Whether it’s for a school project, a funny meme, or a blog, many people use search engines to find fitting images.

Some of these are free to use, but in most cases, permission from the creator is required to publish photos in public.

The same is true for images that float around on news sites or social networks. It’s easy to make a copy of a photo and use it elsewhere on the web but more often than not, people are not supposed to do so without permission.

This is a cause of frustration for many creators and some are now drawing the line. In the past, we have covered several lawsuits filed by photographers against major news outlets that use their work without permission, but there’s another development worth noting – Pixsy.

Pixsy offers a dedicated product that helps creators to find where their images are being copied without permission. Optionally, they can then request to send a takedown notice, or take it up a notch and demand compensation from the infringer, via email.

The artists see the images Pixsy finds and can ‘submit’ the infringing one for further action. The site will then take care of the rest and only gets paid if the artist gets paid too.

“Once submitted our expert case managers handle everything. From preparation to evidence collection, negotiation, settlements, and payouts,” Pixsy notes.

Fight image theft

Pixsy officially launched its services in 2014 and has already processed over 55,000 cases worldwide. The company doesn’t specify how many licensing demands have been sent, but they appear to be quite common.

The Internet is littered with mentions of these emails with varying demands. In some instances they’re asking for $750, but we’ve also seen $575 and various other figures floating around, also in pounds.

TorrentFreak spoke to a person who was recently targeted by a Pixsy license request. He prefers to remain anonymous, fearing more repercussions, but we’ll call him Frank. He was utterly surprised when the email came in.

“I had no idea you could get in trouble for taking a picture off Google search results,” Frank told us.

The trouble, in this case, refers to an email requesting hundreds of pounds in licensing fees. The email stresses that the creator of the image hasn’t given permission, and there’s an “evidence report” that summarizes the findings.

The licensing request doesn’t come without a proper stick, however, as Pixsy warns that legal action may follow if the demands are not met within a set deadline.

What’s next?

“In the event that resolution with a license fee is not possible, our next steps are to forward this matter to a legal partner in your local area to secure the highest fees recoverable for copyright infringement,” Pixsy writes.

“These fees include actual damages or statutory damages, and can include legal costs, expenses, costs affiliated with filing a lawsuit, and ensuing litigation.”

The image Frank used wasn’t an actual photograph but a mocked-up Photoshop image that appeared rather generic. When writing this article a reverse image search revealed that it appears on hundreds of sites.

Interestingly, none of the sites credit the author, nor could we find any way to officially license the image.

Despite the strong language, Frank tells us that he has no intention to pay. And he’s not the only one. The letters have been described as an “extortion scam” by some, and others note that the legal threat may not be as imminent as it seems.

That said, it’s no surprise if many of the recipients choose to pay the license fee (as this woman did), if only to get rid of the looming threat of things getting worse.

While not everyone agrees with the tactics, the scheme certainly is a wake-up call that people should not randomly use images they find online. Many creators who struggle dealing with copyright infringing also see it as a useful service.

TorrentFreak also spoke to Pixsy which informs us that they “fight image theft” with the help of 26 different legal partners across the world. They stress that their service doesn’t target all websites randomly. They pick selected targets which seem to be professional businesses, major publications, or government agencies.

In Frank’s case, the professional business was a blog that was set up a few months ago, offering a certain service. Not a typical company, but Pixsy presumably saw it as a legitimate target.

Our source had no experience with creating websites and maintains that he had no clue that the image he used required a license. To avoid confusion, he urges search engines to make this more clear going forward. Most mention that images “may” be copyrighted, but a starker warning could be appropriate.

While Frank doesn’t deny that creators of photos and other images should be able to protect their rights, he’s no fan of Pixsy’s model.

“I think their email threats come across as a scam or extortion. Only after googling Pixsy I could see that other people have run into them and their methods, and most call them copyright trolls.

“I’ve not replied to their emails as I’m hoping they’ll go away to catch bigger fish than little old me,” Frank adds.

Talking about bigger fish – Pixsy recently offered help to catch one.

The company reached out to photographer Sean Heavey who is currently suing Netflix for the infringing use of a photo. While Heavey didn’t use Pixsy to find the infringing use, the company referred him to a legal partner, and is helping him to track other infringers through their service.

“I now believe all photographers need to have a service such as Pixsy as part of their normal business plan,” Heavey told Alpha Universe.

“We have taken action on not only the Netflix case but others as well — some of which I knew about and others I discovered while using the Pixsy platform,” he adds.

We’re pretty sure Netflix won’t be able to make that go away for $750…

Whether any infringements found through Pixsy have ever resulted in full-blown lawsuits is unknown. The company informs us that it can’t provide exact numbers on licensing requests and legal cases.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Source link

Every year, millions of software packages are downloaded from the Internet. In many cases, people pay for the privilege but in others, users aim to skip expensive licensing fees.

