[chris (OP)]

Dear all

We've noticed in recent months that we're starting to receive a lot of fake image copyright infringement notices.

Basically, identifying copyright image infringement is making people more money than actually taking photos these days, so a whole industry has sprung up providing services (computer programmes) that prowl the internet looking for potentially unlicensed uses of images and then report back to the owner. While this is the electric image equivalent of ambulance chasing, it is nevertheless a legitimate industry, despite the heavy-handed tactics and exorbitant sums charged by these services for what can sometimes be a genuine error committed in good faith.

However, alongside the legitimate operators, there has emerged the usual pond-scum line up of rogues and deceitful operators. Some of them steal public domain images, post them to a fake flickr account, claim ownership, and then approach people who have used them quite appropriately and demand a settlement. Enough people fall for this to make it worth their while.

The other tactic we've noticed is to use this for SEO (search engine optimisation). Basically they find an image relevant to a particular industry / topic, contact sites that have used it, claim to be representing a client who owns it, and then require that it needs to be appropriately "credited".

Apparently, what that client wants is a link to their website in return for your usage.

What's a bit surprising, however, is that the "clients" seem to have all manner of strange websites like "ridyourgardenofweeds.com" and "Iwanttorentavanforday.com" [these are contrived names I made up as examples and which are not active urls, so apologies to anyone who really owns them, if they subsequently are registered]

What's actually going on is that the scammers are trying to build a link network to a site that their either own themselves, or someone is paying them to promote, to raise its search rankings. The more incoming links from external sites with content relevant to the site you're trying to promote, the more highly Google regards the site and the higher it ranks. This can be good for online revenues, or to sell the site as a going concern (also big business these days). Naturally, people will have put relevant pictures alongside relevant content, so if you get a link from that page, it's gold dust. In some cases, the owners of the promoted site may be completely unaware that this is going on and are paying for what they think is a legitimate SEO operation.

The latest scoundrel trying to rip everyone off is "Jason Perales" of "legal media check". Here's his missive:

"On Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 4:34 AM, Jason Perales <jason@legalmediacheck.com> wrote:

Hi Chris,

You are using my client's image in an article on https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/science-features/science-sunday-lunch-question-taste. We're glad that it's of use to you

You can find the image at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sunday_roast_-_roast_beef_1.jpg

It’s not an issue at all but we would greatly appreciate it if you can give credit to our client as they have produced this image that you are using. 

You can simply add an image credit (by adding a clickable link) on your article to our client’s website. Since you have been using this image for quite some time now as per the date of your article’s publication, we feel that it’s the right thing to do.

Feel free to ask any questions that you may have.

Jason Perales
Content Head
Legal Media Check

Silly boy. If it's "not an issue at all", then I don't need to do anything about it, do I? (They just put this so that, legally, they are limiting what they are actually alleging, and can then claim they made a mistake, if challenged, later).

Anyway, what Jason's bot also hasn't picked up is that our usage of the image is already appropriately credited to the creator, who made his image publicly available in 2005 on flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/adactio/10098413/

Meanwhile, a quick look at Jason's website (legalmediacheck.com) also reveals a shabby rush job containing hastily filled templates and bits of irrelevant content intended to look sharp and hide the reality. Don't be fooled: this is a sheep in wolf's clothing.

Consequently, I ignored "Jason's" communication, but he's a persistent fellow and had the cheek to spam me again today:

On Sunday, 30 August 2020, 10:43:27 BST, Jason Perales <jason@legalmediacheck.com> wrote:

Can you please connect me to the right person if this isn't part of your department?

So I replied to Jason because you'll see that, craftily, in his initial salvo he's not revealed who the original owner of the image is. This way, the people who reply are probably more gullible and have already fallen for the ruse, so are less likely to waste Jason's precious time when he could be off spamming and defrauding other people of links.

This is what Jason told me today:

Thank you for replying, Chris.

Can you please give image credit to Carnivore Style?

Link: https:https://carnivorestyle.com/
Credit Name: Carnivore Style

It can be anywhere in the article. Just make sure that it's a clickable link.

You'll see the key is there in that last line - got to make sure it's a clickable link so we can drive as much juicy traffic to the site he's trying to promote as possible.

Now isn't it interesting that the owner of the image we've used (on a page authored in 2005) is according to Jason a new venture that seems to have sprung to life only in 2019; it's called "carnivore lifestyle". What a coincidence that a picture used on our site - within a high-ranking article about cooking and food - has got Jason's attention...

