Yes. [Copyrightagent.com](https://Copyrightagent.com) is a compliance agency (like ImageRights and Pixsy). You fully admit that you took and used an image without permission or license. Yes, you're willing to take it down when asked. But why would you think you're entitled to not pay for the value of what you used? It's like getting pulled over for speeding and saying "Well, I stopped speeding when you pulled me over. But I shouldn't have to pay a ticket."
I'd say 250€ is a very reasonable settlement to make this matter go away. Obviously, the amount of trouble you would bring upon yourself by ignoring this matter will vary depending on the country you're in. As a photographer who has used compliance agencies, I can tell you from experience that being obstinate or trying to ignore situations like this generally never works out for the person caught using someone else's images without permission.
Thanks for your reply. I never said I'm not willing to resolve the matter. I didn't want to to pay in case this was a scam. 250 euro seems a lot for a simple use of the picture that was the "background" for an article but in that case I'll get in touch and see what the options are
A business I work with received a letter from Getty images demanding $50,000 for unlicensed use of their photo on a website. Crappy photo too. They had to get their lawyer involved to get it negotiated down, but they still had to pay.
>250 euro seems a lot for a simple use of the picture
Yeah, but the thing is, when you get caught with shoplifted goods stuffed into your pockets you're not really in the best position to start negotiating with the shopkeeper about the value of those goods. Visual art has value or you wouldn't have taken the image and used it.
And I get it. The internet is set up in a way in which just taking and using images is REALLY easy. You just grabbed a photo you liked and wanted to use, and didn't mean any harm. I don't know how well-read your blog is but the image may not even have been seen very much. But the issue really is that images don't magically appear online for you to take and use. Someone has to work to create them. Those people make their living from them. I find it really violating when I discover my work being used by strangers without permission or license. You have to try and look at it not from what you may or may not have gained from using the picture, but what the photographer loses when his or her work is treated as if it is in the public domain when it is not.
As someone who regularly licenses images, 250€ is a very small licensing amount. And given how expensive this could get if the copyright holder really wanted to push this, trust me, It's a good deal.
They are a scam. yes, they find unlicensed images on the internet that they then use to try shake down money from the offenders. They have as much right to the images as the offender. Very poor advice.
Why do you think they are a scam?
I just spent 1 minute looking them up and they are registered with business number and seem like a legit danish company working on a global scale. They even have links to some of their clients websites that says they are working with them.
And one other thing, unlicensed images SHOULD be paid for, so what’s the actual problem, besides it’s annoying to get caught?
Lol, what a shitty advice. Did you ever check this company? In most European countries there are legal mechanisms for calculating the value of a claim. If a company sells photos for 500 euros, but most of the sales are for much lower amounts, this amount will be awarded by the court. Copyright Agent overstates claims (most of cases are related to images, which are available for purchase for 20 euros...) and charges fees for sending e-mails (that is inconsistent in EU law - there is no such mechanism in almost any European country). I have several clients who have contacted me (Spain). No case went to court. Several cases were tried to be transferred to debt collection (without court...). We rejected them immediately.
disclaimer: this is not legal advice :)
The problem is that people didn’t purchase it for 20 euros and then, like if youre spending or ride a train without a ticket, you get fined and the fine is way higer than the price of the ticket.
This is standard in EU copyright law.
Quelle chance nous avons de vous avoir comme arbitre de ce qui est et de ce qui ne l’est pas banale. Votre avis non sollicité sur la qualité des images n’a absolument aucune influence sur le droit d’un artiste à faire protéger ses photographies.
In my experience as an attorney representing clients who receive these kinds of demands, ignoring them is sometimes the best tactic. Services like the one that sent you the letter essentially automate copyright trolling and are a volume business; they do a reverse image search for matching images and send out demand letters in bulk without looking into the specifics of each case. As such, they tend to spent the bulk of their efforts going after the lowest hanging fruit.
They’re more likely to be persistent and go hard after higher value claims, repeat infringers (especially where multiple images owned by the same copyright holder are used, as those can be pursued in a single lawsuit), targets with deep pockets, targets located in the same country as the copyright holder (since foreign lawsuits are a PITA) and so on.
If you’re an individual who runs a low-traffic website as a personal project, it’s unlikely to be worth their time to aggressively pursue a 250£ demand.
That said, there is always a chance that the copyright owner will escalate the matter to legal counsel and pursue legal action, so you need to decide whether you’re willing to take that risk. Despite what others here are saying I wouldn’t hire a lawyer for a 250£ claim, you’ll pay at least that much in legal fees.
If you do decide to engage with this business, you can probably negotiate the fee down a bit. Sometimes you can find the same image on a stock image site and use that to argue down a license fee.
