ExtortionLetterInfo Forums

ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: dave101 on February 19, 2018, 09:18:37 AM

Title: another copytrack letter
Post by: dave101 on February 19, 2018, 09:18:37 AM
Been reading through the forum, have a similar experience that is still ongoing.

Like a handful of others here, I got a letter from CopyTrack. I'm UK based - I got a few emails and letters from them a few months ago. Seems their automated software picked up an image on my website. In my case, while the image was copyrighted, my use of it would almost certainly fall under 'fair use' according to the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 - I wasn't using the image to "pretty up" a post, rather my blog post was *discussing that particular image* (the image was being spread on the Internet with a fake caption and my post was pointing out that fact.) As such my article and explanation would fall under "in the public interest".

Explained that to Copytrack - they didn't care. Kept sending letters, and now had my first letter from their third party "debt collector" (even though I don't have a debt with Copytrack) in my country, some small outfit called "credit limits international". After reading through the forum, it seems others have had similar experiences and if you just ignore them they go away...

Again, as others have pointed out, CopyTrack and their ilk treat this as a "bad debt" and constantly send invoices from "debt collectors". Misleading and should be against trading laws really! For those interested, apparently Copytrack think my use of 1 image means they can extort around 800 euros from me (since gone up to over 1000 now they've passed it on!)

Any comments, suggestions or advice welcome.
Title: Re: another copytrack letter
Post by: Greg Troy (KeepFighting) on February 21, 2018, 06:57:08 AM
Sounds like you have been reading and educating yourself. If it works the same in the UK as it does here in the States you can tell the debt collector that this is a claim, not a debt and to stop contacting you.  Just to be safe I would remove the image from my blog post and server if you have not done so already.
Title: Re: another copytrack letter
Post by: dave101 on February 21, 2018, 10:10:24 AM
Oh I removed the image after the first Copytrack letter. My article wasn't any longer getting many hits and thought I may as well remove it. Of course Copytrack responded by saying something along the lines of "there has still been an infringement, pay us the big bucks". Doubt I'll respond to the third party "debt collector". I'll let them continue sending their threatening letters (I'm working on the assumption that they'll charge Copytrack for every letter they send.)

I've since learned that Copytrack are going into the crypto-currency business too, which is somewhat hysterical! When it's all over I'll be writing a blog post of my experience, to help try and stop this type of exploitation. If a copyright holder wants to go after someone who's breached their copyright, then fair enough - but these companies that use scare tactics and shout-off excessive "fines" and threaten with "debt collectors" should be make illegal, imho
Title: Re: another copytrack letter
Post by: Matthew Chan on February 22, 2018, 02:52:55 PM
I also found the Copytrack and the crypto-currency thing to be suspect. As far as I can see, Copytrack seems to go after non-U.S. targets and largely relies on people's legal ignorance. Not much more that I have seen thus far.

I've since learned that Copytrack are going into the crypto-currency business too, which is somewhat hysterical! When it's all over I'll be writing a blog post of my experience, to help try and stop this type of exploitation. If a copyright holder wants to go after someone who's breached their copyright, then fair enough - but these companies that use scare tactics and shout-off excessive "fines" and threaten with "debt collectors" should be make illegal, imho
Title: Re: another copytrack letter
Post by: Funlife on February 27, 2018, 08:50:19 PM
some weeks ago copytrack send me a letter about an image i use without having licences agreement on my website. but i did not reply as i ignore it. the second letter they send and showed me the higher price to pay the agreement because of my negligence. i directly decide to erase the image from my website to stop them force me paying the debt. i am wondering why copytrack make manifold price in existence?
Title: Re: another copytrack letter
Post by: dave101 on July 19, 2018, 09:42:57 AM
Just to update on the latest - it looks like they've given up. After two letters from the third party "debt collector" in my country, I have not received anything since February (it's July now) - proof that just ignoring them is the best way to go. It certainly was for me.
Title: Re: another copytrack letter
Post by: Ethan Seven on July 19, 2018, 06:56:06 PM
Copytrack, like Pixsy, are a non-law firm based in Germany.   They cannot sue you.  While they might be able to have a US based law firm commence litigation.  My thought is that if the claim was litigation worthy, it would have started at a law firm.  If you used the image without a license, I would either offer a small amount, sub-$200, in hopes they accept it or to mitigate liability if they refer it to a law firm, which is very unlikely.   Otherwise, I would just ignore them. 
Title: Re: another copytrack letter
Post by: Tman on August 15, 2018, 11:59:57 AM
I had a similar experience with Copytrack.  I had a fair use of an image from over 3 years ago where I critiqued an image on a blog that gets essentially zero traffic which was removed when I switched my website's format long before Copytrack contacted me. 