Jason's clearly a bit of a slapdash jerk though, because he's messed up the URL there (duplicated "https://") so I can now have a bit of fun now; silly me has not realised how the web works, so of course that link won't work on my site, and I don't really understand what I'm supposed to link to, so I've had to write to the owner of the website, listed on the site as "Timothy Woods" to ask for his advice on how to place the link and to where...

Mr Woods (assuming he actually exists, but I have my doubts) and the website itself might be totally innocent in all this, but the content is pretty thin on the ground, and they don't have a huge amount of content yet despite having a significant team going by the mugshots on the "About us" section of the site; the business is apparently based in Florida. They do have a phone number though, so I thought I'd ring them up.

What I got was someone's voicemail: "Cecil Lee", by the sound of it. No mention of Carnivore Style, or the team of content creators or the editor himself. Very ominous. I declined to leave a message. We'll see what Mr Woods has got to say in the meantime.

Update a day later...

How odd, no reply from Mr Woods at Carnivore Style, but, hang on, what's this in my inbox.

Well if it isn't Jason back, and he's getting a bit impatient by the look of it:

Jason Perales <jason@legalmediacheck.com>
To: Chris Smith
Wed 2 Sep at 12:36

Hey, feel free to let me know if you have any concerns regarding my previous email.

What do you think will work best for you?

Now isn't that wording a bit strange? Why's he asking me what would work for me? Or could it be that when I wrote to "Mr Woods" and asked him what I should be doing with regard to linking to his site, it actually went to Jason and now forgetful Jason's slipped up and answered on behalf of "Mr Woods".

Anyway, I've written back asking "Jason" for his client's proof of ownership of the image in question. My guess is we won't be hearing back from him again because he'll know the game's up.

UPDATE - 4 days later...

Well, the weekend has come and gone, and Jason has gone with it. Despite a couple of email prods from me "reaching out" to him and asking him for the confirmation that his website - sorry - the website he's "representing" own the rights to the image so we can put in place this link for him - sorry, old habits die hard - his "clients", I've not heard a thing. I wonder why...

Meanwhile, should I also be referring to Jason as "Alice Felix", who's also a "Content Head" at legalmediacheck? (Gosh, they must be a busy company to have so many content heads.)

The reason I ask this is because it looks like others have heard from legalmediacheck too, specifically "Alice" that time:

https://www.phoenixfm.com/2020/07/07/legal-media-check-scam/

We blog a lot here on phoenixfm.com but there’s always a worry that we accidentally use an image we’re not allowed to use. You can’t just lift something off Google image search – that person may have paid for the privilege, and we’re an impoverished community radio station with a zero budget for virtually everything. So we need to be careful.

If I need various stock images, I go to one of the free stock image websites. It can be hard finding them, because the ones that Google tell you are free aren’t necessarily free. You have to read a lot of small print.

This morning at 11am I had an email from Alice Felix, Content Head at Legal Media Check. She said:

Hi Paul,

You are using my client’s image (attached below) in one of your articles (URL given). We’re glad that it’s of use to you 🙂

There’s no issue if you’ve bought this from our market partners such as Shutterstock, iStock, Getty Image, Pexels, Adobe, Pixabay, Unsplash etc.,

However, if you don’t have the proper license for the image then we request you to provide image credits (clickable link) on your article. Or else this will be against the copyright policy.

Unfortunately, removing the image isn’t the solution since you have been using our image on your website for a while now.

Feel free to ask any questions that you may have.

Alice Felix
Content Head
Legal Media Check

This just seemed a bit weird. I Googled Alice, and it appeared that she lives in Texas, so why is she sending out messages at 5am? Also, some of the English on it just didn’t seem quite right either (“Or else this will be against the copyright policy”, etc). Also, for a legal letter it wasn’t very aggressive, which I was grateful for, but it set a few alarm bells ringing. Also, this part at the end of her email really surprised me:

Unsubscribe (link) if you don’t want me to followup with you.

So I’m being asked not to violate your client’s legal rights but I can unsubscribe? I went back to her and said:

I have spoken to the author who tells me the image was found from a free website. However I am happy to give you a credit, can you please give me the information required?

She replied very quickly (so she’s probably not in Texas unless she’s a really early starter).

Hi Paul,

Thanks for getting back to me.

Can you please give image credit to (Van Hire Company)?

