I’m being hassled by a German copyright troll organization known as “Copytrack”.
It all started in October with an email, subject line “Your publication on angryjerk.net”:
Dear AngryJerk,
We, COPYTRACK, are writing to you on behalf of our client Federico Caputo, whose license and image rights, limited to the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany, we are here to protect – abroad this is done by our local lawyer partners. Our customer has informed us that AngryJerk is likely using an image without permission and has exclusively commissioned us with the clarification, administration of the image rights and, if necessary, the enforcement of any rights infringement. Images are protected by copyright law and infringements are actionable under national and international law. Please see the attachment below for details.
On behalf of our client, we must first determine if you have a valid license to use the images in question. If you have a valid license to use these images, please reply to this email and include proof of purchase and any other license information.
Please respond to this letter no later than October 19, 2023.
If this is not the case, your use of the image material most likely constitutes a rights infringement on the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany – abroad, our local lawyer partners will check this – and you would then be legally obligated to compensate our customer for the damage caused by this rights infringement.
Rights holder Federico Caputo Image found on https://www.angryjerk.net/wp/ 2011/02/05/worthless- techniques-for-managing-your- anger/ Online Since January 14, 2017 3 STEPS TO SOLVING YOUR CASE
In order to resolve this case amicably with you, we request your cooperation. Please complete the following steps to close this case:
- Option 1: Purchase of a subsequent image license (includes past and future use for one year after purchase).
- Option 2: Compensation (includes the previous use and requires the immediate deletion of the image).
Image license (valid for 1 year from date of purchase) 978.09 € Compensation costs (past usage) 900.00 € Payment is due by November 10, 2023 Payments for both options can be made securely online at https://portal.copytrack.com by entering CASE ID [REDACTED].
We accept PayPal, credit card and bank transfer.
We calculate these fees based on our client’s license history, as well as the duration of use and type of rights infringement. Failure to provide a proof or pay for a valid license may result in your case being referred to our partner attorney and significantly higher additional fees.
To avoid further action, including legal action, provide proof of a valid license by October 19, 2023, or acquire it by making payment in our online portal.
Sincerely yours,
Marcus Schmitt
(CEO)REMARK FROM OUR LEGAL PARTNERS IN THE US – APPLYING TO UNITED STATES CLAIMS ONLY
This case will not go away if you ignore it. Rather, it will escalate to litigation in which our partner lawyers may seek either our client’s lost licensing fee plus your profits from the Offending Use(s) (see 17 U.S.C. § 504), or statutory damages in an amount up to $150,000.00 in connection with the infringement at issue, as well as costs and attorney fees, assuming timely registration. Id at § 505. Moreover, 17 U.S.C. §1203(c)(3) permits our client to “recover an award of statutory damages for each violation of Section 1202 in the sum of not less than $2,500 or more than $25,000.” And under the relevant authorities, each copy or reproduction would be a separate violation. Our client will seek such damages through litigation should this matter not be appropriately resolved.
Please carefully consider this letter and the attached evidence and provide them to your insurance carrier and/or your attorneys. We look forward to a prompt response. We reserve the right to take any steps we deem necessary to protect our client’s rights. If we do not receive a response from you by the date stated, we will assume that you are not amenable to resolving this amicably and proceed accordingly.
About Copytrack
Since 2015, Copytrack has been helping creatives and brands protect their copyrighted images. As one of the leading digital licensing and copyright agents in the world, we have helped manage, license, and enforce over 200.000 cases of image theft. Though most cases settle peacefully, we reserve the right to proceed legally where necessary through our global network of partner law firms in order to protect the intellectual property of our customers.
Summary – Unauthorized use of the image – Case ID: [REDACTED]
For the full report, visit https://portal.copytrack.com and enter this CASE-ID [REDACTED].
Rights holder Federico Caputo Image used [IMAGE REDACTED] Image found on https://www.angryjerk.net/wp/ 2011/02/05/worthless- techniques-for-managing-your- anger/ Online Since January 14, 2017 Image license (valid for 1 year from date of purchase) 963.00 € Compensation costs (past usage) 900.00 € Payment is due by November 10, 2023
Cheese and crackers, I’m being sued?! Not quite.
