At the start of the year, I got a notice from Copytrack.com, which sparked my interest in who they represented: WENN Rights International Ltd. In a previous post, I outlined how I responded to them and some of what I found, But looking at Copytrack.com, I feel I need to understand how they work and why I was targeted. For this post, I want to publish my random speculations on Copytrack.com and what led me there. Later, I will explore the validity of those speculations.
This is not going to be a perfect post. For the complete timeline of my experience with Copytrack/WENN Rights International Ltd: Click here
My claims from Copytrack.com on behalf of WENN Rights International Ltd are resolved, right?
After contacting Ween, providing the two claims on the same image after they said they would withdraw them, and telling Copytrack to provide proof of ownership… I have not heard from either party. Based on past experience (perhaps I should make a timeline of contact), I should have gotten two more notices by now from Copytrack. At the very least, I should be notified if they marked this as resolved. But the more I look, I think they should have to pay for our time. Since they invest so little into making sure those claims are legitimate. Since there are no consequences for harassing random strangers, they will continue this behavior.
I did not look much into Copytrack when I got my claim, but now I think there are overwhelming details to go over with this operation.
From the front page, I see Copytrack.com’s process in 3 steps
- Upload Images
- Confirm Stolen Images
- Sit Back & Earn Money (55% of what they get)
What is the worst that can happen? I am glad you can ask because I am going through it. I don’t see anywhere they require the uploader to verify ownership. Step 3 bothers me. I wonder what is done to avoid exploitation by non-copyright holders.
What I experienced with Copytrack felt like I was dealing with a collection agency, not a lawyer. It is hard to know if any of the responses I received to my own were not automated. Responses showed no effort to read what I sent. The only thing that makes it seem that someone sent (not automation) a prepared response is that I did not get it back immediately. Never mind, the timing of a response being sent out can be automated.
I will speculate they are a business that looks to what they can run the cheapest way to maximize the 45% payout they get when someone pays. Dealing with false positives could dig into their bottom line if they verified every claim. Which is why I don’t think there are any lawyers at the start of a claim. Maybe not even once it hits collections. It would be cheaper to sort out mistakes after getting anyone who might pay. Before sending anyone filtered out to a lawyer, who will not be cheap. It’s hard not to think that maybe they have innocent people pay when they take a minimal approach in responding. Nor do I think they are willing to confirm they only get copyright thieves.
The goal is to get paid, dam the consequences, especially if it does not affect them.
I don’t know what happens when you don’t respond. I found one person claiming they got a drastically reduced fee. But no one I have seen (so far) stated what happens when you don’t pay or attempt to contact them. Never mind how futile it feels to try and contact them. Due to my neural divergent mind, I am not one to forget about it, and I need it to be resolved… this is, after all, my second piece about this experience, and I have a Word doc of over 40 pages of things I found I have yet to use.
How could I not be obsessed when only two options are offered by Copytrack?
- Pay them and sign up for a yearly payment.
- Prove them wrong by providing a license to the material.
Never mind, they do not offer proof of ownership; they just say “Rights holder” and the company name. In my case, they claimed WENN Rights International Ltd. was the right holder of a fair use image, a screenshot from a 17-year-old video we had to enhance.
They presented the idea that I was in a Kobayashi Maru training exercise. For the non-Trekie readers, that means a no-win scenario. Despite knowing I am only offered two, I am going to look for more options. Because I know they do not own the image.
Copytrack covers success, but they don’t talk about their failures.
For those who think I am in the wrong and are just mad that I got caught, there are very clear examples that Copytrack.com was wrong. I would love to know the number of claims that actually pay off, the claims that were false positives, false positives that end up paying, and the ones that keep paying… against how many total claims they have had.
They tried to claim a public domain image was the property of WENN Rights International Ltd.
https://www.instagram.com/p/Che1SVcux2g/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
Copytrack.com goes after Fairuse images that do not belong to their clients
I kind of feel after the fact that Ani’s use of an image was in the public domain, which may not be fair use since it came from a museum if it is a government entity in the UK. But I am no expert as to what falls under the public domain in the UK. But in either case, that was not the property of WENN Rights International Ltd.
Again, I feel the above is one of the better-detailed accounts.
They tried to claim that Pitpass.com stole an image made available for press releases by FIA.
https://www.pitpass.com/72274/A-question-of-images
But Wait, there is more… wow, I did not expect to spend this much time on this.
I think I know why WENN Rights International Ltd has been in all my results while looking for false claims from Copytrack.
Again, Wenn.com claims they have over twelve million images (which is on their home screen indicating a hack by Vlad.. I have no idea where to start on that). I have seen claims of more in other places. Keep in mind that image search engines are not perfect. This tidbit of info plays into my speculation, based on what I see on the front of Copytrack.com. Is it true or not? I am going to have to try the service for myself to see how it works and share my experience.
Based on the volume, Wenn.com does not have someone manually uploading images. They use an API to integrate with Copytrack.com. Based on steps 1 and 2 from the home page of Copytrack, I will assume that regular users are notified of a possible theft. Then, it is up to the user to verify if it is indeed theirs. I don’t think that involves proof; otherwise, why did I get no proof? I also assume for a large party like Wenn.com, that is left up to automation. If true, that invites a lot of chaos for those innocent parties.
I feel there is a deeper connection between both Wenn.com and Copytrack.com.
I say that because of this article by Duncan Riley from Apr 14, 2009, and it feels chillingly prophetic.
https://www.inquisitr.com/21969/how-wenn-uses-copyright-threats-as-a-sales-too
In this case, Wenn did not use a third party like Copytrack. They did the dirty work themselves. This is part of a long and weird email Duncan received from them, which he pointed out was, in essence, a sales letter that is also a copyright claim. I recommend checking out his accounting.
I’m certain you weren’t unhappy your site probably enjoyed a great deal of traffic from that photo.
Needless to say on our end – there are many – many – publishers who have become WENN subscribers after they receive our note.
I think I know what image he is talking about. Since all the articles in my search were in 2008 for “Woman being Mauled by Polar Bear taken in Berlin Germany”. I can’t find any that credit Wenn. Part of me wants to explore the ownership of that image. Which is why I contacted Duncan.
I have my own copyright problems.
If you can make money off something, unfortunately, there are those not willing to do the work that will take what you made. I am going through a problem where people are copying and using my content on Facebook, lead-in, and all. Often, clear markers that it came from my company. Worse, newly created Facebook accounts that get better results than my own well-established page. Facebook does not care that we stopped an over $100k per year ad buy over this. Never mind, the accounts that stole our content do not pay for advertising.
In many ways, social media companies fuel the theft by requiring so much content from creators to keep their reach. Having to produce 8 pieces of content a day is grinding while juggling past content into the feed to give Facebook what it wants.
I would love to have a company represent me in this manner. But in good conscience, I don’t want to involve innocent bystanders.