Link: Van Hire Company’s link
Credit Name: Van Hire Company

It can be anywhere in the article. Just make sure that it’s a clickable link 🙂

Thank you.

Beginning to think that with all the smiley faces, this is not a proper legal firm.

I clicked on the link. It’s a van hire company. Not a photographer trying to make a living.

Obviously I’m not mentioning the name of the company, because that’s what they want. We get a lot of people asking us to link to them, because our website has a good standing with Google. Sometimes they offer to pay, which is great as the money goes in the pot to help run the station. (If you’re interested, the going rate is about £50). Sometimes they try to get it for free. But I’ve never had an SEO company pretend to be a legal firm and threaten me (very politely) with action just so they can get a free link for one of their clients.

The Van Hire Company stinks too. The website gives an address of London N7 and a phone number starting with 020, but it’s written in broken English and the prices are all in Euros.

I decided to email her back.

Can you please send me proof that Van Hire Company is the photographer who holds the copyright?

They seem to be the magic words, as the correspondence ended very abruptly.

So if you’re reading this, host your own website and you get any emails from Alice Felix, Content Head at Legal Media Check, save yourself some time and put them straight in the bin …

Meanwhile, browsing the web a bit, turns out that "Audrey Griffin" and "Nancy Diaz" are also in the frame as "Content Heads" at legalmediacheck.

So, my conclusion is that Alice and Jason clearly don't exist, at least as real people; but hat's off to the scammer who is obviously an equal opportunities impersonator.

And if anyone else has run-ins with this or a similar bunch of crooks, please document your experience here so that others may discover these notes and be spared the same deceit. Naturally, if any of the above-named scammers would like the right to reply, this is the perfect venue.

"Jason", the floor's yours...

[chris (OP)]

Jason, predictably, never got back to me but look, we have a new scammer in town. Welcome Waleed! Waleed's even more full of sh1t than Jason.

Name: Waleed Hassan Sheikh
Email: contact@teachingmenslifestyle.com
Subject: DMCA/COPYRIGHT
Messages:
Hi
I'm just looking something on the internet then I came across your site and find that you have to use some copyrighted images. It's okay to Use unless you give credit to "MY SPAMMY WEBSITE" in your blog post.

Hope You Understand.

Regards,
Waleed Hassan Sheikh
Country: Pakistan
Phone no.: REMOVED

I rang Waleed and got through to him. He is basically a cheap scammer working from home. I explained that this behaviour is not acceptable, although his appalling grammar is a giveaway and most people won't fall for it.

Anyway, welcome Waleed to the back-link copyright image scammer rogue's gallery, you are our pin up of the week!

[Petrochemicals]

Is this why I am currently getting a "plan some time in paradise" advert at the bottom of the screen?

This is a not for profit site so they have no claim anyway, fair usage rulings mean that if its out there the site can carry it, don't waste your time on them. It is a good revelation of the practices that go on.

[chris (OP)]

And they're back!

Not Waleed this time - he was very apologetic - no, it's Jason Perales mark 2!

This time he's in the guise of "Robert Bradley" and he's from the "Client Relations Team" at an august organisation called "Photo Credit"

Incredibly, based on the stock picture they're using, TEN people appear to work for this organisation we've never heard of, which mysteriously has only about 5 low-budget pages on its entire website and no stated official office address. How peculiar!

Anyway, here's what "Robert Bradley" has to say:

Hello Chris,

You are using our client's image in one of your articles https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/interviews/blocking-intestinal-fat-absorption.

We are glad you found it useful🙂

However, our client has this image registered, and it requires attribution.

We request a clickable image credit link to <SPAMMY SITE WE'RE USING DECEPTION TO PROMOTE> (<Link to spammy site>) at the bottom of your article.

Learn how to properly give attribution here.

Unfortunately, removing the image is not the solution since you have been using the image on your website for a while now. We are obliged to inform the artist if this matter is not resolved in a timely manner.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Robert Bradley

Client Relations Team
Photo Credit

Ooohh - threats that they're going to inform the artist...

Hmm; Robert obviously didn't go to the mandatory office training, because he's picked on an image that's clearly marked up and credited as coming from PIXABAY and is CC0.

CC zero means ANYONE can use it, for any purpose - you don't even need to give attribution.

So what he's doing is trying to lay claim to someone else's work that has generously been made available via Pixabay for everyone to use for free.

Robert wants a link to a website that appears to own the image in question by way of acknowledgement. Isn't that funny? A website about online training that now also seems to dabble in online stock photography...

