Summer Flame Day 2023– The Curious Case of Copytrack and WENN Trying to Claiming Ownership of Square Enix’s IP

The events of the past 24 hours have completely derailed my original Summer Flame Day topic. Nothing makes your blood run cold like receiving a copyright infringement notice email. After taking a moment to breathe and thinking about it, my initial fear turned to confusion, then ultimately indignation. This may be a Summer Flame Day post, but I’m not the one playing with copyright fire here.

Let’s start at the beginning.

On June 20, I received an email from a company called Copytrack. They were contacting me on behalf of their client, WENN Rights International Ltd. We had allegedy used an image from their client without permission in our 2016 article, “The Zodiac Age of Final Fantasy XII.” The email included a link to our article and the attached image that was allegedly used without WENN’s permission. It wouldn’t matter if we deleted the image from our article, because we supposedly profited off the image. (We didn’t.) Copytrack and WENN estimated we owed them €260.00 ($285) for past compensation costs. Also, we owed them another €293.29 ($322) for a valid image license that would only be good for a year. So what photographer’s copyright did we allegedly violate to have Copytrack hound us for $607? Turns out the image was a screenshot from Final Fantasy XII: The Zodiac Age. Geoff did write about the remaster when it was announced seven years ago.

 

 

At this point, you might be wondering what in the world WENN Rights International Ltd has to do with a screenshot from a Final Fantasy XII remaster, when the game was developed and published by Square Enix. This was certainly on my mind, as I stared at their threatening email. At this point, WENN or Copytrack could have been affiliated with Square Enix, or could have been a scam. Either way, it was baffling to me that a company would accuse us of using an image without permission when that very image was a screenshot from a video game. The image was available as part of a press kit which are free to use for media outlets. It made even less sense that they would ask us to pay hundreds for an image that both fell under fair use and was made freely available by a corporation for media coverage.

Let’s start with Square Enix. I could find no evidence that they had any affiliation with Copytrack or WENN. They also have an entire press site filled with screenshots and images from current and upcoming games. The very Final Fantasy XII: The Zodiac Age images we used for our 2016 article? They’re freely available to use from Square Enix’s Press Hub. Furthermore, the terms and conditions listed on the press site grants media organizations a license to use these images in their coverage Square Enix or any of its products. The terms are subject to change at any time, but as of this writing they haven’t.

 

 

After reading up on Square Enix and not seeing how they were connected to Copytrack, I began to search for information about the image rights company. I found quite the mixed bag on them. (More on this later.) Copytrack claims they are a global enforcer of image rights. Despite being located in Germany, their service is able to enforce copyright around the globe. Basically, a photographer or artist signs up for their free service. The service tracks images on the web by using metadata and image recognition powered by AI. They even claim to enforce image rights on behalf of the rights holder. This is done by sending requests for payments and threats of legal actions to perceived offenders. If the user doesn’t have a license or permission, they can recoup costs, and Copytrack receives 30% of that if successful.  They mention if the user in question has a license or permission to use the images, they’ll close the case. On the surface it seems like a nice way for photographers to fight back against image theft. However, with automated services it has been shown that false positives and fraudulent claims are very much a possibility. The copyright fraud on YouTube is a good example.

At this point it’s pretty obvious that Copytrack has falsely flagged the screenshot we used from Final Fantasy XII as copyright infringement. Again, the image is from Square Enix’s press kit, and their own terms of service have given us a license to use the image. So how did this happen?