The Copytrack employee contacted me and didn't realize the image wasn't even on my site because they were using their own content delivery service as their source for information which used cached copies of websites.  So a cached version of the site but not the actual website and apparently it took them about a year to email me about the issue.  I kept asking them for a link to the image I'm using without permission and they kept linking their own website's cached copy.  I just told them that they are linking their own site and to please provide a link on my website.

After they figured out the image wasn't actually on my site tried to say I removed it in response to their email.  I told them that isn't true either and I can prove it's not true because I have logs of updates to my site and my site hasn't had a blog for almost a year.  Later they corrected this and tried to say I owe them anyway because I used the image years ago. 

At which point I asked them to please show me why this isn't an example of fair use.  They incorrectly told me fair use doesn't apply for commercial websites they also harassed me and tried to shame me.  Then I really dug my heels in that this was fair use.  I asked them to please show me something to verify fair use never covers commercial websites then they changed their tactic and tried to claim fair use doesn't apply because the supposed original photographer is German.  (As I can tell, Germany does have something like fair use that protects critiques about images for public benefit or education).  However, I don't think it's a given that I'm subject to German laws anyway as a US citizen.  I would think it's at best an international copyright issue.  I told them if they could justify that I actually owe them something or that I caused damages I would be happy to discuss payment, I even showed them that very similar images are vaued at estimated 2.79 each on stock sites.  At which point they told me they would no longer respond to me.  Not really seeing a path where they had grounds to justify that I owe them anything I expected them to take the next step of sending a letter and then to collections.  Which is what happened and where we are now.

They sent this to  Recoverable Management Services  out of Columbus OH.  They left me a voicemail and I ignored that and they sent a letter now saying I have 30 days to dispute the debt.  I wonder if I should continue to ignore this as I don't see how they might have a case.

I don't ever plan on getting a loan but I'm not crazy about the idea of the invalid debt on my score either.

Some issues that kind of make it more nuanced:
I also understand that copyright may have a 3 year time limit for them to begin a lawsuit which should have passed as the image was originally published on a blog over 3 year ago.
There is also the fair use issue which I think is strong and Copytrack got pretty disrespectful and vulgar with me over email and I asked them to cease communications which they ignored and I also asked that they don't hire third parties to communicate on their behalf since this is clearly not an example of copyright infringement or I would consider that harassment I also added in that I don't see their case as an attempt to collect a valid debt.  Obviously they ignored that as well.  They are asserting I owe $1500 for a single image and it's an image that is used over 100 times online that the original photographer spent money to distribute publicly on pinterest so that he could attempt to sue people and on pinterest I've seen the image attributed to another photographer who is from the US and not the person they claim took the image.
Title: Re: another copytrack letter
Post by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) on August 15, 2018, 12:53:06 PM
tell the collection agency to shag off...this is a "claim" not a debt..there has been no judgment or anything else saying this is a debt.. Alert the collection agency that if they continue to contact you in this matter you will report them to the FTC, remind them of The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rules/rulemaking-regulatory-reform-proceedings/fair-debt-collection-practices-act-text#808
Title: Re: another copytrack letter
Post by: DavidVGoliath on August 15, 2018, 01:53:01 PM
I also understand that copyright may have a 3 year time limit for them to begin a lawsuit which should have passed as the image was originally published on a blog over 3 year ago.

This is a common misconception: the statute of limitations is that a claimant has three years from the discovery of an infringement in which they must file suit. The clock effectively starts ticking on the date that the infringement claim was made to you in writing, whether email or physical letter.

There is also the fair use issue which I think is strong and Copytrack got pretty disrespectful and vulgar with me over email and I asked them to cease communications which they ignored and I also asked that they don't hire third parties to communicate on their behalf since this is clearly not an example of copyright infringement or I would consider that harassment

Another common misconception. If you believe that your use of a work is exempted under 17 USC 107, then that's an argument you make in your defence pleadings if/when you are sued and, ultimately, it would be down to a judge and/or jury to determine if your use was fair or not.