Well I'm going to ignore Robert's email, because I'm in the mood to have a little fun. I think he'll be back in a day or so with another friendly note and a few smilies to ask me "if I missed his previous email..."

Let's see...

[chris (OP)]

Here's a new one we've not seen before.

Hilariously, this was posted to the comments section on our site on a page containing photographs we had taken ourselves!

We're basically being threatened for the use of our own images that seem to have been appropriated by someone calling themselves "sogoucdn.com"!

Bizarrely they want $200 in bitcoin. Hmm right,

To whom it may concern
Submitted by John Neidig (not verified) on Wed, 16/12/2020 - 08:12

To whom it may concern

We are sending this email on behalf of our client, Photograph Independent Consortium of America, Inc. (PICA), and its member companies. The PICA is a trade association whose member companies create, manufacture, and distribute approximately sixty (60) percent of all legitimate professional images sold in the US.

As these copyrighted images are their main source of income, our client imposes all the copyrights to said images.

It has come to the attention of our client that your website, sogoucdn.com, which you own, used one of the copyrighted images without approval and without any proper credit to the copyright owner.

As you never got (nor asked for) approval to use our client's images, your work constitutes copyright infringement, in accordance with Title 17 of the U.S. Code.

Accordingly, you could be liable for statutory damages as high as $150,000 as set forth in Section 504(c)(2) therein. Removal of the image won_t fix the copyright issue, as we have recorded proof of the image being used on your website.

Our client requests that you deposit $200 in Bitcoin cryptocurrency to their wallet: bc1qq4l0gyav2nn56w94k95gg5er863hf2gtykudeq to receive full approval to use their pictures on your website.

We have been instructed to follow legal action to repair the finance damage if you refuse to pay the copyright waiver fee of $200.

You are hereby requested to add the required funds of $200 to this bitcoin wallet: bc1qq4l0gyav2nn56w94k95gg5er863hf2gtykudeq as fee for copyrighted image usage. Our client will allow you to continue using the image/s after you pay the required sum.

If they have not received the requested fee within 15 days of email receival, we will have to take legal recourse and settle this matter in court.

There won  t be a further notice.

Respectfully,

John Neidig,

Ardent Fox LLP | International Requests

Notice also that the communication comes from "Ardent Fox LLP" - intended, presumably, to be easily mistaken for "Arent Fox LLP" the legal group.

Well, John, with your sad scheme and predictably atrocious grammar, you're just another shameful scammer but nevertheless a very deserving addition to our list of image copyright rogues here on the Naked Scientists.

[Slickscientist]

Wow! What a world...

[chris (OP)]

And they're back!

Not Waleed this time - he was very apologetic - no, it's Jason Perales mark 2!

This time he's in the guise of "Robert Bradley" and he's from the "Client Relations Team" at an august organisation called "Photo Credit"

Incredibly, based on the stock picture they're using, TEN people appear to work for this organisation we've never heard of, which mysteriously has only about 5 low-budget pages on its entire website and no stated official office address. How peculiar!

Anyway, here's what "Robert Bradley" has to say:

Hello Chris,

You are using our client's image in one of your articles https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/interviews/blocking-intestinal-fat-absorption.

We are glad you found it useful🙂

However, our client has this image registered, and it requires attribution.

We request a clickable image credit link to <SPAMMY SITE WE'RE USING DECEPTION TO PROMOTE> (<Link to spammy site>) at the bottom of your article.

Learn how to properly give attribution here.

Unfortunately, removing the image is not the solution since you have been using the image on your website for a while now. We are obliged to inform the artist if this matter is not resolved in a timely manner.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Robert Bradley

Client Relations Team
Photo Credit

Ooohh - threats that they're going to inform the artist...

Hmm; Robert obviously didn't go to the mandatory office training, because he's picked on an image that's clearly marked up and credited as coming from PIXABAY and is CC0.

CC zero means ANYONE can use it, for any purpose - you don't even need to give attribution.

So what he's doing is trying to lay claim to someone else's work that has generously been made available via Pixabay for everyone to use for free.

Robert wants a link to a website that appears to own the image in question by way of acknowledgement. Isn't that funny? A website about online training that now also seems to dabble in online stock photography...

Well I'm going to ignore Robert's email, because I'm in the mood to have a little fun. I think he'll be back in a day or so with another friendly note and a few smilies to ask me "if I missed his previous email..."

Let's see...