The gist of the very scarily-worded email was that, per German law, I had illegally used a certain stock image (which I won’t be posting on here again for reasons I’ll get to shortly), and the copyright holder, a one Mr. Federico Caputo, had enlisted the help of Copytrack, a German company specializing in image-related copyright violations, to collect perceived damages from me to the tune of 900 Euros (roughly $950 USD, give or take a few dollars). Should I refuse, Copytrack was prepared to bring in lawyers and file a lawsuit against me for copyright infringement. It also didn’t matter what country I was located in, as Copytrack had a “global network” of partner law firms, and their jurisdiction knew no bounds.
After taking another look at the image, I decided it wasn’t worth the hassle to fight with these people and simply deleted it, replacing it with the image that’s there now. I had no intention of dropping $950 on a stupid stock photo of some bald guy with smoke coming from his ears, so I hoped deleting the image would suffice and Federico Caputo and Copytrack would let the whole thing go.
I politely informed them that I removed the image, and that I haven’t made a single dime from this site in the 17 years I’ve owned it (The AJnet Organization gets its funding through other sources). I also informed them that I felt my use of the image fell under “Fair Use”:
Marcus,
Thank you for reaching out to me regarding this issue.
Upon review of your email, the image in question appears to be a modified version of your client’s image, and was originally sourced via a Google Image Search in 2017. It was used as the header image on a blog post on my website. I would like to note that I have made no profit from your client’s work, nor have I made a profit from my website in the 16 years I have owned it. The website is something I do in my spare time as a hobby. It is completely not for profit.
While I originally believed my use of the offending image to fall under “Fair Use”, I’ve deleted said image from my server as a gesture of good faith. I extend my sincere apologies for any inconvenience I may have caused your client, and hope that my deletion of the image in question will suffice in resolving this matter.
Thank you,
-AJ
Apparently that wasn’t good enough for them. Federico Caputo and Copytrack wanted money, not apologies or good faith gestures. My defense of “Fair Use” was also invalid according to them. However, they were the merciful type, and were prepared to discount the required fee by 40% (bringing it down to 540 Euros, or about $570 USD). Should I not accept this “generous” offer, legal action would be pursued against me:
Dear Sir or Madam,
Thank you for your message.
Fair use is a crucial exception to copyright law that allows for the use of copyrighted material without obtaining permission from the copyright owner, under specific circumstances. It primarily focuses on promoting educational and transformative uses of the copyrighted work, thereby stimulating creativity, research, criticism, and commentary.
However, we firmly believe that the usage of our client image on your domain does not fall under the fair use doctrine In light of these circumstances, we believe it is in both parties’ best interests to avoid further legal disputes and reach a fair and reasonable settlement. We propose the following solution:
1. Settlement Agreement: Our client would like to receive a compensation payment for the unauthorized usage of their copyrighted image. Additionally, we are willing to lower the claim fee by 40 %.
By accepting this resolution proposal, you demonstrate your willingness to take responsibility for the infringement and mitigate any further legal consequences.
Please be aware that should we not receive a response, our client will be left with no choice but to pursue legal steps to protect their rights and seek appropriate compensation. As we aim to avoid such escalation, we strongly encourage you to consider this settlement proposal seriously.
We look forward to receiving your response and resolving this issue amicably.
Sincerely,
Legal Department
Something didn’t seem right here. Rather than directly contact me first and ask me to remove the image (as I suggest any so-called “copyright holders” do on my “Legal Info” page), Federico Caputo had decided to simply enlist this company, Copytrack, to email me demanding an exuberant amount of money. This was non-negotiable, my options were either pay up or face legal action. This was beginning to seem less like an attempt at making right on perceived copyright infringement, and more like an attempt at extortion. The AJnet Organization doesn’t negotiate with terrorists and extortionists, we fucking destroy them. I don’t think Federico Caputo nor Copytrack knew exactly who they were dealing with here. We’re not some poor defenseless little blog, we’re the goddamn AJnet Organization.
Sun Tzu once said “Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war and then seek to win.” Before replying any further, I decided to do some research on my opponents.
First things first, who the hell was “Federico Caputo”? We did a little digging, and it turns out there were several Federico Caputos, all in Italy, who specialized in photography and graphic design. Of those, only two seemed like possible candidates for being the Federico who sicced Copytrack on me. I’m not going to dox anyone, since I’m still not 100% certain which one is the correct Federico Caputo, but at least now I had a general idea of who I could be dealing with. Italians and Germans working together against Americans? Where had I seen that before? Oh yeah:
Next, I wanted to know if Copytrack was a legitimate company, or if they were running some kind of scam.