In simpler terms: one cannot say "Fair Use!" and expect it to be a get-out-of-jail-free card.

I also added in that I don't see their case as an attempt to collect a valid debt.  Obviously they ignored that as well.  They are asserting I owe $1500 for a single image and it's an image that is used over 100 times online that the original photographer spent money to distribute publicly on pinterest so that he could attempt to sue people and on pinterest I've seen the image attributed to another photographer who is from the US and not the person they claim took the image.

That's a very bold claim to make - I'm curious as to the merits of what you say and, with this in mind, are you willing to point to the image in question?
Title: Re: another copytrack letter
Post by: Tman on August 16, 2018, 01:02:48 AM
Hey David,
Thanks for clearing up the misunderstandings statute of limitations has never been something I've brought up in any emails but something I wanted to keep an eye on.  I've always assumed they are simply trying to gather information to help themselves so I've tried to minimize what I say to them. 

I think its more complicated because when they contacted me no such image was on my site in fact what they showed me looked nothing like my site at the time.  So they are going to have to claim that they knew about it probably at least years before they contacted me or they saw it on some copy of the page from their crawler app (therefore knowing about a possible issue for a long time and not informing me).  On a side note: It's a little weird that they can make an app that crawls/copies pages and stores them online without permission or knowledge that isn't a potential copyright issue.  Their pages that copy content from the crawler are public you just need the url.

The letter they wrote me however claims they don't use crawling tools which is obviously not true.

While I'm not willing to show the image I could describe a similar scenario you could imagine searching pinterest for "Dogs playing in water" and then someone making a board that is called "Top 10 funniest photos of dogs playing in water" then writing a personal blog about why I love dogs playing in water and why you should take your dog to a water park and then showing the images and describing what I liked about each image and sharing some informative tips about taking certain breeds of dogs to water and linking my pinterest board that shows where I found each image.  Then doing a similar blog weekly about dogs.  Also the blog never got any traffic other than crawlers which is part of the reason I deleted it.  That would be very similar to the use I am getting harassed about.

Even the copytrack employee agreed it was fair use.  Their argument was that fair use doesn't apply in Germany.

Additionally, this particular image was being circulated as someone else's work (not the copytrack client) when I found it.  At least the person copytrack claims took the photo isn't the same person who is credited for the photo on pinterest.  I also have screenshots of the content that shows another person claiming to be the original photographer and encouraging the image be shared.  When I asked if copytrack could show me something to verify that their client is the person took the photo they refused to do so.

I've mostly just asked questions when getting emailed by copytrack "Why do you not think this falls under fair use?" "How is the amount you're asking for not arbitrary?"(no real answer, they implied it was based on how long the image was used but they didn't show how they calculate it) "Can you show me proof of copyright?"(no) "Can you show damage?"(no) "How is this comparable image not a fair estimate of the value of this image?"(I got a mean insulting answer from that question).  I've always been respectful to them on email but they've been pretty nasty toward me.

I have told them that if they can show me that I've actually damaged someone or violated a copyright in a way that wouldn't reasonably be considered fair use that I'd be happy to pay a fair market value for the image based on the going rate of similar images plus any damages that they can show.

I showed some proof that the photographer who made the image appears to have intentionally distributed it on social media and chose to not disable sharing tools then ignored it for years while the image was being distributed.  There are some items on Pinterest's terms of service at the time that would probably hurt copytrack one being that content creators can file an image as copyrighted and it will be blocked from Pinterest and to this day the creator hasn't done so.  They can also file DMCA claims and they haven't done that either.  They can also disable sharing.  The image is fairly boring and widely distributed which is usually a sign that it's been paid to be boosted or the creator underwent extreme efforts to have the image shared and distributed.  If they are indeed the photographer it's a problem that another photographer is credited with the work and no copyright issue has been claimed on pinterest.
Title: Re: another copytrack letter
Post by: DavidVGoliath on August 16, 2018, 09:19:30 AM
Sman, are you resident in Germany? If so, this will fundamentally change the discussion regarding applicable law and scope of liabilities etc. I'm happy to provide you with non-lawyer insights and opinions, but I'd need to know what set of laws we're dealing with first :)
Title: Re: another copytrack letter
Post by: Tman on August 16, 2018, 09:48:03 AM
No I'm from the US
Title: Re: another copytrack letter
Post by: Tman on August 16, 2018, 10:11:45 AM
I did have the thought that requesting validation or disputing the debt and threatening to report them to the FTC will only get them to send me the same bogus bill copytrack sent me along with the legal minimum information they have to send (address, client name,etc) I could essentially get nowhere at the cost of acknowledging them and getting higher on their radar.  The blog is run by an LLC but they are mixing me personally into the paperwork and they have also been trying to contact my spouse who is not part of the LLC.

