This article is about how to beat COPYTRACK. I am more bullish than the other websites discussing this topic. You will see advice elsewhere. Some of it is not great. I know what I’m talking about. I’m a retired solicitor (attorney in the US). I retired 20 years ago. I still remember the basic law! Also, I am angry at the way Copytrack are preying on people who’ve innocently used a photo and don’t know the law. Copytrack targets these people as they are likely to pay their excessive demands under threat of litigation.
Short summary: If you don’t live in Germany, simply brick wall them – do nothing and don’t communicate – if what I have said below seems too bothersome. They can’t sue you internationally. They’ll go away. They still chase me for money on new alleged violations of copyright and I simply delete their emails. Copytrack go away. They disappear which proves my point: Copytrack are reliant on recipients of their scam emails to feel threatened and pay up. Copytrack’s MO is to extort money with menaces. Ignore them and you’ll win without any work on your behalf.
Note: IF (see below) they prove that you have violated copyright (and you know that you have) and IF you want to negotiate a proper amount, do so, but don’t pay the exorbitant amounts that they claim (important: see below on this). Note 2: I am not saying you should violate copyright. Don’t do it. But also, don’t pay scammy amounts of money as demanded by this unscrupulous business. And demand that they PROVE that they are agents (act for) for the copyright holder and demand that the claimed person has copyright in a sworn statement (affidavit in the UK). Then offer $50. BUT PLEASE READ ON.
I would ask you to read the comments below to see what I am saying about the impracticality of enforcing copyright on single images used on the internet from time to time by independent website owners. If it is unviable to enforce image copyright, in effect copyright does not exist for that image.
Don’t forget to see the comments as there are some good examples of what is happening.
Google and Pinterest
For many years now, Google has been firmly against copyright being enforced by the copyright holder. They consider enforcing intellectual property rights to have a “chilling effect” on the Internet. They want the Internet to expand constantly and if people restrict that expansion by preventing the use of their images, they regarded it as bad news. I’ve learned that through personal interactions with Google on this matter.
This supports my view that people should fight COPYTRACK because it goes against the general modern trend on the use of Internet images.
Although, of course, all images are protected by copyright but the point is this: things are changing and things have changed. The Internet has changed the copyright landscape.
For instance, Pinterest, is based on copyright violations. That is its modus operandi! And Pinterest is engaged in hundreds of millions of copyright violations and they do this in full knowledge of what they are doing.
Fair use
A defence when using someone else’s image without permission is to claim fair use. If for example you are using the image to educate people and the image you use does not undermine the copyright holder’s ability to earn money from that image and further, if the image is quite small, a claim for fair use is, in my view, a good defence.
COPYTRACK won’t sue you. Here’s why
COPYTRACK won’t sue you if you don’t live in Germany (they are based in Berlin). They have to rely on fear. They make you frightened that you are going to be sued but you won’t be. They might even, as a last resort, ask a law firm to write to you but they still won’t sue you. Why can’t they sue you?
The amount of money they ask for copyright infringements are inflated, grossly inflated (I deal with this further below). However, if they want to sue you because you refuse to pay their demand they would often have to sue internationally and in the Small Claims Court of the country where the defendant lives i.e. you.
In the Small Claims Court, you normally won’t receive a court order that the other side pays your costs when you win. Therefore, all the money that COPYTRACK puts into suing somebody cannot be recovered after the litigation.
The costs of running an international small claims action (if it’s viable at all) will far outweigh the amount of money that they are claiming in compensation. Therefore, COPYTRACK will suffer a net financial loss. I repeat: if they sue somebody, they will lose money. They will be out of pocket.
Therefore, it is financially unviable to sue. Therefore, they can’t sue.
International element
There is a big question mark over whether anyone can sue somebody internationally in the Small Claims Court. If you sue in the higher courts internationally you can claim costs. But COPYTRACK would not sue in the higher courts because the court fee which accompanies the application is going to be more than the amount they are claiming. The financial risks are far too high.
And I mention the international context of this. COPYTRACK is based in Berlin. The picture on this page is from Google Maps of what I believe is of their office block. It is nearby.
They send out their demands to everybody in the world wherever they live. Therefore, very often, they will have to sue somebody internationally which is a big challenge. It is an insurmountable challenge for a business like COPYTRACK. Note: if you live in Germany this section does not apply but the remainder of the points do still apply.
