Help Center

Explore practical answers to common questions about copyright trolling, image and media licensing, and risk prevention. Learn how to protect your business with expert guidance, forensic analysis tools, and actionable strategies to avoid costly claims and stay compliant in the digital landscape.

The name reflects our core mission: to restore fairness and balance to the copyright landscape.

The current system is skewed. “Copyright trolls” or mass filers exploit legal asymmetry, creating an unfair advantage that pressures businesses into unjust settlements. “Fair” in FairCaseTech represents the justice, equity, and balance we aim to return. We empower the defense side with the technological tools and proactive information needed to level the playing field.

Our platform helps businesses prevent major future financial losses by identifying content risks before they become lawsuits. We combine unique IT tools for risk detection with up-to-date news and analysis on IP law. Ultimately, FairCaseTech is about giving entrepreneurs a fair chance to protect what they’ve built.

Copyright trolling occurs when individuals or companies aggressively enforce copyright claims, often targeting businesses with automated detection tools. Instead of licensing content legitimately, they seek settlements, using the threat of high statutory damages to pressure quick payments.
Most businesses settle because defending a claim is expensive, time-consuming, and unpredictable. Even when a claim is dubious, the cost of litigation, potential reputational damage, and lost time make settlement the path of least resistance.
Small businesses often lack the legal resources, technical expertise, and forensic evidence needed to challenge claims. Trolls exploit this asymmetry, sending letters that appear legitimate but rely on the business’s limited capacity to verify or contest the allegation.
Statutory damages are fixed sums determined by law, independent of actual losses, designed to deter infringement. For “innocent” violations, damages start at $750 per work; for “willful” violations, they can reach $150,000 per work, creating significant financial exposure even for minor errors.

Copyright law holds businesses accountable for content published under their name. Even unintentional use of unlicensed images, fonts, or media – uploaded by employees, contractors, or web developers – can trigger claims and substantial liability.

Yes. Liability typically rests with the entity publishing the content. Outsourcing design or marketing does not shield a business from claims; owners must ensure all content is properly licensed and documented.
A legitimate claim arises when an author or rights holder seeks fair compensation for unauthorized use of their work. Trolling exploits legal mechanisms, often targeting multiple businesses simultaneously, prioritizing settlements over actual licensing or creative protection.
Fair Use is limited and context-specific, evaluated case by case in court. It rarely applies to commercial use of images, fonts, or media on websites, marketing, or products. Businesses should not rely solely on Fair Use without professional legal review.
Standard image search or stock verification tools often identify obvious duplicates but cannot reliably detect subtle manipulations, cropping, or AI-generated content. They also cannot verify licensing or provide evidence admissible in court.
FairCaseTech combines forensic-level technical analysis (EXIF Analyzer, PixMatch, Fontoscope, ProCopy) with practical business intelligence. This allows businesses to proactively identify risks, verify authorship, and gather admissible evidence before claims arise – providing a defensible, preventive strategy rather than reactive patchwork solutions.
By combining legal awareness, proactive content auditing, and forensic tools to verify originality, licensing, and ownership, businesses can reduce their exposure and prepare defensible documentation in case of claims.
No. Our tools provide objective technical evidence and risk assessment, but legal advice and defense must come from qualified IP attorneys. However, our services help businesses gather accurate data to strengthen legal strategies.

ProCopy is an automated image analysis service designed to identify copyrighted and stock images used on websites and digital platforms.

The service extracts images from specified URLs (including sitemap-based scans) and checks them against billions of stock and licensed images, helping businesses identify potential copyright risks before they escalate into claims or litigation.

ProCopy can help identify and mitigate copyright risks, but it does not provide legal immunity.

If ProCopy discovers that a disputed image is hosted on a free stock platform (such as Unsplash) under a license that does not require payment or attribution, this information may undermine or invalidate a copyright claim, depending on the circumstances and applicable law.

Final legal conclusions always remain with the court or legal counsel.

ProCopy analyzes extracted images using advanced matching algorithms capable of:

  • Identifying original images even from cropped fragments
  • Detecting images embedded in collages
  • Matching images despite resizing or minor edits

The system compares images against large-scale databases of licensed and stock content to flag images that typically require a valid license.

ProCopy operates in a deliberately high-sensitivity (“paranoid”) detection mode.

This approach prioritizes not missing an original image, even if only a fragment or altered version is present.
As a result, search results may occasionally include visually similar images.

This conservative methodology helps reduce the risk of overlooking an image that could later become the basis for a significant copyright claim.

Yes.

If an image is available on a free stock platform (for example, Unsplash) under a license that permits commercial use without payment or attribution, ProCopy will attempt to locate it.

This information may be critical when assessing the validity of copyright demands or settlement claims.

Yes.

When ProCopy identifies a licensed image, it can optionally suggest free alternative images on similar topics that do not require purchasing a license.

To enable this feature, select “Show Alternative Relevant Images” before starting the scan.
This functionality is currently in beta, and while alternatives may not always be a perfect semantic match, it can significantly speed up content replacement workflows.

ProCopy-360 is designed for large-scale audits.

It allows users to analyze up to 10,000 image URLs in a single scan, making it suitable for:

  • Large websites
  • Marketplaces
  • Legacy content audits
  • Compliance reviews prior to acquisition or rebranding

Scan speed depends on the source website and image availability, but on average ProCopy processes images at approximately:

1–3 seconds per image

Yes.