I took a look at Copytrack’s website. They were indeed a legitimate company registered in Germany. According to their website, they had “around 35 employees worldwide”, a “global partner network”, and had “cases in over 190 countries”, of which they had won in either 80 or 115 of them (the site provided contradictory figures).
Their site allows users to sign up for free and upload up to 500 images, which their software then uses to search across the internet and see where those images were being used. From there, the uploader can choose to allow it or sic Copytrack on that site. Copytrack handles all negotiations and litigation, and the uploader only has to pay if Copytrack is successful.
So this wasn’t necessarily a scam, but being based in Germany and attempting to file a copyright infringement lawsuit in the United States could definitely prove to be tricky. I wasn’t convinced enough to break out my checkbook just yet. I wanted to see how other people handled Copytrack, so back to Google I went.
One of the first results I came across when searching out Copytrack was from a law firm, “Heitner Legal”. Heitner Legal was advising anyone who received a notice from Copytrack to take it seriously and not ignore it. The blog post then advised anyone who received a notice to contact Heitner Legal immediately, and they would be more than happy to provide their legal services. Ah, okay, so it was basically just an advertisement for Heitner Legal masquerading as advice. Nice try, Heitner.
Reddit was full of people who also received notices from Copytrack, asking if they should worry and if Copytrack could really pursue litigation internationally against people for using someone else’s image. Reddit was also full of assholes who simply said “YOU INFRINGED THEIR COPYRIGHT JUST PAY THEM YOU FUCKING THIEF!!!” Nobody could actually provide an instance of Copytrack or one of their clients successfully suing someone in the United States, nobody was concerned with discussing the logistics behind filing an international lawsuit for copyright infringement, everybody was just screeching at the people for daring to use a starving photographer’s work on their blog post or YouTube video without paying them thousands of dollars. Yes, my use of a stock photo on this site (which has never made even a dime) has cost poor Federico so much money that he’s in the fucking poor house. I have singlehandedly bankrupted Mr. Caputo by using an image of his as the title card for an article about poorly-written anger management advice. (That was sarcasm, Copytrack. Don’t think you can use it as an admission of guilt.)
I then found a site called ExtortionLetterInfo.com, ran by a guy who was an actual lawyer. According to this guy, Copytrack’s strength lied more in convincing people to pay with their threatening letters than it did in their ability to actually pursue legal action. There were instances where they succeeded in taking legal action against people, but the bulk of those were in European countries (I assume being part of the EU makes this easier). Their record in the United States was dicey at best. The guy running Extortion Letter Info gave actual explanations as to why Copytrack’s claims were mostly worthless and unenforceable outside of the European Union, namely the fact that it costs a lot of time and money to file a lawsuit internationally. In most cases the juice wouldn’t be worth the squeeze, which is why Copytrack’s modus operandi was to send out intimidating emails with the hope that people simply paid them without question.
I also took this opportunity to look up Federico Caputo in court records across the United States to see if he ever filed a trans-Atlantic lawsuit. Federico Caputo had never once filed a lawsuit in the United States. Still, there’s a first time for everything, and if there was even just a 5% chance that Federico could try something against me I wanted to be fully prepared.
Now that I knew exactly what I was up against, I began planning my counter attack.
Most people assume that because I find most of my images via Google I just grab and go without a second thought about the finer details. This isn’t some Mickey Mouse organization, believe it or not I do in fact dot my I’s and cross my T’s. I had seen something like this coming for some time, and quite frankly I’m surprised it took this long.
I keep record of where I source my images from. This particular image happened to have been sourced from Adobe’s stock images library, under their standard license. Adobe’s Standard Use License allows users to use their stock photos so long as no money is being made from them. Evidently Federico had uploaded his images to Adobe at some point under the username Alphaspirit. Those images were still up and available on the site and had been there since at least 2017, so why was Federico suddenly going around trying to bust people for using them? Something wasn’t right here, this was beginning to look more and more like a shakedown. In any case, while I could have legally kept using the image, I decided to remove it anyway. If Federico Caputo was going to behave like a sneaky little bitch and try to extort money from people for using images that he made freely available for use, then I wouldn’t be associated with such a person and would make a point to never use one of his images again.
And on the subject of Federico’s images, Copytrack hadn’t provided any form of proof that Federico Caputo actually owned the copyright to said image. If anyone can create an account on Copytrack and upload images, what’s to stop someone from claiming an image they don’t actually own and demanding payment? Usually when you accuse someone of copyright infringement, you provide some form of proof that you actually own the rights to the material in question.
