This is my fourth piece for Copytrack.com this month. This time, I focus on some of Copytrack’s top failures. I want to highlight the invalid claims I have come across. Most involve one name: WENN Rights International Ltd. All claims here are images for which Copytrack.com does not have a client history. This begs the question of false representation, especially when they suddenly close down the claim after proof is demanded. If they had no proof, why bother sending the claim?
Because Copytrack.com cares more about numbers than efficiency and public perception.
So, now, to the point of this post. Originally, I was working on the Federico Caputos post, but my ADHD being what is, one became three, and then four;… I am going to try to stick to six as the endpoint for the month. It might be a while or never before I write about Copytrack.com again after that. The first four of those posts are references for the fifth post. This, being the fourth, references Copytrack.com’s past mistakes. My intent will be clear when the fifth post is published. Knowledge is power. The sixth is a summary, in case it is my last post on Copytrack GmbH. This post may be updated with further false claims if I find them significant. By next month, I will have staff searching and collecting claims and will make updates on past posts as needed. If you have a claim to share, Click Here, or you can Contact Me.
The claims below helped inform me of the steps to take. I have others to add later, as my notes are a mess. But I wanted to get this out so I can publish my fifth and sixth posts and finish my timeline before the end of the week.
Copytrack.com claims ‘Unauthorized image use’
They determined how much you must pay them based on the ‘client’s license history’.
Curiously, Copytrack.com does not show you the data that determines how much you need to pay. If you have the rights to the image, you might have questions. If you own the image, you have to wonder who is profiting off your work. I certainly would. there could be a few reasons why they don’t show you the ‘client’s license history’:
- They do not want you to know where to get the image and how much it costs. So, you have no ground to negotiate for a lower fee and may end up paying a renewal fee for images that can be purchased elsewhere with no renewal fee.
- Given their history of accidents, they might not want to expose their clients when they are not the rights holders. It’s just a name, that’s all. If they provide the data that shows someone got paid for an image they don’t own, it will not end well.
But do they have a client’s history or any other records? I think that depends on the number of claims you bring in. They likely don’t with the people who bring in the most claims, like WENN Rights International Ltd., which leads to their biggest mistake.
For my breakdown of their email, Click Here.
Copytrack.com tried to claim a Public Domain image.
As I started reviewing past mistakes, I planned to copy and paste parts of my past posts, which, yes, is lazy. I also wanted to add their biggest mistake as the last example. I changed my mind as I reviewed this complaint, and I realized I have more spare time than before, so I want to make sure this is more refined. As I re-reviewed the mistakes made by Copytrack, I decided this one should be at the top, given that it gave them the most public exposure to any other false claim.
Copytrack.com sent a claim to Peter Souza, the Chief White House photographer, for their client WENN Rights International Ltd. He was “legally obligated to compensate for the damage caused by his copyright infringement.” The image in question was one he took of Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton, paid for by the US Taxpayer.
Lloyd Beiny, CEO of WENN Rights International LTD, claimed this was a clerical error, which is what a rep told me when I reached out to Wenn.,
“Most photo agencies, including WENN, get sent PR photos from numerous organizations who appreciate their images being distributed to media outlets on their behalf. It would appear that is what occurred in this instance.” Petapixel
It sounds like he is saying that they submitted a public domain system with their own images for Copytrack.com to scrape. However, I question why a company that calls itself a paparazzi site would be sent public domain images to distribute to media outlets. Their whole business model seems to collect a ton of photos to dump into stock media sites. Wenn’s site is a mess to navigate, and I wonder how anyone uses it.
I have not used Copytrack.com’s system, but from what I have read and what the clients of Copytrack.com I have talked to say, you have to verify the hits Copytrack sends, which are mostly false positives. I believe Copytrack’s system is not designed for more than one person to review for a single company because of the two claims I got on the same image.
The other times, Copytrack got it wrong.
I considered explaining these experiences in detail but decided it was best to keep it short and encourage people to visit the articles and read about them for themselves, especially since these sites inspired my own writing. So please, read their experiences. I am just some internet weirdo with focus issues.
Copytrack.com goes after Fairuse images.
This was the first claim I found outlining how they got Copytrack to stop. Copytrack tied to claim a photo commissioned by the Postal Museum in London was the property of Wenn. After the museum provided proof it was theirs and they had given Ani written permission to use it (despite fair use), I recommend reading it for full details.
Copytrack.com goes after Public Relations images.
Pitpass shares how Copytrack was trying to claim that media/press release images from the Federation Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA) on Flickr belonged to Wenn Rights International Ltd. However, Wenn does not own these images, leading to an ownership dispute and raising questions about the validity of the copyright claims being enforced.
https://www.pitpass.com/72274/A-question-of-images
Copytrack.com tries to claim Video Game Images.
During Summer Flame Day 2023, DCGameBlog received an email from Copytrack, representing Wenn Rights International Ltd., trying to claim ownership of Square Enix’s intellectual property. Developers of Final Fantasy 7 and 9, Two games I consider part of my all-time favorites.
Copytrack.com tries to claim personal photos.
Ruth Wong called Copytrack.com out on Twitter for trying to claim photos her husband took of her. Perhaps Wenn should hire her husband.
This is where Copytrack scaped the images: https://www.instructables.com/Leave-Me-Alone-Sweater/