Chances are, if you are here, you got a claim from Copytrack.com. Out of all the false positives I have seen, WENN Rights International Ltd is likely their client because I, too, went looking for who they were. 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.
In this post, I want to address whether Copytrack.com is a scam. As I have researched who Copytrack is, I often see people call it a scam, especially with posts that give advice that pretends they have some understanding of the law. Accounts that tell you to ignore the emails, delete the evidence, and claim fair use. (like a site about cat pictures). They don’t have your best interests at heart and will not share in the fault should things go wrong. If they had a real law license, they should have it revoked. But, I think that advice is grounded on their opinion and not a legal background.
But is Copytrack a scam? That was the first thing I thought of when I read their first email. Given my industry, it is not uncommon to be contacted about copyright claims. After dealing with their attempts to get me to pay for most of the month, I can certainly see why people are calling them a scam.
Under normal circumstances, this would have been closed after one or two emails. However, Copytrack did not read my emails and continued to remind me they would extract payment by legal means if I did not respond in a way they liked. Which was chaos, and as someone with ADHD/ASD, this post is a demonstration of my coping mechanism. This came at the worst time possible, as I struggled to restore my business. I have had less than 4 hours of sleep per day over the past month and have not been able to get a steady supply of Vyvanse. So, I did what I did with Hosting-Reviews-Exposed.com, and I started to research this company, only to find a lot of false claims that involve their client, Wenn Rights Rights International LTD. Regarding false claims, I will have to bring in someone to help go through the complaints, as there are many. There have been legitimate claims that I overlooked because I wanted to concentrate on the invalid ones. However, I looked again for valid claims because Copytrack may have filed claims against a legitimate copy theft but did not represent the owner(s) and got paid. For more on my thoughts about this. Click here.
So, is Copytrack a scam or a useful tool against copyright theft?
There is a legitimate need for a solution that deals with copy theft. But I would not be writing about them if there was nothing wrong. My interest started when they sent me two claims over the same image on behalf of a company that does not have the right to the image. So far, they closed one based on the ‘evidence’ I gave them, which was me asking for proof of ownership. As I keep saying, I am not a lawyer, but it is problematic that they may have gotten money over copyrighted content they do not represent. To be clear, I don’t think they are a scam by design. I don’t think they intentionally sent out notices to the wrong people. I will accuse them of apathy, sloth, and greed, likely not caring about the stress this puts on people with no party to who they represent.
Taking measures to reduce and engage false claims will cut Copytrack’s profit. As long as they face no consequences, they will not change.
As I have stated in other posts, I believe that is likely due to Copytrack’s client, Wenn, automating every part of the process from their end. Because, as they claim, they have over 12,000,000 images. However, I have considered that they may have outsourced this to the lowest bidder and have done zero reviews of the contractor. I can see how having multiple people paid absurdly low wages could lead to two or more employees picking the same image. I doubt copytrack is set up for multiple people. As long as the money flows from Copytrack, why should they care? It also does not help that Copytrack.com has done nothing to reduce the rate of false positives… after all these years. Nor do they put much effort into responding to dealing with anyone who contacts them.
Copytrack.com has reviews from actual users.
I’ve come across actual user reviews while looking for other people’s experiences with false claims. The bulk of those reviews fall into two camps.
- Because they got paid, they will let you know their love Copytrack. …and I think they might be creating images for the sake of claims.
- They give critical reviews because the system is not efficient for creators who want to protect their copyright.
I will focus on one review in the second group, as he gave the most insight. The first group does not. After someone asks for a solution, I see them recommending Copytrack on various platforms. The fans of this company like to brag about how much they make. Honestly, who can blame them? If you have your content stolen, only to watch the offender make money off it, that’s going to boil your blood. I can not count how many times I have been there. Right now, I am watching offenders on Facebook get more traffic with my own content, which is a whole other can of worms to open.
To those that had content stolen for years, if not decades, they offer a solution to find and go after the incriminator, and you would want that option. In addition to that, they also promise a 55% payout on past uses and a yearly license payout. That sounds awesome. You might not be inclined to be critical after you finally get a payout.
