As I explore the false claims Copytrack.com emails out on behalf of WENN Rights International Ltd, I often find them going after the creators of the images. Like this claim, Wenn tried to claim that they owned photographs, taken by Ruth’s husband. I have reached out to see if it was resolved and have not heard back yet.
what kind of scam is @copytrack running? i got an email telling me that i need to pay for licenses to use images that are obviously of me, photographed by my husband — on instructables?!
(referencing https://t.co/3LngKDSJ0g) pic.twitter.com/hJe3CwyIjL— Ruth Wong (@ruthgracewong) June 13, 2023
https://www.instructables.com/Leave-Me-Alone-Sweater/
Perhaps Wenn could hire Ruth’s husband since they like his work so much.
Ruth’s is one of many I have come across involving photos taken by the very people Copytrack.com is threatening to get a payment. This is why I am concerned they may be collecting payment for copyright they do not represent, which is the same kind of theft that they are pursuing.
At some time, I am going to have to bring on a team to sort through all the complaints. But for now, I have to do that thing that brings home the vegan bacon.
As to who they are. Copytrack.com is a company that utilizes an image search engine to find images that are submitted by their clients. In this case, Wenn.com is the client, and they claim to have over 12,000,000 images. Notably, a lot of the complaints from Copytrack.com involve wenn.com.
Is Copytrack.com a scam?
How does Copytrack work? They love to post links that claim to tell you how on Twitter, which makes no sense for multiple reasons, aside from the fact they have no real following. (Side note: I just realized that I am not using the correct Twitter account). The copy they give amounts to Trust Me bro. It just works.
https://www.copytrack.com/blog/technology_en/search-engine-explained
I did click the link, and it was as about as detailed as any post they share. Or, to borrow a South Park quote:
First step: Underpants
Third step: Profit
In Summary: They claim to use AI. /sigh Are they sure?
The use of the term AI, in Copytrack.com’s case, is more for marketing. Especially when they say they are better at it than Google, which has far more resources. Never mind, I see people getting Copytrack to drop claims by using Tineye.
Even though this seems simple, the entire process is based on extensive technological know-how. Copytrack’s image search is highly efficient, searching through more than 1,000 websites per second.
That sounds super fast, but what is the average size of those sites? Also, did an AI write this?
The internet has to be scanned before the first hits can be shown. To do this, Copytrack uses webcrawlers that scan the web, page-by-page, by following links. Various special programs analyze blogs, shops, news websites and popular social networks and marketplaces like Amazon and eBay. In doing so, millions of websites are scanned each day to collect images that are compared to the Copytrack image index.
But how many times does it visit the same page that is not likely to have any changes? The false positive its system found was from 2018, and it flagged it twice last month. But sure, it is AI. lol
WENN Rights International Ltd is not Copytrack’s only client.
I have found reviews from other clients who shared their experience with Copytrack.com; some provide critical reviews. By the time hits got to those clients, some had noted getting a lot of false positives, that the amount of false positives they had to go through made it not worth the time spent. So, the system is not as refined as Copytrack.com claims because AI would know to skip certain sites and focus on others. Also… be better at matching and providing fewer false positives. Can someone teach Copytrack the meaning of efficiency, please?
Originally, I believed that the bulk of Wenn.com’s claims submitted to Copytrack.com may be automated. But now I am leaning towards the idea that Wenn may have another party involved, the cheapest bidder they can find, to verify if the images found match the 12,000,000+ images. But, I still believe that they do not care who is affected as long as the money flows from Copytrack.com.
In my experience, Copytrack claimed I was using an image that belonged to Wenn.com, and to share what it was, it was a parrot, which was an enhanced screenshot from a 17-year-old video. My rights to it are fair use, and the content we created feeds traffic directly back to the source. It was not a paparazzi photo.
I suspect that the process that allows a user to screen images is not designed for more than one person to go through the results. Why? Well, if you read my experience, I got two claims over the same image. That does not outrule the possibility that it could have been an automation error. But given what I have read from others who have used the system, I am inclined to lean toward a system not made for more than one person and two people, two days apart, selected the same image. Perhaps the last person had screened up to before my image, with it still loaded and ready for them to select. If Copytrack is as efficient as they claim, it would have made sure that only one claim could be applied, and it would have been done with my site on January 2nd. Only to come back for another round, 2 days later for a second hit on the same image. Given the amount of files on that site, I don’t see how that would be efficient to do a second run so soon. Because AI!!
Copytrack has remained silent since January 21. 2024, when I asked them to provide proof that their client, Wenn, had ownership of a screenshot. This was after going back and forth with them for 19 days, as they took their sweet time to respond and send a prepared response without reading what I sent. They might be silent because I contacted Wenn, and they said it was a clerical error that they would fix. The practical thing to do would be to let me know they closed the case and issue an apology.
Even if they do, I am not going to stop until they stop going after innocent parties.