Another standard practice is sending a cease and desist notice. While it’s not actually legally required, it’s a common practice that pretty much every company or person does in instances of perceived copyright infringement before actually pursuing litigation against the offender. In fact, I’ve received a few of these over the years for various things (usually stuff I’ve forgotten I’ve uploaded) and generally I’ll comply and remove the offending item rather than waste time with a court case. I’ve also had people directly email me and ask me politely to remove something of theirs or about them, and again I usually comply, especially if they were polite about it. Kindness begets kindness. Usually this is enough, and the copyright holder will move on with their lives. After all, they’re only concerned with stopping someone from violating their copyright.
Federico Caputo and Copytrack only seem concerned with getting paid for imaginary damages, which I guess explains why Federico never attempted to contact me himself and instead resorted to enlisting Copytrack to try and shake me down for close to $1,000.
I was also confused about how exactly they came to that figure. Did they know how many people had viewed that image and article over the last six years? I did, and it wasn’t anywhere near enough traffic to justify paying even $100 in damages, let alone $1,000. Most likely they pulled this ridiculously high figure out of their ass with the intent to lower it as part of a negotiation tactic. That’s Business 101. Unfortunately for them, I’m not some panicky idiot who doesn’t think to ask questions. I wanted to see the math on this one and be shown exactly how they came to their laughably high sum of $1,000.
At this point they literally had no case, and I could have simply linked them the image on Adobe and outright told them “Eat a dick” then ignored all subsequent emails from them. But that wouldn’t have made for a good article, now would it?
Federico Caputo and Copytrack were bullies, and sometimes you can’t just sit back and let bullies run free. Sometimes you have to be the one to put the bully in their place. Federico Caputo had the balls to permit people to use his images on Adobe, then go after them for money six years later? Nobody attempts to extort me and gets away with it. School was in session, and Professor AJ was ready to teach Mr. Caputo and Copytrack a few things about extortion. The first thing these guys needed to learn about extortion was don’t fucking try to extort AJnet.
I’ve always been a big fan of Teddy Roosevelt’s famous quote, “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” With that in mind, I kept my reply kind and cordial while I laid out the facts for whoever was manning (or womanning, we don’t discriminate here at AJnet) the Copytrack email address:
Hello,
Upon further review of said image, it appears I originally sourced it from Adobe’s Stock Images Library (source: https://stock.adobe.com/
images/Stress/56526195), under the Standard License, which states that users may: Post the asset to a website or social media site with no limitation on views.
Adobe’s licensing terms may be found here for reference: https://stock.
adobe.com/license-terms Your client has provided or permitted the availability of the photograph in question for Standard Licensing on Adobe’s website free for non-commercial use. Therefore, it would appear that any claim of copyright infringement in this instance would be invalid. If said image was uploaded to Adobe’s website without your client’s consent, then the original uploader (Adobe user “Alphaspirit”) and potentially Adobe themselves are at fault for providing illegitimate licensing of your client’s image, and perhaps your client should pursue the matter further with them.
In addition, I have reviewed your emails and the report on your website, and I have a few issues:
1. So far you have not provided any form of valid proof that your client does in fact own the copyright to said image (which, as mentioned in my previous email, is different from the image previously found on my website). Please provide valid proof that your client holds the copyright for the image in question.
2. Typically in instances of potential copyright infringement, any attempt at litigation is prefaced with a Cease and Desist notice providing proof of copyright ownership and requesting removal of the offending content. While not required, a Cease and Desist notice is considered common courtesy and a standard practice for copyright holders prior to any attempt at litigation. I would like clarification as to why I have received no such notice from your company nor your client, only an email demanding payment without any form of valid proof that your client owns the rights to the image in question.
3. Regarding payment, I am confused as to how you calculated the figure of 900 € for compensation costs for past usage. I have checked the traffic logs for my website going back to the time the image was uploaded, and I feel that the extremely low number of views in the length of time the image was used on my website is hardly enough to justify the proposed amount of compensation, nor is it even enough to justify your proposed reduction of 40% (540 €). Please clarify exactly how you or your client came to this amount.