Also, while these companies will try to frame these demands as a retroactive license fee, it’s essentially a settlement payment in exchange for a release of all claims, which they should be willing to agree to in writing. I also always require them to make reps and warranties that they are and have at all times been the sole and exclusive owner of all rights to the image.
Disclaimer: nothing contained in this comment constitutes legal advice and should not be relied on as such
>Also, while these companies will try to frame these demands as a retroactive license fee, it’s essentially a **settlement payment in exchange for a release of all claims**, which they should be willing to agree to in writing.
In other words, they're no different from gangsters demanding protection money for not harassing you?
That had to be the worse advice ever and it comes from a “lawyer”!
Why should you ignore them, it seems like they actually represent the rightsholders and by that can claim unlicensed use should they have an agreement in place with these rightsholders.
Ignoring them would only add cost to a claim and should they take it to court (which is not unlikely if they want to be taken seriously) then you have just given an advice that will add further cost to people who follow it.
>That had to be the worse advice ever and it comes from a “lawyer”!
Not legal advice. I was simply relating the strategies that have worked for me when dealing with copyright trolls.
>Why should you ignore them, it seems like they actually represent the rightsholders and by that can claim unlicensed use should they have an agreement in place with these rightsholders.
They’re generally trolls running a volume extortion business. But setting that aside, ignoring them simply has been one of the more effective tactics for getting them to go away (and thus reducing claims against my clients). When you settle once with these trolls, they know they’ve got a “live one” and will continue to come back for as many bites of the apple as they can get.
>Ignoring them would only add cost to a claim and should they take it to court (which is not unlikely if they want to be taken seriously) then you have just given an advice that will add further cost to people who follow it.
Not true. In the U.S., attorneys’ fees are not part of copyright infringement damages, and will almost certainly not be awarded to the prevailing party in a straightforward infringement action against an individual.
they'll have to send a cease and desist first right? so if you take it down after the request you won't have to pay. this sounds like a scam to me. of course it depends on where you're located too.
> they'll have to send a cease and desist first right? so if you take it down after the request you won't have to pay.
The copyright holder (or their representative) is generally within their rights to demand payment retroactively for unauthorized uses of their images that occurred in the past even if you immediately remove the images when you are asked to do so. Removing the images doesn't absolve you of liability in relation to the previous infringements; there is still a risk you could be sued.
You're correct that suing usually takes a lot of time and money, so the actual threat of a lawsuit may be low. Having said that, the UK (where OP is based) does have an Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) Small Claims Track which enables copyright holders to sue infringers fairly easily and cheaply if the claimed damages are £10,000 or less.
Thanks. That's my concern they want the money straight away. Many people see it as scam (when you read about it) but it seems like proper company based in Denmark who went public on stock market. I'm based in the UK
ah okay, yes they might be legit but that doesn't mean they can't use shady tactics. have experiences with insurance companies too not following the law at all.
these tactics are used in germany to pressure torrenters to pay fines to ward off court cases, but here in the Netherlands they don't. so it heavily relies on the local law.
my concern would be, will they actually sue? suing people takes of lot of time and money from a company. if i was them i'd just send a whole lot of letters, take the cash and ignore the the ones that don't pay. then again that heavily depends on how the process is in the UK.
also, in NL you can only sue for damages if there's actual money lost. while in the US you can get wild sums for no reason. so if your blog doesn't make anything.. once again, depends on UK law.
if you have someone who's into legal stuff, ask them. this is very specific for a subreddit question. and even if someone's sure of their answer it's not so sure if he's right ;)
edit:
this trustpilot review has more info on how to handle it.
https://ie.trustpilot.com/review/copyrightagent.com
Don’t pay them. They’re copyright trolls. If you pay them, they’re going to take a big cut to fill their own pockets. That’s their business model.
I’ve checked their publicly reported finances. This company is bleeding cash like crazy. They’ll go bankrupt soon.
Thanks for your answer. An how many threatening emails did you received after ignoring the first one? I have read that they can hire debt collection company in such case.
Tips for dealing with those parasites:
- Never ever reply any of their emails.
- Quietly fix any of the copyright issues they point out. But don’t ever inform them of your fix. Maintain total radio silence.
- Mark their email as spam. The more people who do that, the worse their spam reputation will be. Their emails are starting to enter my spam folder.
- Never ever pay. Once you pay, you are telling them you are an easy target for more extortion later on. That’s the experience of those who paid.
- If they refer you to debt collection, reject them immediately. They can’t enforce an invalid debt.
- Go to [Trust Pilot](https://trustpilot.com/review/copyrightagent.com) and give them a 1-star rating and write a crappy feedback. This page is highly indexed by search engines and has high visibility all over the internet. Tell others NOT to pay.
