Rightsdefend Omdömen 

Achtung! Aus unserer Sicht handelt es sich hier um äußerst unseriöses Verhalten und völlig überzogene Forderungen.
Wir wurden von dieser Firma aufgefordert, einen Nachweis über die Bildrechte zu erbringen. Das betreffende Bild hatten wir jedoch rechtmäßig bei einem Anbieter erworben und verfügten über eine entsprechende Lizenz.
Erst nach deutlichen Nachfragen und unserer Aufforderung erhielten wir einen vermeintlichen Beleg dafür, dass die Firma tatsächlich im Auftrag des genannten Kunden handeln soll. Wir haben erhebliche Zweifel daran, dass dieser Auftrag authentisch ist. Das vorgelegte Dokument erweckte auf uns eher den Eindruck, als sei es von der Firma selbst erstellt oder unterzeichnet worden.
Gefordert wurden aus unserer Sicht völlig unverhältnismäßige Summen für einfache Stockfotos, deren üblicher Lizenzwert deutlich darunter liegt.
Das gesamte Vorgehen wirkt auf uns wie eine Masche, mit der Betroffene unter Druck gesetzt werden sollen. Daher sollte man weder vorschnell zahlen noch unüberlegte Erklärungen oder Schuldeingeständnisse abgeben. Die E-Mails vollständig zu ignorieren, kann allerdings ebenfalls problematisch sein. Im Zweifelsfall empfiehlt es sich, anwaltlichen Rat einzuholen.
Diese Firma gehört eigentlich angezeigt und geschlossen. Wer solche Praktiken verübt verdient absolut keinen Respekt!

I have no intention of making any payment to this scamming company.

We hold a valid licence for the image in question, yet were still presented with a substantial financial demand, a short deadline and repeated references to legal action before our evidence had even been considered.

In my opinion, this approach is aggressive, intimidating and appears designed to pressure businesses into paying quickly rather than properly establishing whether a valid licence exists.

My advice to any business receiving one of these demands is simple: don't panic and don't pay simply because you've received an email.

Check your records, gather your evidence and seek independent advice.

From research on the internet, this is an illegitimate German company trying to extort money from small businesses.

Sent an aggressive email demanding proof of licence for an image our company published or else a fee of over €1000. On investigating the origin of the image, we found that we had downloaded it from Shutterstock, for which we do have a licence, whereas the email claimed that another company owned the licence. This raises the suspicion that as well as doing careless trawling of published images, Rightsdefend is not even acting on behalf of legitimate image library platforms.

I received a demand letter from RIGHTS-DEFEND claiming unauthorized use of an image on our website. After reviewing our records, we confirmed we have a valid license for the image from the stock provider.
Instead of quickly verifying, they sent a formal-looking demand with a tight deadline, forcing us to spend time investigating and responding. Their process assumes guilt and pressures users to pay via their portal rather than easily accepting proof of existing rights.
This is exactly the kind of aggressive, error-prone enforcement that gives legitimate copyright protection a bad name. Other businesses should be cautious — always verify your licenses, but don’t rush to pay these claims without checking your documentation first.
If you have a valid license, provide proof and insist they close the case. Do not accept their “post-license” or settlement offers if you’re already properly licensed.

⭐☆☆☆☆ What an incredible business model — Updated twice

Upload your photos to stock agencies so businesses can legally pay to license them. Then, years later, send those same paying customers legal-style copyright demands and make them prove they bought the licence. If they can't find paperwork from years ago, conveniently offer a "mandatory relicensing" option. It's hard not to admire the creativity.

I legitimately licensed the image through a stock provider, yet still received a copyright demand. The email was filled with references to the Berne Convention, the DMCA, EU copyright law, deadlines, and enforcement warnings. What it didn't contain was any explanation of why my existing licence was invalid, beyond "no valid licence could be identified."

The burden of proof is remarkably selective. Recipients must produce complete documentation on demand, while the company merely asserts it "couldn't find" the licence. The emails are loaded with international legal frameworks, court references, strict deadlines, and enforcement warnings — language carefully chosen not to inform, but to overwhelm. Their public responses follow the same pattern: deflect, cite law, repeat. It is not a coincidence. It is a deliberate design. Every word, every citation, every deadline is calibrated to make paying feel easier than fighting. That is not rights enforcement. That is psychological pressure dressed in legal language, and it is deeply unethical.

Update 1: Their first response proved every point.

They opened with a court judgment awarding €3,420. Not to clarify — to demonstrate what non-compliance might cost. That is not a rebuttal. It is a financial threat dressed as a legal citation.