Still waiting to hear from Robert. Maybe he's off celebrating an early Christmas. Scammer "Jason" was pretty persistent, until he knew he'd been rumbled. C'mon Robert, the anticipation of receiving another phony threat from you is killing us...

[Slickscientist]

What an idiot.

[Petrochemicals]

Can you not report them for misrepresentation or extortion?

[chris (OP)]

We've not seen many of these scammy emails lately, but now they're back; two in the last week. I didn't bother posting last week's one, but this will suffice.

In the latest iteration, amazingly, a plumbing company seems to have gained the rights over a whole heap of public domain and CC0 images.

We're being extorted to post links under our images to the plumbing company in recognition of our usage of their images.

No sir! What scammers have done is to lift the images from the public domain source and add them to their own photo library; from where they're claiming ownership on behalf of this company.

The aim is to get lots of unsuspecting people, fearful of being sued for copyright infringement, to place links to their client's site. The client is possibly blameless in all this and unaware that the SEO or marketing team they've hired is resorting to these nefarious ends to boost the ratings of the site in question.

Anyway, just in case you get something like this, DO NOT FALL FOR IT - IT IS A SCAM. Please publish it here, to help other's avoid the same trick, and block the senders.

Here's today's missive, from "JACK"...

Dear owner of https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/interviews/cape-town-when-water-runs-out,

My name is Jack Moore, I am a Trademark Attorney of Nationwide Legal.

I am emailing you, since one of the copyright images on your website
belongs to our client, Milbur Plumbing.

This image: https://i.imgur.com/VqwuuPo.png is used without an
appropriate reference on your website -  (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/interviews/cape-town-when-water-runs-out).

The image used on your website can be seen in the permanent public
web archive The Wayback Machine at https://web.archive.org.

The use and sharing of our client's photograph online is allowed,
however only when appropriate image credit is attributed, this is required
for both past or present usage.

A text credit to <CLIENT WEBSITE WHO MAY BE UNAWARE OF THESE TACTICS> must be put eitehr under the image or in a suitable location on the offending page, along with a link to
<SPAMMY LINK TO CLIENT WEBSITE> . Otherwise, we must pursue legal action.

To track this issue, I've assigned case ID #4822, which you need to
quote in any communications. Your lawsuit will be dismissed once you have
given the image proper credit on the page.

This letter serves as an official notice required under the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act's Section 512(c) (" DMCA"). We will have to move
through with filing a DMCA legal lawsuit if this is not remedied within 5
working days.

We have the full rights to act on behalf of the copyright owner(s) in
giving this notice.

Regards

Jack Moore
Trademark Attorney

Nationwide Legal
401 Congress Ave. #1540,
Austin, TX 78701

jack@nationwide-law.org

[Petrochemicals]

I wonder if nationwide would like to sue them?

https://nationwidelegal.com/contact-us/

[chris (OP)]

Jack is a persistent bugger isn't he?! He's back today, this time representing a plumbing company...

Dear owner of https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/interviews/cape-town-when-water-runs-out,

You are receiving this legal infringement notice from Nationwide
Legal Trademark Department due to the unauthorized usage of our client's
image.

The use of this image : https://i.imgur.com/VqwuuPo.png on this page
: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/interviews/cape-town-when-water-runs-out
is fine, as long as our client (***** Plumbing) is fully credited.

The credit must appear under the image or the footer of the page and
be clickable to https://www.SPAMMY-PLUMBING-URL.com.au/ within 5 working
days. We await your response to confirm this has been completed, removing
the image does not resolve the case.

Failure to do so in this time frame, will result in legal case (No.
83474) proceeding under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's Section 512(c)
(" DMCA") for past and or current usage.

Past usage of the image can be seen in the records on Wayback Machine
(https://web.archive.org) - a permanent public archive of the web, which
will be called upon as evidence in this case.

This email serves as the required official notice.

Regards

Jack Moore
Trademark Attorney

Nationwide Legal
401 Congress Ave. #1540,
Austin, TX 78701

jack@nationwide-law.org
www.nationwide-law.org

It's interesting that all these scams seem to relate to Australian utilities / service entities (lighting, electric, plumbing). I wonder if "Jack" is actually based in Australia. We'll need to do a bit of digging.

Anyway, just another example of this appalling copyright theft scam; don't fall for it...

[Bored chemist]

These scammer seem to be claiming they are some sort of lawyer.
If that's true then it's professional misconduct; if it's false then the lawyers' professional bodies might like a word with them about misrepresentation.