licence, and removing the image stops further infringement but does not cancel past use.

What can the claimant actually recover?

If infringement is proved, the court may grant an injunction, damages (including additional damages), an account of profits, statutory damages if the claimant elects, and delivery up or disposal orders (section 305). Damages, account of profits and statutory damages are generally alternatives (section 305(2)).

Statutory damages are a ceiling, not a fixed price. The court must consider all relevant matters, including whether the use was commercial, flagrancy, bad faith, the claimant’s loss, the benefit to the defendant, the parties’ conduct before and during proceedings, and the need for deterrence (section 308(5)).

The innocent infringement rule in section 306 applies only if the company did not know and could not reasonably have known that the act was an infringement. A business that copied a photo from a search engine result will usually struggle to meet that test.

Wilful infringement for commercial advantage, or to a significant extent, can also be a criminal offence. IPOS’s infringement and enforcement page lists a fine not exceeding S$20,000 and/or imprisonment up to six months for a first offence.

How should you respond to or negotiate a copyright infringement letter?

Reply in writing and on time: the image has been removed, you are reviewing the claim, and you ask for proof of ownership and standing. Then negotiate on the facts.

1. Confirm takedown without admitting liability.
2. Request evidence of authorship, any assignment or exclusive licence, and the date the claimed infringement started.
3. Present your licence evidence if you have it, and ask the claimant to withdraw if it is complete.
4. If you have no licence, assess exposure: period and type of use, number of images, and what a licence would have cost.
5. Make any settlement offer “without prejudice”, which generally keeps it out of evidence in court. See our guide to without prejudice letters in Singapore.
6. Settle only with a written agreement: the sum, a release for past use of the identified images, and no admission of liability.
7. If the claim is weak or the sender cannot show standing, decline. Under section 499, a person threatened with groundless copyright proceedings may seek a declaration, an injunction and damages, unless the threatener proves infringement. Mere notification that copyright exists is not a threat, and an Advocate and Solicitor is not liable for acts done professionally for a client. Our article on groundless threats of IP infringement covers the trade mark equivalent.

Order 5 rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2021 requires parties to consider amicable resolution, and a party must not reject an offer of amicable resolution without reasonable grounds. IPOS and the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center also offer a mediation option for copyright disputes before the Singapore courts. If the letter concerns a logo or brand name rather than a photo, see our guide to the trade mark infringement letter.

What is the timeline and cost, and when do you need a lawyer?

Most photo claims are resolved by correspondence within weeks. Cost depends on how far the facts are disputed and whether court proceedings follow.

Instruct a lawyer if proceedings have started, the demand covers many images or a large sum, ownership or licence is disputed, criminal conduct is alleged, or you want to bring a groundless threats claim. IPOS runs a complimentary IP Legal Clinic for Singapore citizens, permanent residents and Singapore-registered businesses; see the IPOS IP Clinics page. For representation, speak to a lawyer experienced in IP disputes. Court proceedings are conducted by a Singapore Advocate and Solicitor.

Raffles Corporate Services does not give legal advice or act in court. As company secretary we prepare the corporate records these cases turn on: board resolutions approving a settlement, the company’s contracts with agencies and freelancers, and its image licensing register. The solicitor handles correspondence on the merits and files anything in court.

How can a business prevent copyright claims over images?

Keep a licence record for every image you publish, and control who can upload images. Most claims arise from an image nobody can trace.

• Image licensing register: source, licence type, licence ID or invoice, date, permitted uses and where used. Screenshot free licence terms at download.
• Staff policy: no images copied from search results or other websites; approved sources only; a named person signs off uploads.
• Agency contracts: require proper licensing, handover of licence records, and an indemnity.
• Commissioned photography: obtain a written assignment or a broad written licence, because the photographer otherwise owns the copyright (section 133).
• Annual audit: check the website and social accounts against the register and remove anything without a record.

Our free tools include practical checklists for company records.

Frequently asked questions

Is a copyright infringement letter a scam?

Some are not genuine, but many are. Verify the sender, ask for proof of ownership and standing under section 153, and never pay through a link in an unsolicited email without checking who you are paying.

We removed the photo straight away. Do we still have to pay?

Removal stops further infringement but does not erase past use. It helps, because the parties’ conduct is a factor the court considers in fixing statutory damages under section 308(5).

Our web designer chose the photo. Are we still liable?

Usually the claim is made against the company that published the image, and a person who authorises an infringing act can also be liable under section 146. Check your contract with the designer for a warranty or indemnity and pass the claim on in writing.

The photo was uploaded seven years ago. Is the claim out of time?

Section 154 bars an action more than 6 years after the infringement takes place. If the photo stayed online until recently, the claimant may argue that infringing acts continued within the 6 years, so check the dates with a lawyer.

Can the claimant really get S$10,000 for one photo?

S$10,000 per work is the maximum statutory damages under section 308, not the usual award. The court weighs commercial nature, flagrancy, bad faith, loss, benefit and conduct.

Can we ignore a letter sent from overseas?

Not safely. The Act allows its protection to extend to works connected with other countries (section 3), and the alleged infringement took place in Singapore. The claimant can instruct a Singapore Advocate and Solicitor to sue here, so reply on time even if you dispute the claim.

Last reviewed: 3 November 2026. The Editorial Team, Raffles Corporate Services.