An honest review from Jermey of This Week in Blogging
This was the first critical review I came across. At first, I was going to skip it. However, ignoring the positive aspects of Copytrack would not be a critical exploration on my part. Not to mention, until I found this review, most were high praise. This review lays out a road map for improvements.
Copytrack Review – Copyright Infringement Tracking Good in Theory
I was inclined to summarize the whole piece, but you should read it yourself. I want to focus on Copytrack.com’s claim on its homepage regarding what Jermery shared.
Copytrack claims to have won cases in 115 Countries
I have to wonder if that number is exaggerated because of what Jeremy said about cases:
The reason I call this only decent is that the service is somewhat lackluster in completing a claim.
Many of our claims were closed because the offending site was hosted in a country where it would not be cost-effective to make a claim or in other countries where Copytrack does not have legal representation. We’ve also had claims closed because Copytrack could not find an address associated with the website and also for the fact that they don’t go after non-commercial entities as well (this one we get).
More than half of our claims were closed on these grounds alone.
So far, I can not find what countries Copytrack claims to represent, but should I find it, I may reach out to Jeremy to see if he can tell me what countries he could not make claims in.
Coptrack.com does not appear to pursue profits made with stolen copyrights.
The claim process limits the amount to 1,000 Euros, which is, in some cases, below the value of the images I paid for. They do not factor in profits from copyrighted content, meaning Copytrack.com would not be the company to use should you seek compensation for those sales. A few cases involving copyrighted images that focus on profits gained from image theft come to mind.
Getty had to pay $1,200,000 million for selling images scraped from Twitter
Lara Jade Coton was paid $130,00 for the unauthorized use of her image on a DVD by TVX Films
I feel given her age, they should have paid a lot more.
VHT Studios vs. Zillow led to a $2,000,000 payout
https://www.realtrends.com/articles/zillow-to-pay-2-million-for-copyright-infringement/
Is Copytrack the Dollar Store of Copyright Enforcement?
The highest payout I have seen from Copytrack’s representation is 25,000 euros. – Copytrack gets a € 25,000 a settlement
Given that is the highest amount they have gotten, this part out of the first email they send seems like an empty threat:
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) (see 17 U.S.C. § 504), or statutory damages in an amount up to $150,000.00 in connection with the infringement at issue, as well as costs and attorney fees, assuming timely registration. Id at § 505. Moreover, 17 U.S.C. §1203(c)(3) permits our client to “recover an award of statutory damages for each violation of Section 1202 in the sum of not less than $2,500 or more than $25,000.” And under the relevant authorities, each copy or reproduction would be a separate violation. Our client will seek such damages through litigation should this matter not be appropriately resolved.
Given the limit of €1,000, Copytrack is only interested in small claims based on what they can scrape offline. I don’t think they could handle cases like those above, especially since Copytrack does not showcase wins where they went after the profits.
Does Copytrack ask for proof of ownership?
Jermey said they asked him to provide proof of sales history to justify the requested amount. This means that some evidence was provided on request. At least by him, but maybe not by clients like Wenn that have massive libraries of images likely leading to numerous claims every day, and the records of sales are not required for the sake of profit. I wonder if Copytrack’s part in dealing with claims for Wenn is automated or handled by an outsourced party. Users like Jermery are highly likely to file legitimate complaints and are likely required to provide a sales history. Not handling those could cut into Copytrack’s profit. On the other hand, Wenn is not cost-effective to deal with, with the high volume of false positives. I wager that there is a low-cost method just for Wenn claims; I likely would need to wait out my last claim to see it.
Copytrack offers a legitimate solution, but not one I would recommend.
While Jermey addresses many of my questions, this was a review from 2022, so things can change. I will have to document my own experience at some point. I will likely revisit Jermery and other reviewers’ posts to compare my experience. However, based on the problems Jermey outlined (time-consuming false positives, most claims closed without resolution, and sending documentation), the negatives outweigh the positives of their offering. Plus, they don’t seem equipped for profits earned with the stolen images. Never mind their hostile actions towards innocent parties caused by clients like Wenn selecting a false positive. I personally would look for a better solution.
For the complete timeline of my experience with Copytrack/WENN Rights International Ltd, Click Here.