When I started this coverage of Copytrack/Wenn, my first thought was, who are these companies, and are they legitimate?  The more I dived in, the more false claims I found. I also saw legitimate claims… or, at the time, I thought they were legitimate claims.  But what if Copytrack is sending out claims against images where the user has no legitimate claim to using them, but they do not represent the actual copyright holder?

Given the history of Copytrack.com sending out claims on images that Wenn has no right to against those who did have a legitimate claim, I argue they are.  There are a lot of invalid claims against people who had the rights to the images that Copytrack tried to collect fees on.  The most glaring examples are claims on public domain images.

It is hard not to come to the conclusion the actual rights owner would not be getting paid. Honestly, given my own history of having copyright stolen, I had overlooked that possibility.

So far, I have yet to see Copytrack.com provide proof of their client(s), mostly WENN Rights International Ltd, owning the image they have filed claims on.

Having two claims on the same image on my site was in itself proof they did not track claims based on what they found.  But weirder yet, like some other experiences I have encountered, they close the claim instead of providing proof.  In my case, one was closed when asking for proof, and the other they said they offered enough proof.

What amounts to proof in these claims is:

In the claims I have sent out against those who took my images, I send where the image was located on their end and on my end. I can not find the image in question on their end.  Because it is under fair use, with a video, they do not own the rights to.

Honestly, I am not inclined to advise anyone who had no rights to the images they used.  But I can’t ignore the possibility that Copytrack is likely collecting money for images that do not belong to their clients.  Worse, subscription fees.  But, Copytrack should have to provide as much proof as they are requesting in their claims.

It is odd that Copytrack.com has cases of shutting down claims when the burden of proof is placed back on them.

On a side note, I think since I was really responsive on the first claim, it might meet some protocol to make me sweat to pay them.  I made a minimal effort on the second one, asking for proof of ownership to meet a different protocol.  Again, this was over the same image.

So, you took an image you have no rights to and want my advice?

Personally, I don’t want to help anyone who takes another person’s work. But, I don’t want another party to make a profit off what they have no right to.  (Yes, I know I keep repeating that)

If you had no right to the image, should you ignore them?

I am not a lawyer, nor will I claim any responsibility for your actions.

I see lots of bad advice from people saying to ignore the emails. One site, cat-focused, claims to have 20 years of legal experience but says things the lawyers I know would not. Additionally this site does not know what fair use means. They also claim you only have to worry if you are in Germany, I see that argument everywhere.  But, I ask you to look where WENN Rights International Ltd, a company they represent, is located.  Would they not want representation where their offices are?

They are a scam, right?

From what I have seen, they have legitimate clients.  Many are tired of having their stuff stolen. Personally, I think the bulk of the complaints, mostly from WENN Rights International Ltd, are a result of completely automating the process of checking if an image is indeed Wenn’s property.  Leaving it up to who they contact to validate the claim. It does not help if no one reads what you send.  Regular account holders are involved in the review process.  Images they upload are searched through Google, and Copytrack tries to match those images.

As long as Copytrack and its clients face no consequences for going after false positives, they will not invest in preventing false claims. They will take the cheapest method to maximize profit.

So I am going to give you advice, right? Right?!?

Everything I say is my observations and speculations.  But, if Copytrack’s client has a valid claim to the image you are using, you need to make things right.  I don’t want to hear why you should not have to pay.  That is between you and Copytrack.

But….  If Copytrack does not represent the rights holder, Copytrack and their client should not also benefit from the image. I feel that Copytrack should have to do more than say something that belongs to their client.

So… I think you should do what?

My advice?  I would place proof of ownership on Copytrack.

Never mind, the real copyright holder may come along later.  Ultimately, I think if Copytrack does not represent the actual owner, you should reach out to the owner and work out how to make things right.

For the complete timeline of my experience with Copytrack/WENN Rights International Ltd: Click here