The Curious Case Of Copyright Infringement Mails From Copytrack
In the realm of digital content, the protection of intellectual property remains a crucial yet contentious issue. However, recent claims and reports involving Copytrack, a (n allegedly) Berlin-based copyright enforcement company, have sparked a heated debate. Allegations of intimidation and extortion through copyright infringement notices sent by the company came to the attention of Timeline as we have received a mail from its CEO Marcus Schmitt demanding compensation for an image we had used in December 2023, and we noticed that individuals and businesses worldwide have raised concerns about the mails from Copytrack.
This Timeline investigation delves into these claims, examining the company’s practices, its critics’ assertions, and the broader implications for copyright law enforcement.
Copytrack’s Modus Operandi
Copytrack positions itself as a defender of creators’ rights, boasting over 200,000 cases of image theft managed since its inception in 2015. Its stated mission is to help photographers, artists, and brands secure remuneration for the use of their copyrighted images. However, the company’s method of operation, as revealed in a recent email sent to GreenOcean Internet LLP, Timeline’s parent company, paints a more controversial picture.
The email, signed by Copytrack CEO Marcus Schmitt, accused GreenOcean Internet LLP of using an image on their website without proper authorisation. The alleged infringement pertained to an image used in a 2023 article. The email offered two options for resolution: purchasing a retroactive license for €550.09 or paying €500 as compensation for past use, with a deadline for compliance. Failure to comply, the email warned, would result in potential legal action.
When we dug up the nature of such notices and mails online, we realised that the nature and the content of these communications have prompted mixed reactions, with some acknowledging the importance of protecting creators’ rights and others questioning the ethicality and legality of Copytrack’s approach.
Accusations of Cyber Extortion
Rakesh Raman, an award-winning journalist and founder of the RMN Foundation, has been a vocal critic of Copytrack. In a detailed complaint to Berlin Police, Raman accused Schmitt and Copytrack of running a “cyber extortion racket.” Raman alleged that Copytrack sends intimidating emails demanding hefty payments without adequately establishing copyright ownership or providing a fair opportunity to address the claims.
According to Raman, Copytrack’s practices often target small businesses and individuals who lack the resources to contest the claims. He recounted an instance where Copytrack demanded payment for an image used on his website nine years prior. Despite his claims that the image was obtained from a press release and credited appropriately, Copytrack insisted on payment. Raman’s complaint described this approach as “financial terrorism” and called for immediate legal action against the company.
Community Responses and Testimonials
Discussions on platforms like Reddit corroborate many of Raman’s allegations. One user described their experience with Copytrack as “a scam,” explaining how the company demanded payment for a public domain image. Another user reported receiving a demand for nearly $400 for a photo uploaded in 2013, adding that Copytrack’s representatives employed pressure tactics to extract payment.
“They just reverse image search and hope for low-hanging fruit,” a Redditor claimed. “If you ignore them or ask for proof of copyright ownership, they often back off.” Another user advised taking down the allegedly infringing image to avoid further complications, noting that Copytrack seldom pursued legal action.
One striking case involved former White House photographer Pete Souza, who received a copyright infringement notice for a photo he had taken himself. The incident, widely reported in the media, highlighted potential flaws in Copytrack’s automated detection system.
The Thin Line Between Enforcement and Exploitation
Critics argue that Copytrack’s methods exploit legal grey areas in copyright law. By targeting small-scale publishers and individuals, the company capitalises on their limited ability to challenge claims. This approach, while technically legal, raises ethical questions about the balance between enforcing copyright and ensuring fairness.
Copytrack’s email to GreenOcean Internet LLP, for example, lacked essential details about the copyright holder’s licensing agreements and provided no evidence of direct authorisation to act on the client’s behalf. This lack of transparency, critics argue, undermines the legitimacy of the claims and casts doubt on the company’s intentions.
Legal and Jurisdictional Concerns
A significant point of contention is Copytrack’s reliance on international copyright laws to demand payments across borders. While copyright laws vary by jurisdiction, enforcing claims internationally often involves complex legal processes. Critics argue that Copytrack’s threats of legal action are often hollow, as pursuing cross-border litigation is costly and time-consuming.
For instance, Raman’s complaint pointed out that German courts lack jurisdiction over individuals residing outside Germany. Furthermore, he argued that claims involving “fair use”—a legal doctrine protecting the use of copyrighted material for purposes like commentary or news reporting—should not result in financial demands.
Copytrack’s Perspective
Copytrack, for its part, defends its practices as necessary to uphold creators’ rights in an era of rampant online infringement. The company’s website states that unauthorised use of images causes significant financial harm to creators and that its services aim to address this issue effectively.
In an interview with Anand Narayanaswamy’s netans.com in 2019, Marcus Schmitt said:
“We have a high-performance crawler, searching up to 5000 pages per second and an AI image matching engine. Both ensure a high number of hits at very high accuracy. In case of an immediate settlement, the photographers receive 70% of the amount and if we had to take legal steps they receive 55% of the result.”
“We deliver the use of the images worldwide. Only the owner can decide if the use is illegal. We provide a bunch of filters in order to make this efficient for the user. Once detected, the user can simply submit the case to us by clicking a button. Photographers nowadays can almost not make a living anymore, because 80% of the images online are stolen. Hence, our system will keep track of the offenders and punish them. The end result is passed on the beneficiary photographer who worked hard behind the scenes,” he added.
However, Copytrack has not directly addressed the allegations of extortion. Its generic responses often emphasise the importance of respecting copyright laws but fail to engage with specific criticisms. This perceived lack of accountability has further fuelled public distrust.
The Broader Implications
The controversy surrounding Copytrack highlights broader challenges in the enforcement of digital copyright laws. Automated systems, while efficient, are prone to errors, as evidenced by the Souza incident and similar cases reported online. Without proper oversight, such systems risk falsely implicating innocent parties.
Moreover, the fear of financial penalties can discourage small publishers from using images altogether, stifling creativity and innovation. As one Reddit user remarked, “It’s becoming increasingly risky to use any image, even when you believe it’s safe to do so.”
The allegations against Copytrack underscore the need for reforms in copyright enforcement. Transparency, accountability, and fairness must be central to any mechanism aimed at protecting intellectual property rights. Legal experts advocate for clearer guidelines on the use of automated detection tools and stricter regulations to prevent misuse.
(Disclaimer: Here, for this story, Timeline has used the logo of Copytrack taken from their website. It is a normal practice among publishers to use the logo of any company when write about them.)