I really could care less about my credit score even if they could get a disputed claim to affect my personal credit I'll never take a loan in my life because of my personal financial principles.  I don't get a paycheck and I don't mind blocking their number.

I'm wondering at which point I ought to get a lawyer involved.
Title: Re: another copytrack letter
Post by: DavidVGoliath on August 16, 2018, 11:13:33 AM
Okay, I'll keep this brief since there seems to be a jurisdictional question in play that will require a few answers before i can dig in a bit more.

You've stated that you're resident in the US (and I'm assuming also a US citizen with permanent residence), so how did Copytrack get around to mentioning Germany and German law in their claim letter/email to you?!?
Title: Re: another copytrack letter
Post by: Tman on August 16, 2018, 12:02:03 PM
I am a citizen born here in the US.

They claimed the use was a violation and I asked them to please explain how they don't see the use of the image as fair use and their first response was that it was "they don't think fair use applies because they see my website as commercial".

I said there are lots of examples of fair use applying to commercial sites and I added that I disagree that the use is commercial pointing out a lack of products I'm selling, no ads, or calls to action, and no reasonable connection between the image or the blog and any commercial activity.   They couldn't come up with anything and pivoted to say that the photographer is German and fair use doesn't apply in Germany.

I should also point out after looking at my emails again that they claim that the image was first detected on my site over 3 years ago.  To me that sounds like it hurts their case because it means they detected it and did nothing for an extended time.

at that point they seemed like the case was getting weaker every email and they said they were going to pass it to their us attorneys.  Months later I get collections attempting to collect (this is days ago).  Nothing is on my credit report though.
Title: Re: another copytrack letter
Post by: Ethan Seven on August 17, 2018, 07:34:47 PM
Copytrack calling it a debt is flat out wrong.  I think Robert is correct, it probably does implicate the FDCPA and whatever state law equivalent exists in your state. 

They cannot touch your credit. 

They are based in Germany and I have not seen any posts about them actually working with a US based law firm, so you probably do not have to worry about being sued, especially since it sounds like they blew the statute of limitations.
Title: Re: another copytrack letter
Post by: DavidVGoliath on August 18, 2018, 05:02:00 AM
Tman, I concur with Ethan Seven's assessment: if Copytrack is a German firm, and the photographer is German, and you have no business interests or any form of residency in Germany... well, there's really no case for them to make. Citing German law to a US citizen is about as valid and useful as a three-dollar bill.

There's an example of how attempts at extraterritorial justice can fail very, very badly. Not that long ago, LucasFilm took designer and propmaker Andrew Ainsworth to court, suing him for breaching their rights.

Back in 1976, Ainsworth was the London, England based creator of the Stormtrooper armour for the first Star Wars films; he sculpted the moulds that would be used to vacuum-form the individual pieces that would form the suit as a whole. Fast-forward to the early 2000's and Ainsworth discovers his orginal moulds, dusts them off, and starts selling sets of Stormtrooper armour to order via his website.

Lucasfilm took exception to this and sued Ainsworth in US federal court, and won a $20M summary judgement since Ainsworth did not defend the case... but Ainsworth's business was solely based in the UK, and he had no residency or other presence in the US, Lucasfilm was quite unable to collect their money. After all, the US civil courts have no real power over non-resident aliens.

The sole remaining option open to Lucasfilm was to sue Ainsworth in his home country - which they did - but, because of the differences between US and UK intellectual property laws, Lucasfilm lost their case, which was ruled on by the Supreme Court in the UK.

