Earlier this year, LowEndBox got an email out of the blue about an offer we ran for HostSailor back on December 7, 2014.

The email was a very stern letter from a company called COPYTRACK:

COPYTRACK has been helping creative people and companies to protect their image copyrights since 2015. As one of the world’s leading companies for digital image licences and copyrights, we have processed over 1 million cases of unlicensed image use to date and subsequently licensed and legally enforced a large number of them.

Our customer, YayImages has commissioned us to support the protection and enforcement of the image rights held in its favour.

According to the information provided to us, you may be using one or more images (hereinafter referred to as the “image material”) in respect of which our customer holds the relevant rights of use and is authorised to enforce them, potentially without a corresponding licence. In particular, no licence could be identified for the following use…

It referenced this post.  I looked and it’s pretty obvious what happened:

• HostSailor used an image on their web site, either as part of a template or an image they bought.
• @mpkossen took a screenshot of HostSailor’s site and used it in the LEB post

I decided that if they were that upset about an image we used 12 years ago, fine, we’ll remove it.  So I did.  (You can see the archived version on archive.org).  I thought nothing more about it.

But the emails kept coming:

To reiterate, we didn’t use a YAY Images directly.  We used a screenshot of the HostSailor web site which may have this image.

Also worth noting that even if we did use a YAY Images file, there is absolutely no way Copytrack – or YAY Images for that matter – could know if we have a license.  In the past when I’ve bought stock from iStockPhoto or other sites, you agree to terms, pay the money, and then download the file.  These sites never ask you “now input the URL where this image will be used”.  If even YAY Images wouldn’t know where a file was used, how could Copytrack?

Needless to say, this is very legally dubious ground.  It’s also not how actual lawyers operate.

I read up on Copytrack a bit.  They apparently scour the Internet and flood web site owners with these bogus copyright complaints.  They may or may not be acting on behalf of the art publishers they say they’re representing.

Here’s a good summary from a Reddit comment:

It’s a scam. They tried to do it to us with a public domain image. They just reverse image search which is how they end up with your domain / try to extort money. They’re just hoping for low hanging fruit / easy pay days.

Things you’ll notice when dealing with these types:

• You will usually deal with a ‘License Specialist’ or some other vague title instead of them claiming to be an actual lawyer. That’s because the lawyers (if there are any) require instructions from their clients to move forward with a legitimate case, spending legitimate time to chase down the copyright aspect. We had a ‘legitimate’ company go after us once but it stalled out when it came time to actually try suing us. Not to say it couldn’t happen, just that it requires effort that most of the time they won’t proceed with. In our case we just took the image off our site and that was it.
• If you say you can’t afford it, they will try to barter with you on the settlement price. This isn’t how legitimate settlements take place in courts.
• They will use pressure tactics in the email and make it sound like you can’t get out of the situation without giving them money. I suppose that’s a given even with legal situations but it’s a bit predatory – if you see it you’d understand what I’m talking about.
• The jurisdiction usually comes from somewhere outside your country. Not to say it’s impossible to be sued that way, but it’s a clue that they wouldn’t be prepared to usually if you don’t follow through.
• Ask for proof that they actually hold the copyright of the image that they are claiming to represent. See how they respond to the request – usually evasive.

There are also numerous comments from people who say they bought stock photos from places like iStockPhoto, et al. and then got these Copytrack demands.  Or even people who posted their own pictures they took themselves and were told there was a “Suspicion of Unauthorised Image Use”.

This is one of those “.1% business models”.  If you file 500,000 complaints and only .1% of people take you seriously and pay up, at 500€, you’ve made 250,000€.  Life-changing money in some parts of the world.

Out of 794 reviews on TrustPilot, their score is 1.1 which I think is the lowest you can possibly get there.

Hopefully they’ll be pleased that I didn’t use any images from their web site in creating this post.

raindog308

raindog308 is a longtime community LETizen, technical writer, and self-described techno polymath. With deep roots in the *nix world, he has a passion for systems both modern and vintage, ranging from Unix, Perl, Python, and Golang to shell scripting and mainframe-era operating systems like MVS. He’s equally comfortable with relational database systems, having spent years working with Oracle, PostgreSQL, and MySQL.

As an avid user of LowEndBox providers, raindog308 runs an empire of LEBs, from tiny boxes for VPNs, to mid-sized instances for application hosting, and heavyweight servers for data storage and complex databases. He brings both technical rigor and real-world experience to every piece he writes.

Beyond the command line, raindog308 has a life-long love of German Shepherd Dogs, high-quality knives, target shooting, theology, tabletop RPGs, playing guitar, and hiking in deep, quiet forests.

His goal with every article is to help users, from beginners to seasoned sysadmins, get more value, performance, and enjoyment out of their infrastructure.

You can find him daily in the forums at LowEndTalk under the handle @raindog308.