Are Copytrack and PicRights Claims Legitimate? (EU Guide)

A letter from Copytrack GmbH or PicRights Europe GmbH lands in the inbox. Subject: a photograph on your website. The amount demanded sits between €300 and €3,000. Your first question is the right one: is this for real, or is it a scam to extract a payment?

This guide answers the legitimacy question directly. Copytrack and PicRights are real companies operating under real legal frameworks. That does not mean every claim they send is automatically valid; each claim must meet the legal evidence standard, and many do not. The right response is the same in either case: engage early, request documentation, evaluate the four defences before paying anything.

For the full response procedure once you have decided to engage, see the Getty Images / PicRights demand letter response guide. This guide focuses on the legitimacy question and what to do in the first 24 hours.

The agencies are real

Copytrack GmbH

• Berlin-based, founded 2014
• SaaS platform that photographers and rights holders upload their images to
• Crawls the public web and reports matches to the rights holder
• Pursues claims on the rights holder's behalf, taking a percentage of recovered amounts
• Has been involved in published German court proceedings, including some it lost on standing or originality grounds
• Operates a separate enforcement vehicle, Copytrack Recovery, for higher-value cases

PicRights Europe GmbH

• Swiss-registered company, with offices serving the EU and UK markets
• Enforces rights on behalf of large news agencies and stock libraries (Associated Press, Agence France-Presse, others)
• Sends demand letters via post and email, often using local-language templates
• Coordinates with local law firms when matters escalate beyond initial settlement
• Has been involved in proceedings across multiple EU jurisdictions with varying outcomes

Both agencies appear in business registries, file accounts, employ staff, and engage with national courts when required. They are not advance-fee fraud schemes or extortion shells. Whether any given claim they send is enforceable, however, depends on the specific evidence chain for that claim.

The legitimacy question, broken down

A demand letter is legitimate when all of the following are true:

1. The agency has a valid mandate from the rights holder to pursue the claim
2. The rights holder owns or controls the copyright in the specific image
3. The image meets the copyright originality threshold under Painer (C-145/10)
4. The use occurred during the copyright term
5. The use is not covered by a licence, an EU exception, or fair-dealing equivalent
6. The claim is within the national limitation period

If any one of these breaks, the demand may still arrive, but a court would not enforce it as drafted. The agencies do not always have all six elements documented before sending; they are testing whether the recipient will settle without forcing the documentation.

What to do in the first 24 hours

The first response shapes everything that follows. Five steps, in order.

1. Do not respond in panic

The initial reflex is either to pay immediately or to dispute angrily. Both are problems. Paying acknowledges the full amount and may put you in the agency's "paying defendants" database. Disputing angrily can be quoted back as acknowledgement of awareness of the infringement.

The right initial reaction is: read the letter, identify the specific image, take screenshots, and prepare a measured written response.

2. Identify the image and remove it

Find the image on your site. Take a screenshot showing it in context. Check the Wayback Machine for archived versions. Then remove the image from the live site, from the CDN cache, and from any recently-rotated backup that may serve it.

Removal does not extinguish past liability but it prevents the period of unauthorised use from growing and signals a cooperative posture.

3. Check your image inventory

Where did the image come from? Common sources to check:

• The web designer or agency that built the site
• A stock photo subscription that may have included it
• A free-stock site (Unsplash, Pexels, Pixabay) where you may have downloaded it
• A press kit from a vendor or partner

If you can document a legitimate source, the claim may fail on prior licence (defence 3 in the Getty Images response guide).

For preventive sourcing going forward, see free stock photo sources.

4. Write the first response

Send within 14 days. Keep it factual. Acknowledge receipt, confirm removal, request documentation. A workable template:

Subject: Reference [their reference number] — request for documentation

We received your letter dated [date] regarding the image at [URL]. We have removed the image from the site.

Before we can respond substantively to your settlement proposal, we require the following documentation:

1. Proof of your mandate from the alleged rights holder to pursue this claim on their behalf
2. Documentation of the rights holder's title to the specific image, with the date of first publication
3. The basis for the damages amount specified, including the hypothetical-licence calculation
4. The period during which the rights holder asserts unauthorised use occurred

We will respond substantively within [21/30] days of receipt of the above documentation. Until then, we make no admissions and reserve all rights and defences.

Plain, factual, non-acknowledging. Sent by email and, where amounts are significant, also by recorded post.

5. Decide whether to engage counsel

For demands below €2,000 on a single image with a clear documentation gap on the agency's side, self-response is often sufficient. For demands above €2,000, demands citing multiple images, or after a second letter is received, engage a lawyer with IP experience in your jurisdiction.

Many EU IP firms offer flat-fee first-response consultations in the €300-€500 range. The economics typically favour engagement.

Common patterns

The threat escalation

Many initial letters use harsh language: "without prejudice to further legal action", "court costs and enforcement fees will be added", "criminal liability under Article X". These are negotiation pressure, not commitments. Read them as the opening of a negotiation, not as a final decision by the rights holder to pursue litigation.

The volume discount

Some agencies, especially when pushing back on multiple-image claims, will offer a "settlement bundle" — pay €X for all images now and we close the matter. This may be attractive but pause: the agency's bundle price is calibrated to extract maximum settlement without litigation. A measured per-image negotiation often results in a lower total.

The escalation to a law firm

When the agency's in-house effort does not produce a settlement, the matter may transfer to a partner law firm in the recipient's jurisdiction. The law firm's letter is more formal and typically a precursor to actual proceedings. At this stage, professional advice is essential.

The data subject access request

Some practitioners have used GDPR Article 15 (right of access) to request from the agency a copy of all personal data the agency holds about the website operator. This can surface internal evaluation notes, the agency's documented evidence chain, and other useful material. It is a peripheral tactic with mixed outcomes; do not rely on it as a primary defence.

After resolution

Whether the case settles for €0 (rare but possible when the documentation chain fails) or for a measured amount through negotiation, the same agency will continue to monitor the same domain. Two preventive actions are essential:

• Conduct a full image audit using the image copyright check tool and the scan for copyrighted images on your site
• Update vendor contracts (web designers, content writers, photographers) to include explicit IP warranties and indemnity clauses

The same site that received one Copytrack or PicRights letter is statistically more likely to receive another.

Final checklist

• Image removed from production and caches within 24 hours
• Screenshots and Wayback snapshots preserved before removal
• First response sent within 14 days, factual and non-acknowledging
• Documentation request enumerated (mandate, title, calculation basis, period)
• Image inventory checked for legitimate source documentation
• Limitation period assessed against use dates
• Counsel engaged if demand exceeds €2,000 or multiple images named
• Full site audit scheduled
• Vendor contracts reviewed for IP warranty clauses

---

This is technical analysis, not legal advice. For demands above €2,000, multi-image claims, escalation to law firm letters or formal proceedings, consult a lawyer who specialises in IP enforcement in your jurisdiction.