Ainsworth still trades to this day, with the sole consequence of his US judgement being that he can't ship his creations to anyone with a US zip code.

If you're interested in a longer read about this specific case, head to https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12910683
Title: Re: another copytrack letter
Post by: Matthew Chan on September 08, 2018, 04:20:53 PM
You should absolutely notify the collection agency that this is NOT a debt and the circumstances surrounding this supposed debt.  Further, you should inform them if they do not correct this situation, you will report them under the rules for FDCPA and possibly pursue litigation as allowed in the FDCPA for mischaracterizing a copyright claim as a debt. They are not the same.

It matters whether you intend to get a loan or not. Collection accounts can become a problem because accounts are sold like a commodity. It will make the rounds to different agencies and one day, one will misreport it to your credit report.

There have been been bad actors who got themselves a LOT OF BAD PUBLICITY because they tried to transform non debt claims into debts. It doesn't work that way. If someone tried it with me, it would blow up in their face because FDCPA is very clear in these matters.

A copyright claim is NEVER a debt no matter how many ways they say it is.

You need to stop having conversations and start writing and documenting. Your mistake is you keep speaking to them on the phone when you should be writing your responses. You have clearly inflamed them and they are foolishly lashing out at you in hopes of taking advantage of your lack of knowledge in legal matters.

Copytrack may not give a shit about it because they operate outside the US but the collection agency should care very much because they are in the U.S. and can face unintended consequences.

They sent this to  Recoverable Management Services  out of Columbus OH.  They left me a voicemail and I ignored that and they sent a letter now saying I have 30 days to dispute the debt.  I wonder if I should continue to ignore this as I don't see how they might have a case.

I don't ever plan on getting a loan but I'm not crazy about the idea of the invalid debt on my score either.

Some issues that kind of make it more nuanced:
I also understand that copyright may have a 3 year time limit for them to begin a lawsuit which should have passed as the image was originally published on a blog over 3 year ago.
There is also the fair use issue which I think is strong and Copytrack got pretty disrespectful and vulgar with me over email and I asked them to cease communications which they ignored and I also asked that they don't hire third parties to communicate on their behalf since this is clearly not an example of copyright infringement or I would consider that harassment I also added in that I don't see their case as an attempt to collect a valid debt.  Obviously they ignored that as well.  They are asserting I owe $1500 for a single image and it's an image that is used over 100 times online that the original photographer spent money to distribute publicly on pinterest so that he could attempt to sue people and on pinterest I've seen the image attributed to another photographer who is from the US and not the person they claim took the image.
Title: Re: another copytrack letter
Post by: Matthew Chan on September 08, 2018, 04:28:55 PM
If it were me, I would tell the to pound sand. German laws don't apply to U.S. citizens who don't live or visit Germany. And if they feel so strongly, they can go waste their money and file a lawsuit in any court against a US citizen living and working in the US to enforce German law. Stop wasting your time arguing with these fools.

Even the copytrack employee agreed it was fair use.  Their argument was that fair use doesn't apply in Germany.
Title: Re: another copytrack letter
Post by: Matthew Chan on September 08, 2018, 04:40:09 PM
Actually, collection agencies can wrongfully tag your credit. Many collection agencies have a mechanism to report collection accounts. Collection agencies are supposed to verify before reporting to credit agencies but that frequently doesn't happen due to intentional or unintentional oversight. It happens a lot with unethical collection agencies.  It happens very frequently, more than you think.

The good news is the credit agencies have been legally spanked over the years to properly comply with certain rules when people report and contest negative entries on their credit report. If one contests a questionable entry by a collection agency, the credit agency is then required to get a response from the collection agent. If they don't respond in a timely or appropriate manner, the entry is automatically removed. Unfortunately, it falls upon the credit holder to know these things and act upon them.

I know of NO ONE besides myself (and I know a wide variety of people of various socio-economic and educational backgrounds in different professions) who regularly pulls and reviews their own credit report and scores on a regular basis.

And most people don't have the first clue to contest an incorrect entry on their credit report even if they were to pull and identify it.

Credit reporting, monitoring, and management is sadly still considered similar to the mystic arts even with the various free resources such as CreditKarma which is freely available to anyone to check on a weekly basis.