They also warned that uploading their images into AI tools isn't covered by standard licences. Who is rushing to feed RC-Photo-Stock images into AI tools? These platforms have access to billions of images across the entire internet. The premise isn't just irrelevant — it's laughable.

Update 2: Their second response was even more revealing.

Their closing line states: "If a valid licence exists and covers the actual use, the matter ends." That sounds reasonable in isolation. But here is what they leave out — their own emails do not provide enough information to even begin that process. They identify an image URL. They say "no valid licence could be identified." That's it. No image ID from their own catalogue. No explanation of which specific rights were allegedly violated. No clarification of what licence scope was exceeded.

They send a vague demand, provide minimal details, and then expect recipients to match their purchase records to an image that RC-Photo-Stock itself hasn't properly identified. And if you can't do that — they offer a paid relicensing option. The system is designed to make compliance difficult and payment easy. That is not rights enforcement. That is a revenue model.

After two lengthy public responses, they have still not explained what was wrong with my specific licence, what use fell outside its scope, or what triggered the demand. Two responses. Multiple legal citations. A court judgment. And still no direct answer to the original question: why did someone with a valid licence receive this demand?

That silence is the answer.

RC-Photo-Stock is not protecting photography. It is making the entire industry feel like a minefield. Every business that abandons stock photography for AI-generated images or original shoots has companies like this to thank. They are poisoning the well that genuine photographers depend on.

These people are scammers. They try to intimidate and get money out of you for images that you had a license to use. I downloaded an image from Pexels in 2022 - a site the photographer set up a profile on, which has images that are free to use and don’t even require attribution. 4 years later, his profile is gone and Rights Defend are trying to scam money unlawfully. I received written confirmation from Pexels that that images was on the site and I used it lawfully. I also obtained an old cached copy of the site from 2024 showing his profile. I sent all this to them and then blocked them. Send them evidence and then block and don’t think about it again as they’re criminals, scammers and spammers.

This site only sprang up recently in 2025 and is scamming people. Beware everyone.

This is a scam. They claim that you don't have the rights to use an image on your website, then they give you an "easy" way to solve it. Surprise, surprise, you simply make a payment through their website. They send a lot of spam emails using automated bots, knowing that some people will fall for it and make payment. Disgraceful behaviour from the CEO Marcus Michael Schmitt who has been tricking people for years, with different company names. He is German, which already gives the scam some credence because Germans are usually honest and reliable people, but Marcus Michael Schmitt should be on trial for his constant harassment and trickery.

These people will send you so many emails asking for proof of purchase. Even after you provide proof, they still send demands and threats of escalation.

They use fake names on their emails as well. If you search them (or the company “rights defend”) on LinkedIn, there’s nothing. The fact that the emails come from Zendesk is enough to tell you it’s just spam. A legit legal department wouldn’t send an email from “support@“

Report their emails as spam and ignore them. They’re fake and intimidating to try get you to pay them money.

Nach unserer Wahrnehmung verfolgt dieses Unternehmen ein Geschäftsmodell, bei dem Firmen regelmäßig wegen angeblich fehlender Lizenzen oder Nutzungsrechte kontaktiert werden. Dabei entsteht der Eindruck, dass die zugrunde liegenden Sachverhalte nicht immer ausreichend geprüft werden, bevor entsprechende Forderungen geltend gemacht werden.

Der Fokus scheint dabei primär auf der schnellen Durchsetzung finanzieller Ansprüche zu liegen. Zudem fällt auf, dass das Unternehmen in der Vergangenheit mehrfach unter unterschiedlichen Firmierungen aufgetreten ist, was Fragen hinsichtlich Transparenz und Kontinuität aufwirft.

Auch wenn dieses Vorgehen rechtlich zulässig sein mag, halten wir es aus moralischer und unternehmerischer Sicht für kritisch. Statt auf partnerschaftliche Lösungen und eine sorgfältige Prüfung der jeweiligen Einzelfälle zu setzen, entsteht der Eindruck, dass vor allem wirtschaftliche Eigeninteressen im Vordergrund stehen.

Jedes Unternehmen sollte sich daher vor einer Reaktion auf entsprechende Forderungen umfassend informieren und die Angelegenheit gegebenenfalls rechtlich prüfen lassen.

Sent demanding emails to my my client claiming a stock photo we provided was being used illegally.

Photo was from our shutterstock account and is still in our downloads folders at shutterstock.

As a web design company we deal with a lot of these false copyright claims, i just don't know why these criminals are allowed to operate these scams.