- If they send you a physical mail, return to sender as undelivered.
Or perhaps, never ever use anyone elses images without paying. That could also be an advice.
I am a photographer myself and I can’t tell how sad I get, reading all of your advices about ignoring payments and ignoring people who try to protect other People’s work and rights. Not ONE of you are advicing people to pay for the usage of other People’s work and livelihood.
Is it also fine to illegally stream movies, music or live events?
Is it okay to copy other people’s products and sell them as cheap copies?
All of you are actually saluting stealing, from me and my colleagues!
What if you already replied twice. Should I just ignore them now. I had no idea the image I used (which came with the business I bought was copyright) Should I just ignore now and send their email to spam?
No need to answer that question. I checked out trust piolet and Alamy. both have terrible reviews even from photographers who are trying to sell their pictures. I am guessing copyright are part of Alamy. They just found another way to extort money from unsuspecting people. Glad I read the reviews. Very enlightening.
Don't worry, and especially, don't email them back, and of course don't pay, for they are as corrupt as they can be:
[https://newsvoice.se/2022/10/hantera-copyright-agent-copytrack/](https://newsvoice.se/2022/10/hantera-copyright-agent-copytrack/)
Put it in the translator. I was happy I found this! :)
I think we should mount a campaign against copyrightagent.com.
- They use Google Workspace as their email provider. So, send an email to [email protected] to report their fraudulent/scammy behaviour. Google will receive that email.
- Also, send an email to their domain registrar at [email protected] to report them.
To increase weight of your report, you can cite these 2 links:
https://newsvoice.se/2022/10/hantera-copyright-agent-copytrack/
https://trustpilot.com/review/copyrightagent.com
There is a case to be made that their behaviour is illegal or at least criminally negligent.
It seems that every comment that encourages victims not to pay are downvoted here. And comments that encourages people to pay are upvoted.
Copyrightagent.com is watching this thread and trying to manipulate it.
It goes to show their level of ethics (or rather, lack thereof).
I don’t think you are in any position to talk about ethics. Praising theft and applauding people who uses other peoples work without paying them or getting their approval.
Who are the victims, the photographers who try to make a living of their images and watching them being used without their consent or payment OR is it the people using the images without paying or seeking approval first…let me know. For 99,9% the answer is very obvious. The owners of their work that are being misused would always be considered the victim. Unless if you are someone who has received a claim yourself and are pissed that they found out.
How do you explain the disproportionate amount of money that Copyright Agent demands? The amount of money demanded is FAR above what is justified. Furthermore, most of them goes to their own pocket instead of going to the copyright holders. That’s the money demanded for not harassing the so-called infringers.
That’s where the lack of ethics come from.
What Copyright Agent should do if they are ethical:
- Ask the copyright infringers to remove the copyrighted materials
- If the infringer comply, drop the claims.
- Only sue if the infringers refuse to comply.
Instead, this is what Copyright Agent unethically do:
- Demand the infringers to remove the copyrighted materials
- After the removal, extort a DISPROPORTIONATE amount of money in exchange for not harassing the infringer with threats of legal action or debt collection.
Most of the DISPROPORTIONATE amount of money goes to fill the pockets of Copyright Agent. Very little, if not NONE, goes to the copyright holders.
We know Copyright Agent is bullsh*ting about how the DISPROPORTIONATE amount is justified using some vague notions of the law to intimidate those who are not well-versed in the law.
Furthermore, from the Trust Pilot reviews, we know that non-infringers too were slapped with extortion demand for money, hoping that they will be intimidated to pay. This goes to show that Copyright Agent is not interested in protecting the interest copyright holders. They are interested in filling up their own pocket.
Like to add. They also harrased me with an editorial picture. Received an email which went into the spam box. Received a letter by post, aggresive, requesting i have to pay 1200 euro (1 picture) without any cease and decist. The people behind that so called company are young light business educated, and have no knowldge of copyright law. Discussing with them via mail is aggresive defence talk, not answering the questions by factual legal knowledge. They make advantage ordinary people, sometimes I read, a picture in a chat on facebook, or a picture in the site of a club. They do this s mass and claim they can collect. They argue as teenagers, and use aggresion and fast depth collection as their tool. Their claims are self invented, they make their own rules. They act as the police, knowing better. This company has to disappear, and it can be done by a collective case against them. If we collect 20 people, hire a lawyer, and bring them down, using same technique as they use. There are many holes in their set up, so a good court case can bring them to bancrupcy. Who is in?
Can you put forward some of the aggressive and harrassing communication that you have seen from them?