Claims are inflated. The use fear of the unknown as leverage
They have to scare you into paying up. They demand huge sums of money, well above the normal licence fees. You go to Getty Images and see what they charge for a perpetual licence fee. It might be £50 or $50 for a single image. And Getty are not the cheapest.
The point is that COPYTRACK is making inflated demands with menaces. They can’t be called a scam in the classic sense. But they are scammers in one sense in that they are operating on fear firstly and the fact that most people don’t know the law about copyright and neither do they know about litigation and the cost of litigation. They play on this weakness to force people to pay up. This is unscrupulous behavior and unethical.
People do not want to be involved with lawyers and litigation. It is frightening for them. As stated, they play on this fear and that’s a very important thing to state in this article. They don’t frighten me though.
It is equally important for the recipient of a COPYTRACK email to stay calm and not succumb to this fear. You’ve got to be solid and brave and see them off. You’ve got to beat them at their game.
RELATED: Definition of copyright – does copyright of images still apply to the Internet?
No one sues for copyright infringements on the internet
Almost nobody sues (has anyone?) for copyright infringement on the internet as it happens hundreds of millions of times annually. To all intents and purposes copyright is as good as dead in the context of published photos on the internet.
What to do
I beat them on two occasions. Knowing what I have stated above, you can simply do nothing at all. Create a brick wall. Wait to see what they do. There is a 99% chance that they will eventually give up.
You could communicate with them if you want to buy making demands of your own on them. Turn the tables. Go on the offensive.
Firstly, you can ask for evidence that they represent the person they say they represent AND that the person they represent is the true copyright holder of the image concerned. Challenge them on this. Ask for documentary (written) evidence.
Don’t admit anything
DON’T admit guilt. Don’t admit that you have infringed copyright. And on all correspondence with them start off with “Without Prejudice”. This means that it can’t be used against you if you say something wrong.
More ammunition
You can then tell them that your website doesn’t make any money. This is probably true because the vast majority of website don’t make any money when you factor in the author/creators unpaid work. In fact, they make a loss. You can also tell them that you give to charities some of the money that the website makes. That would make your website a non-profit business although it won’t be registered but that is beside the point in this argument.
Ask who they represent
Sometimes they say they act for a particular person when the photograph concerned is on one of the major image websites such as Shutterstock. If they do that you could challenge them by asking them whether they represent Shutterstock or the person they say they represent. You can ask for evidence as to who they represent. They cannot act on behalf of Shutterstock unless they represent them in an agreement between the two businesses.
Summary
These are some examples of how you can challenge them and beat them. My personal view is that you should not negotiate to pay any money at all as some websites have stated. Stand up and beat them. They are nasty people in my opinion. They run a nasty business because it is entirely based upon YOUR FEAR. Don’t be frightened. Stay calm. And remember they have one enormous weakness which gives you one enormous strength: they can’t sue you in court for the money they are demanding because it is financially unviable to do so.
Ask a question in a comment and I’ll be pleased to help if I can.
Free customised images!
Nowadays you can ask an AI computer to create a customised image for you to order online. Click this link and give it a try. This is genuine and I don’t get any commission! I am just trying to help. Also, if people know about this it’ll put the AHs at Copytrack out of business!
Hi Michael,
I have received multiple reminders from Copy Track GmbH for their claimed payment for unlawful online use of copyrighted images. Today we have received a letter from EOS Matrix d.o.o. acting on behalf of CopyTrack GmbH demanding payment in creation language I do not speak.
I am Czech citizen owning summer house rent property in Croatia where all the communication is sent to. I don’t live in Croatia on permanent basis, Czech Republic is my residence country. The letters are addressed to Villa Dee not even on my name.
Should I get lawyer ???
Thank you for your advice.
Kind regards
Katerina
Hi Katerina. Thanks for commmenting. No, don’t get a lawyer. I would asky you to be brave and do nothing whatsoever. Don’t respond. Don’t argue with them, ‘Brickwall’ them. I stand by what I have said in the article. Their MO (modus operandi) – method – is to frighten people into paying. Beat fear and you win. These people are scammers in truth. They are extortionists and they should be stopped but the internet is still the Wild West in some respects.
Lastly please briefly tell me what the copyright infringement is. Best.
P.S. I still receive warnings from them but I delete their emails and nothing has happened. Nada. Zero.
I live in Norway and last year I got mail from Copytrack. I read your article and brickedwalled them. Never heard from them again (thanks to you!) Now I got mail form CopyrightAgent and they are located in Denmark.