Copytrack calling it a debt is flat out wrong.  I think Robert is correct, it probably does implicate the FDCPA and whatever state law equivalent exists in your state. 

They cannot touch your credit. 
Title: Re: another copytrack letter
Post by: snookypookums on February 07, 2019, 02:39:15 PM
I too have just received a letter--now the 2nd one. I responded asking them for proof that the owner of the image will actually receive funds, and for proof that they are not just some webcrawler making bank while the actual owners of images (whether infringed or not) are unawares. My case is very similar to Dave101's. Same situation--I found the image on Facebook with a misleading caption, and I decided to share it on my science communication blog explaining why that image was misleading and how it contributes to the ignorance of the masses. Frankly, I didn't know there was some possible "in the public interest" kind of 'defense'. Anyway, I ignored the first email because I was suspicious, but went ahead and removed the blog containing the image altogether (it was from an old business that I haven't practiced in 5 years).  I also wondered if it was possible that some internet co. allegedly based in Germany would have any jurisdiction over me outside of Germany. Got the second email today, to which I replied as I stated above: "Put me in touch with the actual owner of the image, and THEN we'll talk." They can get someone to call all they want--the address and phone number on the page/blog are nearly 5 years old and no longer valid. I guess I'll keep ignoring them and using the advice I see above. If I hadn't forwarded the email on the page to a current email, they would never have reached me. And I'm assuming they're not about to try to get records from my country to find out where I am at present. Very glad to have found this site! I decided to google, "Copytrack scam" and this forum was at the top of the list!
Title: Re: another copytrack letter
Post by: CuFil_Z on February 17, 2019, 08:38:41 PM
I also got a letter from copytrack for the 2 photos of beaches in my country. I removed the photos from our company website and decided not to reply to any of their complaint letters of copytrack. I got a total of 3 letters. They never received any letter from me. And they eventually stopped.

If it is of help to anyone who got a letter from copytrack, here's a letter I got from a lawyer who specializes in International law>>

>>Hi again! I wanted to let you know I finally caught up with one of the partners in the firm where I work, a guy who has lots of experience with intellectual property law, He said basically the same thing I already told you: The burden is on Copytrack to prove that they own a copyright that you have violated, and if they want to pursue it, they'll have to bring the case in your jurisdiction (meaning the country where you're from). It's anyone's guess as to whether they think it's worth pursuing. The amount of money they're asking from you (read: trying to extort) may be a lot to you, but for a large corporation, it's pocket change.

The guy I talked to also had two additional insights: 1) copyright law is quite strict concerning liability, that is, if Copytrack can prove to a court that they own the copyright and you violated it, then you would have to pay whatever the law says for the violation (this is where you would need to consult a local lawyer, who can tell you what the local law says concerning copyright violation and how much that might cost). However, it is very uncommon in Finland, for example, for a court to award attorney's fees and costs to the winning party. So what I take from this is that if Copytrack takes the trouble to sue in a local court AND they manage to prove all of the above, then you would have to pay damages for the violation, but not necessarily their lawyers fees and costs (if they're threatening you with that).

The second insight I got from the guy I know is this: The more time passes, the less likely Copytrack will take any action. If you decide to simply not respond, they may not carry through on their threats, just because it's a lot of trouble to go through in order to collect what for them is a very small amount of money. You would then have to decide how you feel about not having any closure to the matter.

It does seem quite shady that Copytrack refuses to release the name of the actual copyright owner, or to produce the documentation saying the owner has transferred the copyright to them. That's the first thing they need to  be able to prove their case. Also, the lawyer I talked to has never heard of Copytrack, so I can't tell you what kind of reputation they have. You can decide what to make of that.

In any case, I think the best you can do is consult a local lawyer who can tell you what the penalty for this particular violation is under your country law (and whether it's less than Copytrack is demanding), and then decide which course of action to take.<<

This letter brought light to my situation with Copytrack. I'm guessing, Copytrack can tell if you're a person who would easily take their bait. They must have earned a lot of money from people who responded to their threat. But think about it, why would they spend thousands of dollars to pursue someone and just get a few hundred dollars in return? They will have to spend lawyer's fees. Besides, if Copyright has no office in a concerned country, they will have to send their own people, spend for his airfare, hotel accommodations, and in-country expenses just to pursue "pocket change". Doesn't make sense, does it?