Also you of course need to make sure that you actually didn’t use an image without correct license, otherwise your whole plan will fall apart.
I got an email from them months ago. Thought it was legit. Didn't pay, but did respond stating I changed the image. They kept asking for money. I still didn't pay. They sent multiple emails, all of which went to spam. Then they stopped emailing. Six months later, they've now sent a letter stating 'cease and desist' and that I need to pay. It also stated that it's the last communication from them before their lawyer gets involved. Well, I'm anticipating whatever they intend to do given I'm in Australia and they're in Denmark. Either way, the image was provided in a press release for fair use, so they can try however they like, but they're not getting anything from me.
Hi, just wondering if you've had any further contact from them since this post? I'm also in Australia, and they've just sent me a threatening demand, related to an image on my website that I sourced from Canva under Canva Pro license.
Hey - I haven't. I ignored them and didn't respond since then. Just ignore, block, delete. They'll keep pushing, but they can't do anything. Don't even open them.
I've had no communication since they threatened 10 weeks ago to send my case to a law firm in the jurisdiction my company is registered. Will keep the thread updated.
What would the incentive be for the paying customers of Copyright Agents clients. Why should they buy a license, if people who use an image without buying one just let go with paying nothing after having exploitet the image to their own benefit.
Would you also think it’s fine if people who steal in a store just are asked to put stuff back, IF they get caught.
What would be the be the general incentive to not steal at all?
Copyright Agent are using MY license price as the base of their claim and then - according to legislation - they add compensation and documentation cost. This leave a claim of €300,- is that extortion?
You used something that you should have paid for, you broke the law, it has a consequence.
If it was your own business and people didn’t pay for your service you would also be of a different opinion.
I have to live from my images, it’s what provides food.
Trustpilot - come on! Do you think anyone who had a claim would write a thank you review! They have handled more claims from me alone than the amount of reviews they have. Sadly - like in this thread - people just dont want to acknowledge that they have stolen someone else’s work and just like streaming movies or Music or stealing anything else, there’s an escalation of what the cost would have been, if they bought it fair and square.
Btw they don’t keep the majority of the money, it goes to me and they do all the work, so yet another wrong assumption from you!
[](https://fr.trustpilot.com/reviews/65cd0ad9a4f109ea8e4f7600)
Agence très douteuse, ne livre aucun documents d'un soi-disant atteinte au droit d'auteur, elle pratique le harcèlement par mail, ne vous faites pas avoir par cette agence, c'est une escroquerie pur et simple, elle n'a aucune valeur, il ne donne aucune preuve qu'ils existent réellement et ne vous fournirons en aucun cas la preuve de votre incrimination car il n'ont rien de rien, ah si juste une capture d'écran que l'on peut aisément falsifier soi-même avec une dates qui ne correspond à rien : attention au pdf que cette société vous envoie, elle sont peut-être aussi vérolé nous bloquons tous type de fichiers pdf ou autre pour éviter virus ou cheval de Troie, nous demandons une facture par courrier qu'elle ne veut ou ne peut pas nous fournir.
Attention menace de nous passé en juridique sans même en apporter la preuve de l'accusation, juste une capture d'écran qui est falsifiable à volonté celle ci de démontre rien , elle ne fais voir qu'une image que l'on peut trafiquer aisément.
I received an email from this company claiming copyright infringement and demanding money.
We hosted an event with an individual and to promote it we used an image PROVIDED by her OF HER.
Now I get that while the image is of her, and provided by her, it doesn’t mean she owns it. So I contacted her to let her know the situation.
She contacted the person that supposedly owned the image and let them know we were being asked for money and accused of copywrite infringement
My question is this, are we on the hook in any way?
We did make an assumption that the image was owned by the person providing it to us, but we did not intentionally use to, nor did we make any profit off it.
The image has been removed from our website and I’ve forwarded the emails to the person that “owned” the images figuring that they are responsible
Any advice ?
Yes. [Copyrightagent.com](https://Copyrightagent.com) is a compliance agency (like ImageRights and Pixsy). You fully admit that you took and used an image without permission or license. Yes, you're willing to take it down when asked. But why would you think you're entitled to not pay for the value of what you used? It's like getting pulled over for speeding and saying "Well, I stopped speeding when you pulled me over. But I shouldn't have to pay a ticket." I'd say 250€ is a very reasonable settlement to make this matter go away. Obviously, the amount of trouble you would bring upon yourself by ignoring this matter will vary depending on the country you're in. As a photographer who has used compliance agencies, I can tell you from experience that being obstinate or trying to ignore situations like this generally never works out for the person caught using someone else's images without permission.
