I had only intended to write one article about Copytrack.com this month, the Federico Caputo/Adobe piece I wrote earlier.  I intended to try to write something at least once a month later. But as I dove in and reread the first email, I worked on six different articles related to this copytroll.   Because… ADHD. 

If you are here, you likely got an email from Copytrack telling you to provide proof or pay. The email mainly threatened the pay part and what would happen if you didn’t.  To see my suggestions based on your circumstances, check out my guide on How to Respond to Copytrack for detailed steps on handling their claims.

I planned one last article, this article, for the end of the month, and thought maybe I would try one last time to contact Copytrack to see the status of the first case.  In the email I sent them on July 19, 2024, I asked the following questions:

• What the status of the first claim was.
• Was this a simple mistake?
• If so, why was no formal apology issued?
• Is Copytrack.com proceeding legally against me?
• When do we end my experience with this company? (and I sent them this link)

I informed them I had made preparations in case they pursued litigation against me. I also said, “A simple case-closed response is not going to cut it.”

Copytrack.com sends a simple case-closed response.

July 22, 2024

Personally, after sending several requests for updates, I was expecting nothing. But I had hoped I would get a response allowing me to close off my experience with this copytroll. Hence, I said that this would be my last attempt.  But, they surprised me… sort of.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Thank you for your message

I can confirm that both cases have been closed

est regards

Zara

Legal Department

COPYTRACK GmbH

They could have just used my name if they were unsure of my gender identity. Also, the ‘est regards'(no, I did not edit that) only adds to the unprofessionalism of the response.  Telling me they were both closed is not an explanation. So, I again contacted them to ask why they were closed. I also asked why they did not offer a sincere apology if they did not have proof. I responded again.

Hello Zara,

Please forward this to someone who can answer these questions.

Why was the first one closed?
Why was I not notified that it was closed?
Were they closed because the ‘client license history’ did not exist?

Copytrack said there was a ‘client license history’ and harassed me for weeks despite my proof of fair use and Wenn’s not being the owner of that image, which was online much longer than Wenn listed. Again, I was sent two claims on the same image, and I think I am owed an explanation there as well.

Either there was a mistake, and an apology needs to be issued or Copytracks has some serious explaining to do if it does have a ‘client license history’ on that image. It is unprofessional not to tell me the case was closed, why it was closed, and a formal apology issued. Especially given the pressure for me not to ignore Copytrack and left the threat of legal action hanging over me since January.

I am not going away until I get answers.

Copytrack.com throws WENN Rights International Ltd under the bus

July 23. 2024

Dear Sir or Madam,

Thank you for your recent correspondence.

Copytrack, acting on behalf of our client Wenn International Agency, initiated contact with you in response to the alleged unauthorized usage of an image owned by our client. Following your response, where you asserted proper permission for the image usage, we have duly noted and closed the case.

It is important to clarify that Copytrack’s role is limited to facilitating communication related to copyright infringement matters or issues pertaining to Wenn International Agency. Any further correspondence or queries concerning the Wenn agency should be directed to them directly.

We appreciate your cooperation in this matter.

Best regards,
Zara

An explanation and apology could have gone a long way. But Copytrack.com does not want to discuss the part of their email that says, “We calculate these fees based on our client’s license history.“. I know I said I was not going away until I got answers, but I know that I am just going to go in circles with this company.  But, I intended one last response:

Hello Zara,

I contacted Wenn back in January over the first claim, who said it was a clerical mistake, asked for the claim number, and that they would contact Copytrack to remove it. After that, I realized there were two claims on the same image and sent them both claims. I have yet to receive confirmation that they contacted Copytrack to close them. During the two weeks after I contacted Wenn, Copytrack continued ‘facilitating communication’:

1. Ignored my proof that the image was a screenshot from a video not belonging to Wenn under actual fair use. – Inefficient
2. Continued to send threats of legal action.
3. Never said the first of two claims against the same image was closed.  Leaving the threat of legal action looming over me. Was it closed back in January?

4. Ignored my requests for updates on the claim status… until now.
4. Fails to provide proof like “Client License History:” Which I believe is a false representation in the US.

