Copyright
Someone Filed a Copyright Complaint on My Product Photos. Do I Even Own Them?
Uncomfortable question, and for most sellers the answer is no. Here is why paying for photography usually doesn't transfer the copyright — and why that matters enormously before you file a counter-notice.
By Kenneth G. Eade, CA Bar No. 93774 · August 2, 2026
A copyright complaint lands on your listing. Your first instinct is that this is obviously wrong — you paid for those photos, you have the invoice, they're yours.
Before you act on that instinct, sit with a harder question: did you ever actually acquire the copyright?
Paying for a photo doesn't buy the copyright
Under US copyright law, the person who creates a work generally owns the copyright in it. Payment doesn't transfer that by itself. What you bought, absent something more, was a photograph — not the exclusive rights in it.
There are two routes by which a commissioning party ends up owning the work, and freelance product photography usually fits neither.
Work made for hire covers employees creating works within the scope of employment. Your in-house marketing person, yes. A contractor you found on a freelance platform, no.
Work made for hire also covers certain specifically enumerated categories of commissioned works — and only where the parties sign a written agreement expressly designating the work as made for hire. The statutory list is narrow and does not comfortably accommodate ordinary product photography.
Which leaves written assignment. A transfer of copyright ownership generally has to be in writing and signed by the owner. Not implied from an invoice. Not inferred from the fact that you paid. Not established by a Slack message saying "all yours."
Most sellers who commissioned photos three years ago through a freelance marketplace have an invoice, a delivery of files, and a friendly email thread. What they do not have is a signed assignment. The photographer still owns the copyright — and in the right circumstances, can enforce it.
The supplier images problem
The other common origin story: the images came with the product data from a manufacturer or wholesaler. Everybody in the category uses them. Nobody ever discussed rights.
That works fine right up until the commercial relationship changes. A supplier who decides to sell direct, or who signs an exclusive with a different distributor, suddenly has both a reason and the standing to file. What felt like an informal industry norm turns out to have been an undocumented permission that nobody wrote down and nobody agreed would survive.
The questions that matter: was there permission at all, what was its scope, and does it survive the end of the relationship? If none of that was documented, the seller is arguing about an implied license — a much weaker position than owning the images outright.
Why this matters before you counter-notice
A counter-notice looks like a form. It isn't.
It is a statement made under penalty of perjury that the material was removed as a result of mistake or misidentification. And it typically requires you to consent to the jurisdiction of a federal district court and to accept service of process from the complaining party.
Read that again in plain terms. You are telling the complainant where to sue you, and confirming you'll take the papers.
Where you genuinely hold the rights and the complaint is baseless, that is exactly the right move and the jurisdictional consent is a price worth paying. Where you have simply assumed you own images you never received an assignment for, you have made a sworn statement on a premise you never checked and invited a lawsuit from someone who may actually hold the copyright.
Section 512(f) cuts both ways
The Copyright Act provides a remedy against a party who knowingly materially misrepresents that material is infringing. It can also reach a knowing material misrepresentation in a counter-notice.
Two practical takeaways. Courts have generally read "knowingly" demandingly, so this is not a routine remedy against every mistaken complaint — sellers hoping to punish a competitor for a sloppy filing usually overestimate it. But it is a real provision, and it is worth preserving evidence where a competitor appears to be filing complaints they know to be groundless. It also cuts the other way: your own counter-notice is a place where a knowing misstatement carries consequences.
What to do when the complaint arrives
Identify exactly which images are accused. Complaints often sweep in an entire listing when only one image is at issue.
Trace the origin of each one. Who took it, when, under what arrangement, and is there anything signed? This is the step sellers skip, and it determines everything downstream.
Find out who the complainant is. A photographer asserting their own work, a supplier, a competitor, or a stock agency are four very different problems with four different resolutions.
Don't file a counter-notice on an assumption. Verify ownership first. If you can't, that answer is itself useful.
Sometimes the right answer is to reshoot
We'd rather say this plainly than sell a fight that doesn't make sense. Where you can't establish clean ownership, commissioning new photographs under a proper written assignment resolves the listing problem, eliminates the recurrence risk permanently, and usually costs less than a dispute.
Fighting makes sense where you do hold the rights, where the complaint is part of a pattern of competitive abuse, or where accepting the strike carries account health consequences that outweigh the cost of contesting it.
And whichever way this one goes: get written assignments for every image going forward. One paragraph in the engagement, signed before the shoot. It is the cheapest legal document in e-commerce and almost nobody has it.
Frequently asked
Do I own the product photos I paid a photographer to take?
Often not. The creator generally owns the copyright, and payment alone doesn't transfer it. Work made for hire covers employees within the scope of employment, and certain enumerated categories of commissioned work where the parties sign a written agreement designating it as such. A freelance product photographer usually falls outside both, so the copyright stays with them absent a signed written assignment.
What does filing a counter-notice actually commit me to?
More than most sellers realize. It is a statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed by mistake or misidentification, and it typically requires consenting to federal district court jurisdiction and accepting service of process from the complainant. You are telling them where to sue you and confirming you'll take the papers. Right move where you hold the rights — a serious step on an unverified assumption.
Can I be liable for a false copyright complaint filed against me?
The exposure runs the other way. Section 512(f) provides a remedy against a party who knowingly materially misrepresents that material is infringing, and can reach a knowing misrepresentation in a counter-notice too. Courts have read "knowingly" demandingly, so it's not routine against every mistaken complaint — but it's real, and worth preserving evidence where a competitor is filing complaints they know are groundless.
Can a supplier claim copyright in the photos on my listing?
Frequently, and it's one of the most common sources of these complaints. Sellers build listings from images supplied by manufacturers, sometimes with permission and sometimes just because they arrived with the product data. Where the supplier holds the copyright, the seller has been using licensed or unlicensed material — and a change in the relationship can convert an informal arrangement into a complaint. Scope and survival of any permission matter.
Should I just replace the images instead of fighting?
In a meaningful share of cases, yes. Where you can't establish clean ownership, newly commissioned photographs under a written assignment resolve the listing problem, eliminate recurrence risk, and cost less than a dispute. Fighting makes sense where you do hold the rights, where the complaint is part of a pattern of competitive abuse, or where the account health consequences outweigh the cost of contesting.
Before you counter-notice, find out if you own the images.
Send us the complaint and whatever documentation exists for the photos. We'll tell you whether you have standing to contest it — and whether contesting it is the right call.
DMCA & Counter-Notice Services Free EvaluationGeneral information only, not legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is created by this post. Copyright ownership, the availability of any defense, and the consequences of a counter-notice depend on the specific facts and documents. Attorney advertising. Related: copyright services · IP complaint defense · sabotage survival guide
RSS Feed