As previously mentioned at the beginning of the email, the image was sourced from Adobe under their Standard License. However, given that your client has attempted to suddenly demand exuberant financial compensation without any prior attempt at contact or resolution and without proof of copyright, the image has been permanently deleted from my server, and going forward I will no longer be sourcing images from your client, as I have no desire to do business with or be associated with a person who partakes in such questionable practices.
My previous proposal still stands. The image is permanently removed from my website, and I would kindly ask that you and your client consider the matter resolved.
Regards,
AJ
At this point, they should have realized there was no case, since Federico had provided the image to Adobe users under their Standard Use License. The proper thing to do would have been to thank me for providing the licensing information then close the case.
Unfortunately, Copytrack wasn’t concerned with doing things the proper way:
Dear Sir/Madam,
Damages are calculated by considering several factors, including geography, usage type, length of usage, and image size, as well as accrued and anticipated legal costs should we be unable to reach an amicable settlement.
Our client suffered damages because of the unauthorised usage of their copyright protected images, therefore they can claim the compesation for the past usage without he permission (even if the current prices are lower).
Please be reminded that our offer will expire within the next 14 days, and than we will be forced to hand this case over to our partner lawyers, and the settlement costs will be significantly higher,since the discounted offer will expire and the lawyers fees will apply
Best regards
Legal Department
The still-unnamed person handling my case ignored every single point made in my reply and instead gave a canned answer about the arbitrary way they calculate damages. I was reminded that I had 14 days to comply with their demands, or I’d face legal action.
Speaking softly didn’t work. Out comes the big stick:
Hi,
As previously stated, the image in question was sourced from Adobe’s stock images library, under their Standard Use License. Please refer to my previous email for more detailed information on this.
Further, you still have not provided the requested proof that your client is the legal copyright holder of the image. Am I supposed to just take your word for it that your client owns the image in question?
Again, I have provided proper licensing information in my previous email. Under Adobe’s Standard Use License, your client provided the image to users free for non-commercial use, and is therefore not entitled to any compensation or restitution from myself. I advise you to re-read my previous email and re-evaluate your claim based on the evidence provided in said email. No negotiations regarding payment will be entered into from my end, and I would strongly suggest you and your client consider this matter resolved.
Regards,
AJ
The 14 days passed, and I received nothing from them. As of publishing this, I have yet to receive any further communication from them.
I don’t negotiate with extortionists, period. Federico Caputo nor Copytrack will be getting so much as a single penny from me, no matter how many intimidating emails they send. You guys can take your shakedown and shove it up your ass. Your threats are as empty as your heads.
The fact of the matter is, even if my usage of the image hadn’t been legal (it was), the likelihood that Copytrack or Federico would file a lawsuit against someone in the United States for using a photo without permission is highly unlikely. The site doesn’t make any money and the associated article doesn’t have a lot of views, so any damages accrued from my use of the image would be low. At best, Federico could expect to possibly win a payment of less than $1,000, and that’s if he had a good lawyer. That would be after a long and costly court battle. The logistics of coordinating international legal action are very time consuming and expensive for the person initiating it, the case could take years and run up a bill in the tens of thousands of dollars. Which, if I lost I’d probably be expected to pay. But in the end Federico himself wouldn’t make anywhere enough money to justify the time spent coming after me. As I said before, the juice isn’t worth the squeeze on this one.
Despite being well within my rights to repost the image, I’m not going to. Why? Because I no longer want to associate with Federico Caputo in any way. I suggest anyone else reading this make the same choice to not use any of Federico Caputo’s images or do business with him in any way. Federico Caputo has proven himself to be dishonest with his disreputable and unethical business practices. He provided images for free non-commercial use under Adobe’s Standard Use License, then later turned around and attempted to extort money from people who used those images. Those who do business with or source images from Mr. Caputo may later find themselves being wrongfully accused of copyright infringement and having to endure extortionist companies like Copytrack sending threatening letters demanding payment. Federico Caputo is untrustworthy and deals with a company which commits extortion, and people should exercise caution when using his images or doing any business with him.
Federico, if you’re reading this, I invite you to personally reach out to me about this. My email address is on the site’s contact page. I’m willing to hear your side of the story regarding this. I want to know why you decided to have Copytrack threaten me instead of simply contacting me about using one of your images. More importantly, I want to know why you suddenly expect payment when you’ve made your image available on Adobe for free non-commercial use for at least seven years.