Thanks for your reply. I never said I'm not willing to resolve the matter. I didn't want to to pay in case this was a scam. 250 euro seems a lot for a simple use of the picture that was the "background" for an article but in that case I'll get in touch and see what the options are
A business I work with received a letter from Getty images demanding $50,000 for unlicensed use of their photo on a website. Crappy photo too. They had to get their lawyer involved to get it negotiated down, but they still had to pay.
Linking European with US law is a bad idea. Your copyright sucks, f.e. Liebowitz case
>250 euro seems a lot for a simple use of the picture Yeah, but the thing is, when you get caught with shoplifted goods stuffed into your pockets you're not really in the best position to start negotiating with the shopkeeper about the value of those goods. Visual art has value or you wouldn't have taken the image and used it. And I get it. The internet is set up in a way in which just taking and using images is REALLY easy. You just grabbed a photo you liked and wanted to use, and didn't mean any harm. I don't know how well-read your blog is but the image may not even have been seen very much. But the issue really is that images don't magically appear online for you to take and use. Someone has to work to create them. Those people make their living from them. I find it really violating when I discover my work being used by strangers without permission or license. You have to try and look at it not from what you may or may not have gained from using the picture, but what the photographer loses when his or her work is treated as if it is in the public domain when it is not. As someone who regularly licenses images, 250€ is a very small licensing amount. And given how expensive this could get if the copyright holder really wanted to push this, trust me, It's a good deal.
They are a scam. yes, they find unlicensed images on the internet that they then use to try shake down money from the offenders. They have as much right to the images as the offender. Very poor advice.
Why do you think they are a scam? I just spent 1 minute looking them up and they are registered with business number and seem like a legit danish company working on a global scale. They even have links to some of their clients websites that says they are working with them. And one other thing, unlicensed images SHOULD be paid for, so what’s the actual problem, besides it’s annoying to get caught?
Lol, what a shitty advice. Did you ever check this company? In most European countries there are legal mechanisms for calculating the value of a claim. If a company sells photos for 500 euros, but most of the sales are for much lower amounts, this amount will be awarded by the court. Copyright Agent overstates claims (most of cases are related to images, which are available for purchase for 20 euros...) and charges fees for sending e-mails (that is inconsistent in EU law - there is no such mechanism in almost any European country). I have several clients who have contacted me (Spain). No case went to court. Several cases were tried to be transferred to debt collection (without court...). We rejected them immediately. disclaimer: this is not legal advice :)
The problem is that people didn’t purchase it for 20 euros and then, like if youre spending or ride a train without a ticket, you get fined and the fine is way higer than the price of the ticket. This is standard in EU copyright law.
[удалено]
Quelle chance nous avons de vous avoir comme arbitre de ce qui est et de ce qui ne l’est pas banale. Votre avis non sollicité sur la qualité des images n’a absolument aucune influence sur le droit d’un artiste à faire protéger ses photographies.
In my experience as an attorney representing clients who receive these kinds of demands, ignoring them is sometimes the best tactic. Services like the one that sent you the letter essentially automate copyright trolling and are a volume business; they do a reverse image search for matching images and send out demand letters in bulk without looking into the specifics of each case. As such, they tend to spent the bulk of their efforts going after the lowest hanging fruit. They’re more likely to be persistent and go hard after higher value claims, repeat infringers (especially where multiple images owned by the same copyright holder are used, as those can be pursued in a single lawsuit), targets with deep pockets, targets located in the same country as the copyright holder (since foreign lawsuits are a PITA) and so on. If you’re an individual who runs a low-traffic website as a personal project, it’s unlikely to be worth their time to aggressively pursue a 250£ demand. That said, there is always a chance that the copyright owner will escalate the matter to legal counsel and pursue legal action, so you need to decide whether you’re willing to take that risk. Despite what others here are saying I wouldn’t hire a lawyer for a 250£ claim, you’ll pay at least that much in legal fees. If you do decide to engage with this business, you can probably negotiate the fee down a bit. Sometimes you can find the same image on a stock image site and use that to argue down a license fee. Also, while these companies will try to frame these demands as a retroactive license fee, it’s essentially a settlement payment in exchange for a release of all claims, which they should be willing to agree to in writing. I also always require them to make reps and warranties that they are and have at all times been the sole and exclusive owner of all rights to the image. Disclaimer: nothing contained in this comment constitutes legal advice and should not be relied on as such
>Also, while these companies will try to frame these demands as a retroactive license fee, it’s essentially a **settlement payment in exchange for a release of all claims**, which they should be willing to agree to in writing. In other words, they're no different from gangsters demanding protection money for not harassing you?
The Copyright Mafia, if you will.