It turns out WENN Rights International Ltd is behaving as a copyright troll. WENN is actually a photo database that specializes in celebrity photos, and licensing them for a fee, similar to Getty Images. They have an exclusive agreement with Copytrack to enforce copyright infringements. Among the hundreds of the images they claim copyright ownership of, they also have pictures from some video game publisher press kits. (You can probably guess where this is going.) So in their database, they have some of the same screenshots from Final Fantasy XII: The Zodiac Age as found on Square Enix’s own press site. Not only that, but the descriptions are a straight copy and paste from the press kit site. Unlike their celebrity photos, these screenshots come with a special disclaimer:

 

“WENN does not claim any ownership including but not limited to Copyright, License in attached material. Fees charged by WENN are for WENN’s services only, do not, nor are they intended to, convey to the user any ownership of Copyright, License in material. By publishing this material you expressly agree to indemnify, to hold WENN, its directors, shareholders, employees harmless from any loss, claims, damages, demands, expenses (including legal fees), any causes of action, allegation against WENN arising out of, connected in any way with publication of the material.”

 

In other words, WENN acknowledges they don’t have any copyright ownership of the screenshots they uploaded to their database from Square Enix’s press site. There is no guidance for their special disclaimers on their FAQ page, and their TOS pages simply don’t work. So if you happen to pay them to use the images they didn’t have copyright ownership of, it is not their fault. Likewise, they want to be held blameless if their copyright enforcement service tries to collect fees from media outlets. Again for images in which they don’t own the copyright. Let that settle in for a moment. They accused us of improperly using copyrighted images, while their copyright enforcer is sending out bogus claims of ownership. It’s pretty shameless with a side of hypocrisy, and I doubt they care. Nor do I think Copytrack cares either, especially since they pressure their targets to pay quickly.

Copytrack boasts having a great track record on their site, but they have received complaints from others for their shady practices. A freelance illustrator had a run in with them earlier this year. They tried to enforce a claim of ownership over a postal museum’s picture, in which their partner WENN had no say in the copyright. After some back and forth, the case was closed. Another blog, Pictures of Cats has had their own run-ins with Copytrack. Blog owner Michael Broad outlines how the company uses fear to force compliance, regardless of if they have a valid copyright claim or not. They’ve even gone after photographers for their own images in the public domain, including White House photos. NewsVoice has also written about them and their sketchy practices. On a fascinating note, Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain detailed in 2018 how they were involved in a lawsuit regarding a cryptocurrency ICO (initial coin offering). Of the 112 reviews they have on Trustpilot as of this writing, the overwhelming majority of them are negative. Many complaints are from fraudulent claims.

No wonder Copytrack is often referred to as a copyright troll. This behavior is pretty troll-like. It is likely that Copytrack rarely enforces copyright infringement with legal action because copyright infringement lawsuits are incredibly expensive and time-consuming. Even if they’re in the right, the possible payout is less than the legal fees they’d pay. There is no guarantee the copyright claim would be successful in a court of law. Ultimately, infringement claims are not worth pursuing unless a decent payout is assured. At the same time, if just a fraction of the alleged offenders pay Copytrack their asking price then this is enough to keep them in business. Even if Copytrack’s clients don’t actually own the copyrights to the images. If the alleged offender ignores the threatening emails, the claim (fraudulent or not) usually goes away. As wrong as Copytrack is at times, suing this company for fraudulent claims would also be expensive, time-consuming, and the payout probably not worth the effort. This is why they’re able to do what they do, even when claims are fraudulent.

 

 

I made the mistake of emailing Copytrack, when I should have just ignored them for the fraudulent copyright infringement accusation. In my email I relayed how confused and indignant I was over being charged a fee for a corporate press kit image. I wanted to know if they were working with Square Enix, the actual copyright holder of the screenshot. I included Square Enix’s press site contact in my response. Furthermore, I also contacted both companies on Twitter. It’s been 24 hours and I haven’t heard back from Copytrack. Based on all the information I found out, they’ll likely not contact us again, our case will suddenly be closed, or they’ll keep insisting we pay for a copyright their client doesn’t actually own. If the latter happens, these emails will be going in the trash, where they belong.

On this summer solstice, I implore you to take a moment to breathe if you ever receive a threatening email from Copytrack or a similar service. Don’t immediately pay them and do verify if they actually own the copyright they’re claiming.

I guess I’ll have to save my original rant about Netflix for another day, or another Summer Flame Day.