5. Eventually stopped responding to me after requesting proof of ownership.

6. Now fails to admit there was a mistake and apologize.

Wenn may have selected the image (twice), and yes, this reflects badly on them, but Copytrack decided to enforce the claim, which means Copytrack is inefficient and unprofessional.  FYI, it would be professional to address people by their names as opposed to; ‘Sir or Madam,’

Over the past six months, I have been researching Copytrack.com. While most of the false claims are on Wenn’s behalf, I know what Copytrack does, especially after communicating with Copytrack clients.  FYI, the big complaint is the rate of false positives, which does not save precious time.Please send this to the proper manager.

As I write my last three articles, I am not expecting an apology or an answer because Copytrack cannot learn from its mistakes.

Copytrack.com responds as expected

July 26, 2024

Dear Sir or Madam,

Thank you for your message

Please refer to my last email, with Copytrack’s position on this matter

Kind regards

Zara

Copytrack closed both claims against me

But they don’t want to talk about why they closed them.

This will be my last Copytrack.com/WENN Rights International Ltd post for a while.  then again, it might be the last article about this company.  This is pretty much a summary post of everything I wrote. I have covered almost everything I intended to on this copytroll (minus trying their system, their attempts at crypto, and Copytrack/Wenn’s histories).  However, that could change. I could find something to cover, and I might have that itch to cover the things I lost interest in (the joys of ADHD).  I will continue to collect the claims they send – Click Here to share yours.

Creatively speaking, I am tapped out on the subject and don’t want to make the mistakes I made with Hosting-Reviews-Exposed.com. I got stuck in a rut, allowing drafts to pile up, only to realize that my free time was wasted when I did nothing with those forty-plus drafts, which were deleted this year.

Time is our most precious commodity.

I got into this because Copytrack.com contacted me to get payment over a screenshot. That alone was not enough to awaken that drive that started Hosting-Reviews-Exposed.com.  Had they read my proof, I would not have given them a second thought; they did nothing to inspire me to try their services.  However, they denied my proof that WENN Rights International Ltd did not own the image, and for most of January, they sent me notices that threatened legal action. When they responded, they did not address my responses.  The number of emails they sent… I would get responses like this:

“However, we have provided you with sufficient proof that the image of our client was visible under your domain address. Therefore, you are responsible for the copyright infringement. If you possess a valid license or written permission please share it with us, and upon verification, we will close the case.”

Perhaps if I had known to ask them for proof of ownership, I would not have bothered researching them in my free time.  The only proof (which is not proof) given was where the image can be found on my site, not the point of origin or any other detail that proves they own the image.  I, on the other hand, proved where the image came from.  One simple look would have told Copytrack that their client Wenn Rights International LTD had screwed up again.  Never mind the possibility that they could have contacted the owner of the source of the screenshot I used to see if he would like to go after me.  Never mind, the owner likely knows I sent him traffic if he pays attention to YouTube’s stats.

Is Copytrack.com a scam?

The first thought on everyone’s mind when they get a claim

I tried and failed to answer that question in a previous post.   Because… I am not a lawyer.  The emails certainly feel like extortion.  Filing a claim against an image they don’t represent, I feel, is false representation.  Continuing to send me emails saying I have to pay feels like harassment.  Threats of lawsuits if I do not give them what they want… that feels like blackmail.  But, again, I am not a lawyer; those are my opinions.  I can say I think something is illegal,  but that does not make it illegal.  Unethical? Yes, I think it is safe to say that argument can be made.  Laws are not always ethical, which is why all people should participate in their elections and contact their representatives, esspecially when laws are exploited like this for profit.

There are plenty of unethical companies out there that are considered legitimate/legal entities.  Like these companies: Monsanto, Nestlé, Walmart, Philip Morris, Purdue Pharma, Exxon… I could be here for days.   The point is that something can be legal while also unethical.

Does Copytrack always represent the owner of an image?

When it involves WENN Rights International Ltd, perhaps not.