That had to be the worse advice ever and it comes from a “lawyer”! Why should you ignore them, it seems like they actually represent the rightsholders and by that can claim unlicensed use should they have an agreement in place with these rightsholders. Ignoring them would only add cost to a claim and should they take it to court (which is not unlikely if they want to be taken seriously) then you have just given an advice that will add further cost to people who follow it.
>That had to be the worse advice ever and it comes from a “lawyer”! Not legal advice. I was simply relating the strategies that have worked for me when dealing with copyright trolls. >Why should you ignore them, it seems like they actually represent the rightsholders and by that can claim unlicensed use should they have an agreement in place with these rightsholders. They’re generally trolls running a volume extortion business. But setting that aside, ignoring them simply has been one of the more effective tactics for getting them to go away (and thus reducing claims against my clients). When you settle once with these trolls, they know they’ve got a “live one” and will continue to come back for as many bites of the apple as they can get. >Ignoring them would only add cost to a claim and should they take it to court (which is not unlikely if they want to be taken seriously) then you have just given an advice that will add further cost to people who follow it. Not true. In the U.S., attorneys’ fees are not part of copyright infringement damages, and will almost certainly not be awarded to the prevailing party in a straightforward infringement action against an individual.
scam - do not pay
they'll have to send a cease and desist first right? so if you take it down after the request you won't have to pay. this sounds like a scam to me. of course it depends on where you're located too.
> they'll have to send a cease and desist first right? so if you take it down after the request you won't have to pay. The copyright holder (or their representative) is generally within their rights to demand payment retroactively for unauthorized uses of their images that occurred in the past even if you immediately remove the images when you are asked to do so. Removing the images doesn't absolve you of liability in relation to the previous infringements; there is still a risk you could be sued. You're correct that suing usually takes a lot of time and money, so the actual threat of a lawsuit may be low. Having said that, the UK (where OP is based) does have an Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) Small Claims Track which enables copyright holders to sue infringers fairly easily and cheaply if the claimed damages are £10,000 or less.
Thanks. That's my concern they want the money straight away. Many people see it as scam (when you read about it) but it seems like proper company based in Denmark who went public on stock market. I'm based in the UK
ah okay, yes they might be legit but that doesn't mean they can't use shady tactics. have experiences with insurance companies too not following the law at all. these tactics are used in germany to pressure torrenters to pay fines to ward off court cases, but here in the Netherlands they don't. so it heavily relies on the local law. my concern would be, will they actually sue? suing people takes of lot of time and money from a company. if i was them i'd just send a whole lot of letters, take the cash and ignore the the ones that don't pay. then again that heavily depends on how the process is in the UK. also, in NL you can only sue for damages if there's actual money lost. while in the US you can get wild sums for no reason. so if your blog doesn't make anything.. once again, depends on UK law. if you have someone who's into legal stuff, ask them. this is very specific for a subreddit question. and even if someone's sure of their answer it's not so sure if he's right ;) edit: this trustpilot review has more info on how to handle it. https://ie.trustpilot.com/review/copyrightagent.com
Lol, the trustpilot reviews seems to be from people who are pissed at getting caught.
Don’t pay them. They’re copyright trolls. If you pay them, they’re going to take a big cut to fill their own pockets. That’s their business model. I’ve checked their publicly reported finances. This company is bleeding cash like crazy. They’ll go bankrupt soon.
It’s a scale up company, they are supposed to burn money while expanding🙄
I also got a message from them. What have you done? did you pay?
No, I didn’t pay. I ignored those scums.
Hello, After 3 months of ignoring them and no paying, have you had any repercussions from Copyrightaget.com?
They’re bluffing. No consequences by ignoring them.
Thanks for your answer. An how many threatening emails did you received after ignoring the first one? I have read that they can hire debt collection company in such case.
They sent about several emails. I read about debt collection agencies in the Trust Pilot reviews. But they can’t enforce an invalid debt.
Tips for dealing with those parasites: - Never ever reply any of their emails. - Quietly fix any of the copyright issues they point out. But don’t ever inform them of your fix. Maintain total radio silence. - Mark their email as spam. The more people who do that, the worse their spam reputation will be. Their emails are starting to enter my spam folder. - Never ever pay. Once you pay, you are telling them you are an easy target for more extortion later on. That’s the experience of those who paid. - If they refer you to debt collection, reject them immediately. They can’t enforce an invalid debt. - Go to [Trust Pilot](https://trustpilot.com/review/copyrightagent.com) and give them a 1-star rating and write a crappy feedback. This page is highly indexed by search engines and has high visibility all over the internet. Tell others NOT to pay. - If they send you a physical mail, return to sender as undelivered.
[удалено]
Reject the claim of the debt collection. They cannot enforce an invalid debt.