A new twist regarding the international element. The say the claim is on behalf of the norwegian company NTB, and NTB are admitting a cooperation with CopyrightAgent, which is not registered in Norway as a company. I brickwalled CopyrightAgent too. Any advice?
https://www.ntb.no/about-ntb
https://www.ntb.no/copyright-agent
Hi Kjersti, thanks for contacting me. I think Copyright Agent is a similar sort of operation to Copytrack. They are not a reputable company as far as I can tell. I think you are right to brickwall them. I would continue to brickwall them and see what they do next. As I said in my article, it’s pretty well impossible to sue internationally for an alleged copyright breach as it is financially unviable. And therefore they have got to rely on threats and the hope that the targeted person gives in through fear. Don’t do that; just press on.
I think they will disappear as well. The next question I have is whether you have used a photograph or picture created by an author represented by Copyright Agent. What I mean is that Copyright Agent cannot chase you for money without being formally authorised to do so by the creator of the image.
But I wouldn’t discuss that with them. Let them push you and see how far they get. As I said brickwalling is the best M.O. under these circumstances. But if it gets a bit hot and you become a bit concerned and if you are genuinely in breach of copyright then the next phase would be to ask them whether they represent the author. But never at this stage offer to make any payments. Just test them and all the basic elements.
Get back to me if you like if there are any further developments and I would be happy to respond in a comment. Good luck in the meantime.
Thanks for advice. I did not login on Copyright Agent to see the picture, guess they register that too, I will keep you updated.
Good. Emply brickwall if and until you are forced to change but I don’t expect you will have to change that MO. It is the best.
Thanks again Michael, they are really pushy. Last afternoon AFTER workhours my phone rang. It was a woman from Copyright Agent and she wanted to know if I had received their emails. I said no, played along and asked her to resend it. The mail is signed with only first name, very suspicious.
In the mail she writes: “Our Partner, who is the copyright holder of the image in question, has not given permission or approved your use of the image”. The case number is NTB-….-…. so the claim is on behalf of their client NTB.
I then logged into my case on CopyAgents webpage and saw the actual picture for the first time. Then I googled it to find the source and found it in an article from 2004, here, https://www.nrk.no/okonomi/norge-til-salgs-i-dubai-1.556942
As you can see, the source says: RAmzi Haidar, AFP. It’s the same source in another article from 2015.
AFP is a different newsagency and not NTB (AFP, Agence France-Presse is an international news agency headquartered in Paris). I checked, and it seems like AFP have also partnered up with Copyright Agent. https://www.afp.com/en/products/partners/copyright-agent
But still, as far as I can see she is making the claim on behalf of wrong client, since the mail says: ”. Case number NTB-….-….
She said she would call back later today. Any suggestions?
Well, my initial thought is that Copyright Agent are more pushy than Copytrack. I would ask for an affidavit from the author of the photograph (a sworn statement) to prove that Copyright Agent is authorised to act on their behalf. And an the statement must say that they are the author of the photo. I see you were forced into engaging with them i.e. you dropped the brickwall MO. Ask them where they are based or find out if you can. My basic MO still stands I say namely that it is impossible for them to sue you as it is financially inviable (international issues) and therefore I’d continue to resist and employ brickwall as and when appropriate. Make it impossible for them to pursue you.
Thanks, with author of the photograph, you mean the photographer, Ramzi Haidar?
Yes
Thank you. Does this sound ok? “To prove that you are authorized to act on behalf of the original image owner, I ask you to send over an affidavit (binding declaration) from the owner confirming this, as well as a declaration confirming that he or she is the owner of the image”.
Try this: “Please email me a scanned copy of your client’s affidavit which both confirms that they are the copyright holder of the said photograph, and secondly that you act on their behalf in this matter. An affidavit is a sworn statement made before a solicitor. It is imperative that you confirm both these matters. Thank you in advance.”
Note: they won’t be able to send this sworn statement to you or they won’t want to bother. But when a lawyer acts in behalf of somebody they always open the correspondence by saying that “We act on behalf of Mr X”. It’s an essential introduction. And you can’t make the presumption that this company acts on behalf of this photographer. They have to confirm that in my view. If they can’t confirm it they can’t act on his behalf and therefore the matter is closed.
Thanks a lot, waiting for reply 🙂
Fingers crossed there is no reply. They’ll almost certainly argue about it. But don’t engage in an argument. What you are asking is entirely reasonable. There is nothing wrong with it. But it will flummox them which is the intention.
Regarding your answer, “Fingers crossed there is no reply”. No calls and no answers so far. I will keep you updated. Thanks a lot, you are a true human.