Using software without an appropriate license ranges from flat-out simple to relatively complicated. In the case of unprotected software, users simply avoid paying for a license. When DRM techniques are deployed, so-called ‘cracks’ (software tools that circumvent restrictions) are the weapon of choice, activating full packages or upgrading limited demos.

In many cases, ‘cracked’ software works like the real deal. In this Internet-connected world, however, some software has the ability to ‘phone home’ to its creators. For those who don’t take precautions (with firewall rules or an isolated offline machine) unexpected consequences could be lying in wait.

This is the case for unauthorized users of software offered by Foundry. The creative minds behind graphics tools including the popular NUKE, Foundry reportedly supplies software to companies including Disney, Sony, and Blizzard. It does not like its software being pirated and is going to fairly extreme lengths to enforce its rights.

While many companies monitor torrent swarms for unauthorized sharing, it appears that Foundry prefers a more straightforward approach, by analyzing data sent back from the computers of alleged pirates and then making an approach, which includes an offer to settle for hard cash.

Unlike many file-sharing cases where copyright trolls demand a few hundred dollars, pounds, or euros to make a case disappear, Foundry demands much larger sums of money. Documents and emails reviewed by TorrentFreak reveal demands reaching multiple tens of thousands.

On top, Foundry also attempts to levy large fees to cover its “investigation costs”, meaning that companies and in some cases regular individuals face punishing bills for what they believed to be a free and consequence-free download.

For those who care to read it, Foundry’s EULA appears to cover end-user data harvesting.

“The Software may include mechanisms to collect limited information from Licensee’s computer(s) and transmit it to Foundry, including the ability to locally cache such information on Licensee’s computer,” the EULA reads.

“Such information (the ‘Information’) may include details of Licensee’s hardware, details of the operating system(s) in use on such hardware, the location of the Licensee’s computer(s) and the profile and extent of Licensee’s use of the different elements of the Software and other Foundry software.”

Crucially, the EULA (pdf) adds a clause which reads: “[Foundry may use the Information] to ensure that the usage of the Software by Licensee is in accordance with the Agreement and does not exceed any user number or other limits on its use.”

EULA for Foundry products authorizes ‘snooping’

While some people are ignoring Foundry’s emails, others who do respond appear to trigger a kind of ‘fishing’ exercise. Foundry licensing compliance officers ask respondents to provide additional details such as IP and MAC addresses of their own machines, apparently to “eliminate people” from their inquiries.

Precisely why this information should be provided isn’t made clear but it at least seems possible that Foundry is making an assessment whether software could have been used by an outsider, perhaps utilizing an individual’s WiFi connection without their knowledge.

In at least some cases, Foundry appears able to connect the dots when a company or individual has a licensed product and then uses an unlicensed one too. Documents obtained by TorrentFreak shine light on the Foundry system, which appears to log instances of infringement, such as how many times a piece of ‘cracked’ or otherwise unlicensed software has been used.

While companies should always take care to ensure their software is licensed, TF has also spoken with private individuals caught up in the sweep who do not have the means to pay the huge sums of money demanded by Foundry. The company seems to presume that all uses of its software are of a commercial nature, something which could aggravate the scale of the settlement demanded.

TorrentFreak asked Foundry to contribute to this article by explaining a little about why they choose to use this system of monitoring and settlements. At the time of publication, the company had not responded, other than to acknowledge receipt of our questions.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Source link

Last week the FTC hosted several discussions on its role when it comes to innovation and intellectual property policy.

The commission asked a broad group of stakeholders how the FTC can use its enforcement and policy authority to advance innovation.

This is a question Hollywood, and its lobby group MPAA in particular, are not leaving unanswered. In a detailed response, Neil Fried of the MPAA laid out several possible actions the Government body can take to help the industry.

Ideally, the FTC should move beyond its consumer advisor role and take concrete action to target several piracy threats, either directly, or by encouraging other bodies to step in.

“Given the harms of piracy to competition and consumer welfare, we ask the FTC to take affirmative steps to combat piracy,” Fried writes.

“Taking more affirmative steps would help prevent unlawful services from stifling investment in, and competition by, legitimate online content services; would help combat cybersecurity threats; and would help protect consumers from identity theft and fraud stemming from malware.”

One of the focus areas highlighted by the MPAA’s SVP for Federal Advocacy and Regulatory Affairs are streaming boxes. Specifically, he suggests that the FTC could go after companies that market pirate streaming boxes as legal alternatives.

This practice is deceptive and warrants the attention of the Government, he argues. In addition, the FTC could educate both the general public and lawmakers about the risks of piracy, including malware-related threats.

“For example, the FTC could consider an unfair and deceptive trade practices action against entities marketing streaming piracy devices and applications as ‘100 percent legal’ and a way to ‘never pay for content again,’ or for harm to consumers stemming from malware.

“In addition, an expanded effort to educate consumers and policymakers about the harms of piracy, the threat to the competitive market for American digital products and services, and the risks to cybersecurity could also pay dividends,” Fried adds.