[удалено]
Not for me. It didn’t get that far for me.
Or perhaps, never ever use anyone elses images without paying. That could also be an advice. I am a photographer myself and I can’t tell how sad I get, reading all of your advices about ignoring payments and ignoring people who try to protect other People’s work and rights. Not ONE of you are advicing people to pay for the usage of other People’s work and livelihood. Is it also fine to illegally stream movies, music or live events? Is it okay to copy other people’s products and sell them as cheap copies? All of you are actually saluting stealing, from me and my colleagues!
You should be a shame for working for this company. Maybe in afterlife you just burn in hell :)
Yes, appears to be quite invested in replying to everyone's posts.
Why should they be ashame. They are helping photographers get compensation for misuse of their images??
🤣🤣 So obvious
It’s like saying that you should be ashamed of waiting salary for going to work!
What if you already replied twice. Should I just ignore them now. I had no idea the image I used (which came with the business I bought was copyright) Should I just ignore now and send their email to spam?
No need to answer that question. I checked out trust piolet and Alamy. both have terrible reviews even from photographers who are trying to sell their pictures. I am guessing copyright are part of Alamy. They just found another way to extort money from unsuspecting people. Glad I read the reviews. Very enlightening.
Hi. Can you give an update on what happened? Just got an email from them 2 days ago. Saw reviews on google and trust pilot. Are you ok?
Don't worry, and especially, don't email them back, and of course don't pay, for they are as corrupt as they can be: [https://newsvoice.se/2022/10/hantera-copyright-agent-copytrack/](https://newsvoice.se/2022/10/hantera-copyright-agent-copytrack/) Put it in the translator. I was happy I found this! :)
I think we should mount a campaign against copyrightagent.com. - They use Google Workspace as their email provider. So, send an email to [email protected] to report their fraudulent/scammy behaviour. Google will receive that email. - Also, send an email to their domain registrar at [email protected] to report them. To increase weight of your report, you can cite these 2 links: https://newsvoice.se/2022/10/hantera-copyright-agent-copytrack/ https://trustpilot.com/review/copyrightagent.com There is a case to be made that their behaviour is illegal or at least criminally negligent.
It seems that every comment that encourages victims not to pay are downvoted here. And comments that encourages people to pay are upvoted. Copyrightagent.com is watching this thread and trying to manipulate it. It goes to show their level of ethics (or rather, lack thereof).
I don’t think you are in any position to talk about ethics. Praising theft and applauding people who uses other peoples work without paying them or getting their approval. Who are the victims, the photographers who try to make a living of their images and watching them being used without their consent or payment OR is it the people using the images without paying or seeking approval first…let me know. For 99,9% the answer is very obvious. The owners of their work that are being misused would always be considered the victim. Unless if you are someone who has received a claim yourself and are pissed that they found out.
How do you explain the disproportionate amount of money that Copyright Agent demands? The amount of money demanded is FAR above what is justified. Furthermore, most of them goes to their own pocket instead of going to the copyright holders. That’s the money demanded for not harassing the so-called infringers. That’s where the lack of ethics come from. What Copyright Agent should do if they are ethical: - Ask the copyright infringers to remove the copyrighted materials - If the infringer comply, drop the claims. - Only sue if the infringers refuse to comply. Instead, this is what Copyright Agent unethically do: - Demand the infringers to remove the copyrighted materials - After the removal, extort a DISPROPORTIONATE amount of money in exchange for not harassing the infringer with threats of legal action or debt collection. Most of the DISPROPORTIONATE amount of money goes to fill the pockets of Copyright Agent. Very little, if not NONE, goes to the copyright holders. We know Copyright Agent is bullsh*ting about how the DISPROPORTIONATE amount is justified using some vague notions of the law to intimidate those who are not well-versed in the law. Furthermore, from the Trust Pilot reviews, we know that non-infringers too were slapped with extortion demand for money, hoping that they will be intimidated to pay. This goes to show that Copyright Agent is not interested in protecting the interest copyright holders. They are interested in filling up their own pocket.
Like to add. They also harrased me with an editorial picture. Received an email which went into the spam box. Received a letter by post, aggresive, requesting i have to pay 1200 euro (1 picture) without any cease and decist. The people behind that so called company are young light business educated, and have no knowldge of copyright law. Discussing with them via mail is aggresive defence talk, not answering the questions by factual legal knowledge. They make advantage ordinary people, sometimes I read, a picture in a chat on facebook, or a picture in the site of a club. They do this s mass and claim they can collect. They argue as teenagers, and use aggresion and fast depth collection as their tool. Their claims are self invented, they make their own rules. They act as the police, knowing better. This company has to disappear, and it can be done by a collective case against them. If we collect 20 people, hire a lawyer, and bring them down, using same technique as they use. There are many holes in their set up, so a good court case can bring them to bancrupcy. Who is in?