Pleasure. This tactic is to bog them down and present barriers. Their MO is to extract money with little effort. If there is effort it becomes unviable for them.
Hi Michael. An update. The woman in Copyright agent didnt reply to the mail I sent her a few weeks ago asking for her clients scanned documents mentioned above.
Today I got a new mail from them, only signed with company name. It reads:
“This is a reminder of our previously issued claim. We cannot see that we have received payment in connection with case: xxxxx.regarding infringement of the Copyright Act. As we have not registered your payment, the claim is now subject to an interest charge amounting to xxxx, in accordance with the Late Interest Act and the Debt Collection Act. The total claim is today: NOK xxxx
Please note that you will receive a collection notice 14 days from the issue of this letter, if we do not receive payment of the claim.”
Should I resend the same mail?
Well, your response depends on whether you can hold your nerve, which I think you can. I’d do nothing except, perhaps, resend the email. I would take their email as a success for you. They are trying to ramp up the pressure in a formulaic way. Probably automated emails. Just ignore the shits. My firm prediction is that they will go away in due course because as mentioned their whole MO is built on fear. Hang in there.
Ok, thanks again. I`ll hold my nerve.
Good. I think you have to. They work on the principle that people don’t hold their nerve. It is mind games.
Hi Michael,
Thanks for this article. It really helped me to calm my nerves after finding them in my inbox. Especially being a Canva Pro and using all the images legally from there, was pretty surpirsed to know I have infrigend something, and have to pay out such a ridiculos sum when I don’t make a penny from my website.
Have no idea how can someone try to be creative a bit, write or build something in the internet if there are people like these who just want to crash you down.
Thanks for sharing, Vicotor. COPYTRACK was created by a cynical sh*t 🤢 who dreamt up a way of squeezing money out of decent people. It should be shut down by the German authorities asap in my view. Good luck. Brickwall them all the way and smile to yourself. And use the same technique for other problems in your life when appropriate.
Hi, Thank you for sharing your knowledge. I’m based in Japan and use either stock images I buy from Deposit Photos or stock from Canva if I’m not using my own.
The image in question is from Canva, when I first got the email from Copytrack I replied with a a ‘this is where I got it from, go to Canva if there is an issue’. Of course they have emailed back a couple of times with their threats, so I have just been ignoring them. Your post has reassured me that I’m doing the right thing. I’m not actually convinced that they are ‘representing’ the photographer in question.
Thanks again!
Jo you are right. Copytrack send out automated demands to frighten people. It is a scatter gun automated system in which they expect some people to pay up out of fear of being sued. The best policy is to totally ignore them from the get go. Total brick wall. Delete their emails. Forget them and move on. Their systems then stop making demands and the recipient can return to normal. It is an immoral business and yes, they don’t represent the photographer which is another one of many reasons why they are acting unscrupulously and some would argue illegally. Good luck.
I thought the same until recently when we had to hire lawyers in Australia to combat the claims. We discovered half a dozen cases with them in the past that had gone to court; in every instance, they’ve won. I’ve negotiated the $10,000.00 fee through my attorneys down to $4000.00. Their methods are dodgy, but they relentlessly chase you down and will eventually get their money.
NOTE FROM ADMIN: I claim that this comment is lies. It is rubbish. Probably planted here for nefarious reasons. Perhaps working for COPYTRACK as this page undermines their spammy operation. Anyone who reads this should ignore it but I am leaving it here in the interests of free speech.
Hi, thanks. I’d like you to tell me more please. I don’t believe you. I think either working for them or spamming/trolling. I have removed you URL. What you say is impossible to contemplate. It is rubbish.
I am currently working on my own review, and building up a timeline of events as well as complaints. What was it that caught your attention?
For me, it was a claim on behalf of WENN Rights International Ltd, over a screenshot from a video in a post about the video, so fair use. Also, tons of people did the same… likely copying me because found the right spot.
Well, I believe that Copytrack uses automated systems to make thousands of demands all the time in the expectation that some will pay out of fear of litigation. Copytrack knows that copyright does not really exist on the internet as it is impractical to enforce it. That’s their MO which is a weakness because my MO is to brickwall them and it works. WENN does come up a lot. It is all BS as far as I am concerned. Just ignore them. Copytrack saw an oppotunity to make some quick cash. Clever in a way. But they are more immoral than the people who occasionally ‘steal’ images. Far more so as the odd copyright violation is pretty innocent and minimally harms, financially, the copyright owner.