They can not claim they have not pursued false claims because it happened to me, which is why this article is here.  As I dove in, I realized  I was not a rare exception.  Unless you include them trying to double-bill me for the same image, I have not seen that happen to anyone else.  However, I almost missed it, only catching it when reviewing the emails they sent me to build a timeline. I found they sent two claim numbers, which are the same image again.  So, maybe I am the only one that noticed a double claim.  But, I found numerous cases where they tried to claim images they did not represent.

Copytrack.com wants you to pay and ask no questions.

The only proof they provide is the name of their client. Not the location where the image came from.  Nor do they provide proof of how they came up with how much a fee should be.  This is likely due to them wanting to remove the ability to negotiate for those not authorized to use the images.  Perhaps to avoid any incriminating evidence that their client was profiting off a stolen image.

“We calculate these fees based on our client’s license history, as well as the duration of use and type of rights infringement.”

Which was these fees:

Why can we not see the data that led to these fees?  I don’t think it is acceptable for them to close the case after asking for proof while providing no proof, especially without an apology or admitting they had made a mistake.  People have to put their time into providing proof from their end, and the anxiety of waiting for this to be resolved after being threatened with legal action.  After all, consider a few parts of the first email:

“This case will not go away if you ignore it. Rather, it will escalate to litigation in which our partner lawyers may seek either our client’s lost licensing fee plus your profits from the Offending Use(s)”

“Our client will seek such damages through litigation should this matter not be appropriately resolved.”

“We look forward to a prompt response. We reserve the right to take any steps we deem necessary to protect our client’s rights. If we do not receive a response from you by the date stated, we will assume that you are not amenable to resolving this amicably and proceed accordingly.”

Their actions prove they want you to do what they say and not as they do.

This month raises the question of whether Copytrack.com provides proof that the image is worth what it claims.  I am sure they have claimed fees on images they do not represent because they file claims against images they do not represent.   I know they have claimed fees from those who had previously purchased rights to an image.

Is Copytrack.com a scam?  I guess it depends on whether sloth and unprofessional behavior can be a legal argument.

You are just a number to Copytrack.com

Regardless of whether you are a client or a claim to pursue

When I first started covering Copytrack, I covered it from the side of the person getting a false claim.  But, as I dove in, I started seeing the experiences of their clients. One set of clients seems only in this for the hits, and I question their motives.  They love Copytrack and the money they rake in through the service. I tend to wonder if they create images (or outsource the creation) for the sheer purpose of producing claims.   The other seems interested in protecting their creations, and I don’t think Copytrack is interested in those clients as they want their clients to pick out hits for them to go after.  Never mind, people have better things to do than sift through far more false positives than actual hits, like creating the images that could be added to the system, which is something Copytrack encourages.

One of Copytrack.com’s clients responded to my tweet to Copytrack.com a few months ago.  Her account was being shut down.  Why?  Because she was not adding more images to get more hits and sorting through the false positives,, she sent to find claims for Copytrack to pursue.  Notably, she was getting more hits toward the end of her account.

I have debated contacting her, mostly to see what level of human input is involved in her images since she is an AI art enthusiast and if Copytrack.com has pursued claims for images not created through largely human input.  From the critical reviews of Copytrack.com’s system, a common complaint is the system does not save ‘precious time’, providing far more false positives than results.  This is why I entertained the idea of trying out and recording my experience. Perhaps I might get the urge to do so later.  I have no intention of filing claims.  But, I wanted to see how long before I got results and how many false positives I got.   Eventually, let six months go by to see what happens.  Also, I wanted to see if there is a term of service I have to agree to in the signup process because I do not see that requirement publicly. But again, I am not planning on writing about Copytrack.

Copytrack.com is not a system for Creators

They only care when you send them claims to pursue

You only have to look at their article on AI to understand how much they value creators.

A Paris based artist collective known as “Obvious” got hold of the algorithm and proceeded to use Barrat’s algorithm to create a portrait called “Edmond de Belamy”. To create their desired outcome, “Obvious” fed the algorithm approximately 15,000 historical paintings to analyze before beginning the creation process.