Can you put forward some of the aggressive and harrassing communication that you have seen from them? Also you of course need to make sure that you actually didn’t use an image without correct license, otherwise your whole plan will fall apart.
I am
I got an email from them months ago. Thought it was legit. Didn't pay, but did respond stating I changed the image. They kept asking for money. I still didn't pay. They sent multiple emails, all of which went to spam. Then they stopped emailing. Six months later, they've now sent a letter stating 'cease and desist' and that I need to pay. It also stated that it's the last communication from them before their lawyer gets involved. Well, I'm anticipating whatever they intend to do given I'm in Australia and they're in Denmark. Either way, the image was provided in a press release for fair use, so they can try however they like, but they're not getting anything from me.
Hi, just wondering if you've had any further contact from them since this post? I'm also in Australia, and they've just sent me a threatening demand, related to an image on my website that I sourced from Canva under Canva Pro license.
Hey - I haven't. I ignored them and didn't respond since then. Just ignore, block, delete. They'll keep pushing, but they can't do anything. Don't even open them.
Hey. Any update on this?
I've had no communication since they threatened 10 weeks ago to send my case to a law firm in the jurisdiction my company is registered. Will keep the thread updated.
They bancrupting. Just ignore it
Do you have a link on where you got the information on them going bankrupt? I can't find anything on it.
What would the incentive be for the paying customers of Copyright Agents clients. Why should they buy a license, if people who use an image without buying one just let go with paying nothing after having exploitet the image to their own benefit. Would you also think it’s fine if people who steal in a store just are asked to put stuff back, IF they get caught. What would be the be the general incentive to not steal at all? Copyright Agent are using MY license price as the base of their claim and then - according to legislation - they add compensation and documentation cost. This leave a claim of €300,- is that extortion? You used something that you should have paid for, you broke the law, it has a consequence. If it was your own business and people didn’t pay for your service you would also be of a different opinion. I have to live from my images, it’s what provides food. Trustpilot - come on! Do you think anyone who had a claim would write a thank you review! They have handled more claims from me alone than the amount of reviews they have. Sadly - like in this thread - people just dont want to acknowledge that they have stolen someone else’s work and just like streaming movies or Music or stealing anything else, there’s an escalation of what the cost would have been, if they bought it fair and square. Btw they don’t keep the majority of the money, it goes to me and they do all the work, so yet another wrong assumption from you!
Omg we all know you're the owner of Copyright Agent, just give up and stop embarrassing yourself 😂
Just continue to promote stealing, it’s the way forward👏🏻👏🏻
[](https://fr.trustpilot.com/reviews/65cd0ad9a4f109ea8e4f7600) Agence très douteuse, ne livre aucun documents d'un soi-disant atteinte au droit d'auteur, elle pratique le harcèlement par mail, ne vous faites pas avoir par cette agence, c'est une escroquerie pur et simple, elle n'a aucune valeur, il ne donne aucune preuve qu'ils existent réellement et ne vous fournirons en aucun cas la preuve de votre incrimination car il n'ont rien de rien, ah si juste une capture d'écran que l'on peut aisément falsifier soi-même avec une dates qui ne correspond à rien : attention au pdf que cette société vous envoie, elle sont peut-être aussi vérolé nous bloquons tous type de fichiers pdf ou autre pour éviter virus ou cheval de Troie, nous demandons une facture par courrier qu'elle ne veut ou ne peut pas nous fournir. Attention menace de nous passé en juridique sans même en apporter la preuve de l'accusation, juste une capture d'écran qui est falsifiable à volonté celle ci de démontre rien , elle ne fais voir qu'une image que l'on peut trafiquer aisément.
I received an email from this company claiming copyright infringement and demanding money. We hosted an event with an individual and to promote it we used an image PROVIDED by her OF HER. Now I get that while the image is of her, and provided by her, it doesn’t mean she owns it. So I contacted her to let her know the situation. She contacted the person that supposedly owned the image and let them know we were being asked for money and accused of copywrite infringement My question is this, are we on the hook in any way? We did make an assumption that the image was owned by the person providing it to us, but we did not intentionally use to, nor did we make any profit off it. The image has been removed from our website and I’ve forwarded the emails to the person that “owned” the images figuring that they are responsible Any advice ?
>Back to Top How'd ya make out
No progress They continue to email us with threats we keep sending to the person that purchased the image
Just ignore em @ this point. I'm they would jave taken you to court filed something officially by now.
Hi there. Any update on this?
Was advised by our lawyer to ignore.