We take this matter very seriously.
This review contains serious accusations (“fraud, scam”) and presents unsupported assertions as facts, along with misleading shortcuts.
1. “BEWARE OF FRAUD, SCAM”
You publicly allege criminal conduct without providing any verifiable evidence (case reference, URL, image ID, dates, licence, invoice, screenshots of the alleged use). A claim this serious cannot be based on impressions or speculation.
2. “WORKS TOGETHER WITH COPYTRACK”, “MASS WARNINGS”
COPYTRACK is not a “SHADY ACCOMPLICE” as implied. It acts on the basis of a documented mandate to manage claims and correspondence. Standardised emails and follow-ups are normal administrative practice especially where licence scope, provenance, or usage details must be clarified. Automation is not proof of illegitimacy.
3. “THEY ARE NOT THE RIGHTS HOLDER”
You assert a definitive fact without proof. In copyright enforcement, standing may derive from copyright ownership or from authorisation, mandate to act on behalf of the rightsholder or authorised party, depending on the work and context. Conflating “NOT THE CREATOR” with “NO LEGAL STANDING” is incorrect.
4. “FOR OUR OWN PHOTO, CONCEPT-PRODUCTION NAMED ITSELF AS THE RIGHTS HOLDER”
This allegation is incomplete and potentially misleading. Without the precise elements (THE SPECIFIC IMAGE, THE URL(S), PUBLICATION CONTEXT, USAGE HISTORY, CORRESPONDENCE, AND THE DOCUMENTS YOU RECEIVED), no third party can assess what was stated, on what basis (mandate, authorisation, assignment, representation), or whether you are misunderstanding the claim.
Moreover, demanding public disclosure of sensitive chain-of-title, mandate, authorisation documents is legally and practically impossible. These are confidential evidentiary materials intended for review within an appropriate legal framework not for “VERIFICATION” by anonymous third parties online and they would be contestable out of context anyway.
By contrast, the traceability of our records is timestamped and deposited with the INPI under reference DSO2025017437, and we have contradictory elements available on our website. Sensitive supporting documentation can be communicated through the appropriate legal channel to you or your counsel upon written request, in compliance with confidentiality and procedural requirements (any related communication, compilation costs being borne by the requester, in line with standard practice).
Publishing unverified accusations as facts misleads the public and can unnecessarily escalate a file. Accordingly, you are hereby put on notice. Use the dedicated channel so the matter can be reviewed strictly on a factual, documented basis (CASE REFERENCE, URL, LICENCE, AUTHORISATION PROOF).
Failing that, we will challenge and report any false factual allegations, supported by contradictory evidence, to the relevant platform and, where applicable, pursue the appropriate legal remedies. We reserve all rights.