When I first read their article, I glossed over the parts related to Edmond de Belamy. I had not even seen what it looked like because Copytrack.com did not think fair use applies to their article.  Instead, they used a stock image. After looking at it, I can see why, as I would rather not post it under fair use, either. Fifteen thousand historical paintings selected by a group of people led to smudgy, distorted work. Copytrack makes it sound like Robbie Barrat was unhappy he did not get a sale cut for this.

“That being said, the decision to feed the algorithm with a specific selection of paintings and giving it the task of creating a portrait did come from a human being. In addition, the painting was signed with a line of code and fitted with a hand selected golden frame to house the portrait. This shows that the work was not created entirely by chance. Moreover, the whole AI creation wouldn’t have even been possible without the algorithm that Robbie Barrat himself developed!” – Copytrack.com

Interestingly, they posted a tweet by Robbie, and I don’t think he shares Copytrack’s opinion. I found him sharing a link to The Verge.  Turns out, they don’t address Robbie Barrat’s ethical concerns about how others used the algorithm he developed to create and then commercially exploit artwork without proper authorization or attribution.  Instead, their article inadvertently suggests that Barrat was mainly interested in receiving a share of the profits from the artwork’s sale.  His views on whether AI-rendered works should be copyrighted or not are unclear. But, he certainly does not think that the people who created Edmond de Belamy are artists.

“I’m more concerned about the fact that actual artists using AI are being deprived of the spotlight,”

Copytrack clearly does not agree with this, as you will note in what they feel is valid human input, which I think implies what they think is needed for copyright status.  It almost seems that they are making an argument for copyright theft. A human being selected the images to use. They may have copied and pasted their client’s images, perhaps even downloaded them for later. It takes human effort to decide when and where to use the images. Their part in the creation process is to select where they might hang… I mean, place the image. Why should we not value their work? (Please note, that is sarcasm; do not steal other people’s works). Copytrack’s indifference to Robbie’s feelings about the misappropriation of his work only adds to the irony. Perhaps they can tell me if providing the materials and tools to build an aquarium stand makes me a carpenter. I am pretty sure my shop teacher is spinning in his grave as I type this. If he could, he would tell you not to allow me near power tools.

Creative vision requires less effort than providing a brush to paint while being a burden we need to be free of under Copytrack.com’s philosophy.

Copytrack’s Wide Net Approach

Casting Broadly for Gains, Efficiency in Question

Their business motive has been clear from the front page of their site, which offers three easy steps to earn money, to their article on AI-generated art. Quality is not part of the equation. The historic images used to create Edmond de Belamy are just a data set. The artists’ histories and experiences are not worth using as a data point.  One of the biggest complaints I have seen from their clients is the amount of false positives they have to shift through, and if you stop for too long, they close down your account.  I think it would be okay to close down an account if the false positives did not consume so much time.  But since it does, it only fosters abuse of those who have nothing to do with Copytrack’s clients.

If you are one of the parties that were contacted over a Wenn Rights International LTD claim, and they had no rights to the image.  You might have had to go through a lengthy process and several threatening emails before you get this message:

Dear Sir or Madam,

We appreciate your message.

We have reviewed the provided information and decided to close the claim.

Thank you for your kind cooperation.

Best regards,

It’s time to wrap up this Copytrack complaint

I will still be collecting cases and eventually handing them off to someone else to collect, review, and amend my list.  I do this because there may be someone out there who can see what I can not or maybe help in ways I can not.  I just have a feeling I need to collect this information.  Please visit this link if you have a Copytrack claim(s) to share.  Click here

I had intended to try their service, but I have not gotten around to pulling images I know are online or sorting through ones that are not.  But I am not really motivated to do that. I had also intended to look into their three attempts at crypto and possibly build timelines for Copytrack, com, and Wenn.  But now, I think it is time to move on, as I feel that I may have already done too much on Copytrack.  But hopefully, I helped at least one person.

Thank you, Copytrack, for reigniting that passion that got me into covering web development-related content, as I had with Webhostingstuff.com after they thought they could delete my company’s positive reviews. If your site happens to close down, I am willing to pay $100 for it, the same offer I made to Webhostingstuff.com.