Maybe being based in Germany helps them avoid criminal charges and defamation claims from UK victims

agressiv und unzuhlässige ANforderungen

Marcus Schmitt at it again, allegedly trying to scam legitimate license holders under a new company name after being destroyed on Trustpilot as Copytrack. There will be a class action lawsuit coming his way soon unless he stops.

Using bot to crawl websites and faking their authority from creators to scam and threaten small companies and cause problems.

They practice not only scamming practice but also extortion to people based on false info.

Wieso kann man keine NULL Sterne vergeben? Betrug hoch 10!

Auch wir, wurden und werden von RIGHTS-DEFEND (RD Legal GmbH oder auch Copytrack, wie man sie nennen will) belästigt. Selbstverständlich haben wir, so wie viele weitere Abmahnopfer, eine Lizenz für genutzte Bilder. Das System von RIGHTS-DEFEND ermöglicht es jedem, Bilder in ihre App hochzuladen, ohne die Rechte daran zu besitzen, und trotzdem Entschädigungen zu fordern (Es gibt sogar Beweise mit dem Logo der BBC über dieses Vorgehen, einfach mal nach googlen).

Das ist eindeutig illegal, und RIGHTS-DEFEND schiebt die Verantwortung einfach auf seine angeblichen Kunden ab. Foren sind voll von Berichten von Personen, die ihre Bilder legal gekauft haben und dennoch von RIGHTS-DEFEND belästigt wurden, selbst nachdem sie Kaufbelege vorgelegt hatten. Nach Prüfung uns bereits vorliegender Beschwerden der von RIGHTS-DEFEND ohne Nachweis der Urheberschaft und der Rechtekette in Anspruch genommenen Webseiteninhaber stellten wir fest: RIGHTS-DEFEND wählt vermutlich vorsätzlich Bilder von Webseiten aus, die fast ausschließlich bei Fotolia erworben wurden, heute Adobe und keine alten Rechnungen mehr im Archiv der Nutzer bereitsstellen.

Es steht zu vermuten, dass der dafür Verantwortliche Marcus Schmitt darauf abstellt, dass Webseiteninhaber nach vielen Jahren keine Rechnung bzw. Lizenz mehr aufbewahren.

Die Triebfeder des Systems von RIGHTS-DEFEND oder auch Copytrack bzw. RD Legal GmbH beinhaltet, zweifelsfrei mit massenhaft versandten Schreiben, Webseitenbetreiber zu schädigen und abkassieren zu können. Wer nach einem Jahrzehnt oder länger keinen Nachweis zum Kauf der Bildnutzung mehr archiviert hat, scheint zu dem bewusst ausgewählten Zielkreis von RIGHTS-DEFEND oder auch Copytrack bzw. RD Legal GmbH zu gehören.

Kritisierbar und anfechtbar: Ausgewählte Abmahnopfer erhalten Drohbriefe und werden mit Ultimaten bombardiert, um ihnen Angst zu machen. Diese Feststellung spiegelt sich auch in negativen Bewertungen bzw. Beschwerden über E-Mails des Inkassobüros RIGHTS-DEFEND oder auch Copytrack, mittlerweile auch noch tätig unter der Firma RD Legal GmbH, wider. Wer sehenden Auges ein System betreibt, das Dritte offenbar für betrügerische Aktivitäten nutzen will, muss sich die Frage der Beihilfe zum (versuchten) Betrug gefallen lassen.

Es wird im Netz folgende Empfehlung gegeben, wenn Sie eine Abmahnung erhalten haben: Erstatten Sie Anzeige (online, mit wenigen Klicks), um den Missständen von RIGHTS-DEFEND ein Ende zu setzen!

Dopo Copytrack, viste le tante critiche e recensioni negative, sono tornati a cercare di spillare soldi cambiando nome della società.
Non pagate nulla e rivolgetevi alle autorità.

This is the same scam company that apparently went under the name Copytrack. Just ignore their silly emails. It's a scam. I hope these people end up in jail.

Dopo 6 anni sono tornati all'attacco.... prima con il nome photoclaim.com sempre di Berlino ora con rightsdefend.com ma medesime parole e toni minacciosi. Forse non ricordano più che robert.fechner e i suoi accoliti furono condannati ad una multa di circa 45.000 €
Ora mi è arrivata la prima lettera che come quelle del 2020 ho completamente ignorato, la foto incriminata è presente su migliaia di siti, da considerare free considerando che non esiste nessuna filigrana di copyright