Another option for the FTC is to reach out other U.S. agencies, to see if it’s possible to bring criminal actions against blatant copyright infringers, and to encourage U.S. Customs and Border Patrol to block the import of pirate streaming devices.

It’s clear that the MPAA isn’t short on suggestions for the FTC to get involved.

As a final point of action, the MPAA mentions the recent controversy surrounding Europe’s new privacy regulation, the GDPR. As a result, many domain registrars and registries are shielding information about registrants from the public, which complicates enforcement efforts.

Fried urges the FTC to convince European lawmakers that this goes a step too far. The GDPR should not affect the availability of WHOIS data, and they hope to receive the commission’s support in calls to preserve the old “transparency” model.

Of course, the MPAA is not the only party to submit comments to the FTC. Other organizations are less enthusiastic about increased enforcement, and could even argue that some measures will impact freedom of speech.

Anticipating this, the MPAA notes that these kinds of fears are overblown, adding that enforcement in these areas will benefit free expression.

“In fact, curbing illegal activity promotes free expression by creating a safer, virtual environment where individuals feel comfortable to communicate and engage in commerce, as well as to create and lawfully access content,” Fried notes.

—

A written copy of the comments from MPAA’s SVP for Federal Advocacy and Regulatory Affairs is available here (pdf).

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Source link

Over the past several years, dozens of YouTube channels have sprung up to cover developments in the rocketing Kodi-related space.

These channels, which can vary in quality tremendously, provide an easy-to-digest fix of information, some of it accurate, some of it not so. Many, however, are littered with advertising and promotional content for illegal IPTV services, ‘pirate’ Android APKs, and third-party Kodi add-ons that provide access to otherwise premium content.

At the same time as these channels promote questionable tools and services, developers of these tools are being targeted by anti-piracy companies. They regularly receive cease-and-desist notices from organizations such as the MPAA-led Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment, while some device sellers (Tickbox TV, for example) have found themselves on the end of actual lawsuits.

As a result, some YouTube channel operators are feeling the pressure too. Worried about demonetization following direct and indirect pressure from anti-piracy groups and YouTube itself, many are self-censoring and diversifying so as not to promote piracy.

One of these channels is run by ‘Doc Squiffy‘, a UK-based YouTube channel and associated website operator who has finally been granted a YouTube silver ‘play’ button award for gaining 100,000 subscribers. However, for some of the reasons detailed above, YouTube has delayed his award for months, to the point he now has more than 238,000 subscribers.

While Doc Squiffy says he’s grateful he’s now been approved, this week a rather ironic situation raised its head on his own website at DocSquiffy.com.

In order to generate revenue on the original content he posts (plus third-party content such as linked TorrentFreak articles), Squiffy runs AdSense ads provided by Google. However, while Google-owned YouTube took an age to verify his suitability for a silver button (Squiffy says his content type contributed to the delay), Google itself is now stepping over the mark.

In a Tweet to his followers, the YouTuber revealed this morning that Google has been embedding ads for illegal services in his site, something he’s fearful of doing himself due to pressure from the MPAA and UK-based anti-piracy outfit FACT.

My website and YouTube never advertises or pushed IPTV, with the pressure from Fact & MPAA this is something I will not do. But apparently it's ok for #google to advertsise it on my site 🤦 pic.twitter.com/yTyhOfewLE

— Doc Squiffy 📲 📺 (@DocSquiffy) October 30, 2018

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

As the image above shows, the advertising shows the StreamKings IPTV service (offered via apparent reseller Smarteriptv.club), which offers thousands of channels of unlicensed content, including premium sports channels, as the image above shows.

It’s worth pointing out that Google wouldn’t have knowingly accepted an advert from a pirate service and it wouldn’t have placed it on Doc Squiffy’s site in any human-powered calculated action. However, with the YouTuber under real pressure to water down his content on YouTube in order to avoid his videos being demonetized or even denied a place on the site, this situation is pretty ironic, to say the least.

Indeed, Squiffy has had to fight for his play button after being initially denied more than six months ago.

“We’ve had trouble from demonetization, trouble with [YouTube] not approving videos, upload issues, takedown issues, and lots of people are having issues over these types of things. Me especially, i’ve been hit a lot,” Squiffy says.

Finally, however, YouTube found it in their hearts to approve Doc Squiffy for a Creator Award.

“Thanks for waiting! I’ve got an update from our Rewards team and good news! Your channels has indeed qualified to receive a Creator Award. Congratulations on reaching such an incredible milestone!” the site told him via email earlier this month.

Speaking with TorrentFreak, Doc Squiffy says he had a “big issue with the MPAA about six months ago” but says his only pressures today come from YouTube itself.

While YouTube videos promoting piracy still exist on the platform, YouTubers are now more careful than they once were, particularly since many completely rely on the site for their income. This noose is likely to tighten in the months and years to come, which will probably drive more controversial content back underground – along with the ads for pirate services….probably.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Source link