I understand that artists and photographers having their work stolen is a serious problem. Companies steal others’ work all the time and profit from it, and it’s fucking wrong. Also, people will often steal an image then use it to sell merchandise on sites like RedBubble or Etsy. That’s not right either, you can’t just go making a profit from someone else’s work. My problem isn’t with artists and photographers who go after these companies and people, in this case they’re definitely entitled to royalties.
My issue is with artists and photographers who target small bloggers and others who aren’t making anything from using the work. Sure, technically they’re the copyright holder and they can legally go after others for unauthorized use. But should they? Shouldn’t there be some judgement exercised when deciding who to go after? You’ve created art, you put it out in public view, and now you’re angry because someone is sharing it with others? When you go after bloggers for sharing your work you look like a huge asshole. Have some decorum.
Copytrack, get fucking real guys. I’m not paying you jack shit, and there isn’t a damn thing you can do about it. It’s honestly a miracle your company has lasted as long as it has, and I imagine it’s only a matter of time before you go broke. Your so-called “legal team” is a joke, and needs to actually learn the law before they send out threatening letters. They also need to learn to fucking read, since the person replying to my emails didn’t even bother to acknowledge any of the valid points I made, namely the fact that their client made the images available for free non-commercial use on Adobe’s website. “Cases in over 190 countries”. There are only 195 countries in the entire world. All this means is you sent out threatening emails to people across the world. This is an empty and meaningless boast.
You have absolutely no case, you have absolutely no ability to project your power across the Atlantic Ocean, you have nothing. The image has been removed from my server, now do yourself a favor and let this one go.
But if you really want to take this to the next level then fuck around and find out. You thought you were picking a fight with a soft target?
I’m fully prepared to fight this in court if need be. Are you and your “partners” prepared to fight a long and arduous court battle in the American legal system over $1,000? Any judge is going to take one look at your claim, see that your client made the image freely available on Adobe’s website, bitch you out for wasting the court’s time, then tell you to get the fuck out of their courtroom.
Again, I strongly suggest Copytrack considers this matter resolved. The AJnet Organization doesn’t negotiate with extortionists, we won’t be bullied into paying an exorbitant fee because some crybaby photographer suddenly got cold feet and decided that people can’t use his images for free anymore. Copytrack and Federico Caputo won’t be getting a single cent from us, ever.
I’ll update this article if anything further happens.
UPDATE 2/24/24
Our legal department has informed me that one week after publishing this article we’ve received another notice from Copytrack, this time at the behest of WENN Rights International, over an image in my “Pot Culture is Stupid” article. The image in question isn’t even hosted on our servers, and is simply linked to on an external site (Getty Images).
So linking to images is now copyright infringement according to Copytrack. Is everyone at your company on drugs, or are German copyright laws just that ridiculous? How the hell is Copytrack even still in business? Given that we received this notice a week after this article was published and received multiple hits from employees of Copytrack, I’m not sure if this is intentionally targeted harassment or just badly-timed plain stupidity.
In the event that this is targeted harassment against us, I reiterate my previous advice and strongly suggest that Copytrack considers this matter resolved, and backs off with their extortion attempts of the AJnet Organization. Should Copytrack continue to harass us, this will be escalated. Think I’m joking?
Neither of these sites are live as of now, but they can go live with fairly little effort on our part, and they can contain all kinds of information we’ve obtained about your company. Testimonials from unsatisfied clients, statements from victims, and earnings reports to start (your American “operations” are in the red). Next we’ll expose the flaws in how exactly your service works, as well as your low success rate. Then we can delve into the fun stuff, like who was literally descended from actual Nazis. I imagine Google will pick up on these sites and the information they’ll contain pretty quickly.
I truly don’t want to do this, I have many better things to do besides fight a pointless war with your company. Time spent fighting is time not spent being productive, for either of us. But the AJnet Organization is fully prepared to defend itself, and will not hesitate to do so.
I’m open to squashing this beef and preventing this from escalating. If Copytrack would like to talk, I ask that either Marcus Schmitt or Fabian Stachowiak personally contact me themselves. You can reach me directly at [email protected]. Let’s discuss this issue like civil and rational human beings and stop this from turning into something that it doesn’t need to turn into.
UPDATE 3/20/24
Dust off those resumes, Copytrack is hiring! Job openings include “Head of Legal”, “Accounting”, and “Employee Finances”:
I’m interested to know exactly what happened to the previous head of legal. Perhaps they quit rather than face the might of the AJnet Organization. Or maybe they realized their employer was running an extortion racket and got the hell out of there.