Sean Heavey recognized her photo the moment he saw it on Stranger Things.
"God, that storm looks familiar," he said, as he and his son watched the hit Netflix show.
When he saw a documentary about the making of the series, he became sure of it.
"They saved it from Google, added a close-up to it, and used it as concept art," says Heavey.
No one else had photographed this supercell storm; no other cars drove down the road that day, chasing her across the Montana prairie.
He called the four panoramic shots he had stitched together The Mothership.
"I should have gotten credit and paid for it," says Heavey.
He tried to contact Netflix, but the company told him, "You can't protect Mother Nature's copyright." His case froze.
Chasing storms is not a hobby for Mr. Heavey.
Getting that perfect shot costs him thousands of dollars in gasoline every year. Confront "golf ball-sized hail," winds raging at over 100mph, and save stranded people.
He complained on social media, and his remarks were read by executives at Pixsy, a company that helps photographers fight copyright infringement. They contacted Mr. Heavey and, eager for help, he agreed to work with them.
Pixsy named Mr. Heavey a lawyer, David Deal, and together they found six other occasions Netflix has used The Mothership. Netflix settled the lawsuit in December 2018, according to records seen by the BBC.
The company did not respond to a request for comment.
In the UK, if convicted of copyright infringement by a magistrates' court you could face six months in jail or a fine of up to £ 50,000. Sentencing in a Crown Court could result in a 10-year prison sentence and / or an unlimited fine.
In the United States, fines can reach $ 150,000 (£ 115,000) every time an image is used the wrong way.
When a case is successful, companies like Pixsy collect 50% of the settlement or award in court.
"They all settle down," says Mr. Deal, on copyright cases.
He says this is because the law is clear.
More technology for business
Pixsy is one of the few companies that has developed image search technology to monitor and prosecute copyright infringement on behalf of photographers.
His service incorporates artificial intelligence that has been trained to match an artist's work with instances on the web.
It can also identify alterations including cultures, recolorations, and added or removed layers.
The moment a photo is taken, as long as it was taken by a human being, it is protected by intellectual property laws.
According to a 2019 study, more than 2.5 billion images are stolen every day. Many of these are found using a technology called reverse image search.
It works like Bing or Google, but instead of using words to find related information, the search matches images.
Some of the free image search engines, such as TinEye and Google, will also check when and where a photo was taken and if it was altered.
Copyright infringement companies use the same technology, but will also hire a lawyer and cover the costs of filing a lawsuit.
Pixsy is close to filing its 100,000th illegal copyright infringement case in five years. It currently monitors nearly 100 million images.
"Keeping up with all of this is impossible for any individual. For us, we see it as a big deal for photo owners and photo creators, "says Kain Jones, Pixsy's CEO.
He argues that licensing fees are "daily bread" for many photographers.
"This is where we come in, where we are happy to be the bad guy," says Mr. Jones.
However, Chip Stewart, a professor of media law at Texas Christian University in the United States, says that because many of these cases are settled out of court, the system is ripe for abuse.
Recently, one of his students used an image from a Creative Commons website for the school newspaper. While he did not have to pay a license fee, he did not follow the requirements listed below the photo, to credit the photographer or add a link to his website.
Through Pixsy, the photographer found the student and sent her a letter asking for a $ 750 licensing fee.
"The 20-year-old student was pretty terrified of receiving a request letter and said, 'I thought we did everything right.' And I said, 'I can tell you right away you didn't, but it's an easy mistake to make. . ' "
A search in the public records revealed that the photographer had filed more than 40 similar cases that year. They negotiated it and agreed to pay a $ 500 fee.
Arguing over such a small amount in court would cost a fortune.
"It's not worth two years and tens of thousands of dollars of litigation in the event we could win. And if you lose, you could pay the attorney's fees. This is what these copyright troll companies realize is that the system is heavily favored by copyright owners, "says Stewart.
In response Pixsy said: "One of our key criteria [for Pixsy to work on the case] is that it is a commercial use of the photo. In your private university example, they are a revenue generating organization and are not exempt from copyright law. A case would be with the university itself and not with a single student. "
Some actors have given those who pursue copyrights a bad name. One particularly prolific lawyer, Richard Liebowitz, has been dubbed a "copyright troll," having filed about 1,280 cases in New York's Southern District since 2017.
In addition to the number of cases he filed, his behavior did not endear him to the courts, and a judge recently fined him $ 103,500 for misconduct, which included "repeated violations of court orders and outright dishonesty, sometimes under oath" .
Joe Naylor is the CEO of ImageRights International, another company like Pixsy that uses technology to help photographers prosecute copyright infringement.
He says lawyers like Liebowitz are bad for the industry.
"It does profound and fundamental damage to copyright holders who are trying to protect their rights," says Naylor.
Payment of license fees must always be the photographer's choice. However, Mr. Naylor says his company doesn't advise photographers to search for nonprofit student blogs or newspapers.
While understanding this happens, he says ImageRights International is more interested in defending professional photographers like Sean Heavey.
"There is literally no word I can say to me that angers me more than photographers who are called trolls for trying to pursue their claims."
Sean Heavey still sees instances of The Mothership being used without permission.
If people give credit to the photo, "let it slip", especially if there is no profit.
He recently found a lady who was selling prints of the photo claiming it was her photo. Another Instagram influencer often claims The Mothership is his.
He says, "Being able to stand up and know your rights - that's good, because it keeps food on the table for my family."