After the scan is complete, you can use the Copy Table function to copy the full results table.
The copied data can be pasted directly into Excel or other spreadsheet tools for documentation, internal review, or further analysis.

For large scans, copying may take additional time.

Yes.

When a licensed image is identified, ProCopy may display up to five links to stock platforms where the original image is available for licensing.

This helps users quickly assess licensing options or verify claim assertions.

A 404 error usually indicates that the image has been removed from that specific stock platform.

If multiple links are provided, users should rely on the remaining active sources.

No.

ProCopy does not evaluate legal doctrines such as fair use, de minimis use, or statutory exceptions.
It provides technical identification and sourcing data only.

Legal assessment should be conducted by qualified counsel based on jurisdiction-specific law.

ProCopy is commonly used by:

  • E-commerce businesses and marketplaces
  • In-house legal and compliance teams
  • Website owners and publishers
  • Agencies managing large content portfolios
  • Businesses responding to copyright demands

It is particularly valuable in environments exposed to copyright trolling and automated enforcement schemes.

Fontoscope is an automated font analysis service that identifies all fonts used on a website, including fonts loaded through:

  • CMS themes
  • Plugins
  • JavaScript libraries
  • Third-party services

It helps determine whether the fonts in use are commercial or free, allowing website owners to assess potential copyright or licensing risks.

Fonts labeled as Personal Use Only may be used exclusively for private, non-commercial purposes.
Any use in a commercial context — including websites, online stores, advertising, branding, or monetized content — typically requires explicit permission from the font author or the purchase of a commercial license.

Before using such fonts in business activities, users should independently verify licensing terms or contact the font’s copyright holder directly.

Fonts classified as Free are generally available for both personal and commercial use without payment.
However, licensing terms may vary depending on the font author. Certain fonts may allow free use for specific commercial applications (e.g., printed materials such as posters or merchandise) while restricting other uses, such as embedding in documents, software, or multimedia products.

Each font may include its own licensing conditions or limitations. If any uncertainty exists, users are advised to review the official license or consult the font author for clarification.

Fontoscope performs a technical extraction of font files used by the website and analyzes their internal metadata.

Even if a site administrator has renamed font files or masked their identity, Fontoscope reads the original font names embedded in the font’s metadata, ensuring accurate identification.

Fontoscope identifies:

  • Commercial (paid) fonts
  • Free and open-source fonts

Each identified font is matched against a database of nearly 100,000 fonts, providing high verification accuracy.

Yes.

Fontoscope analyzes font files used on a website and classifies them based on licensing eligibility for commercial use.

Each identified font is clearly labeled in the report as:

  • PAID – the font requires a commercial license to be used on a business or monetized website;
  • FREE – the font may be used freely, including for commercial purposes, without purchasing a license.

This classification is based on objective technical analysis of font metadata and publicly available licensing descriptions.
Fontoscope does not sell licenses and does not act as a licensing authority – it provides a clear risk indicator that helps website owners make informed compliance decisions.

Yes.

Fontoscope detects fonts delivered through:

  • Embedded scripts
  • External CDNs
  • UI frameworks and third-party libraries

This is particularly important because fonts loaded indirectly are often overlooked during manual audits.

Fontoscope generates a detailed technical report within seconds after the analysis begins.

This allows users to immediately determine whether their website may be exposed to font licensing risks and take corrective action without delay.

Fontoscope provides technical documentation and objective data regarding font usage and licensing sources.

While the assessment of admissibility and legal relevance remains the responsibility of the court or legal experts, Fontoscope reports can be used to support factual analysis in both pre-litigation and dispute resolution processes.

EXIF Analyzer is a technical analysis report that extracts and structures objective metadata from an image file.
The analysis helps determine whether the examined image is an original file or a derivative copy and may support claims related to authorship and authenticity.

The assessment of admissibility, relevance, and evidentiary weight of any materials remains within the exclusive competence of the court and/or a court-appointed forensic expert.
The EXIF Analyzer report provides technical findings and methodological conclusions that may be used as part of an overall evidentiary evaluation.

In copyright infringement disputes involving images, it is often difficult or impossible to establish a direct link between a claimed author and the disputed work.

In such cases, the original RAW file (digital negative) is considered a key technical artifact, as it contains primary data captured directly by the camera sensor and may support the identification of the image’s origin.

Providing an original RAW file to third parties creates a significant risk of unauthorized copying, redistribution, or misuse.
For this reason, authors and rightsholders generally avoid sharing original source files outside of formal legal proceedings.

Yes.

EXIF Analyzer allows the author or rightsholder to upload the original RAW file for analysis only, without the risk of storage or duplication.
The file is processed exclusively at the moment of upload and is not retained on the server.

As a result, a technical report is generated containing the extracted EXIF metadata, which may be used to support authorship-related claims while maintaining full control over the original file.

EXIF (Exchangeable Image File Format) is a metadata standard automatically embedded into a digital image at the moment of capture.

EXIF data may include:

  • Date and time of capture
  • Exposure settings (shutter speed, aperture, ISO)
  • Camera make and model
  • Camera serial number (when available)
  • Software used for post-processing

EXIF metadata plays an important role in assessing the authenticity, origin, and technical history of an image.

Yes.

Analysis of an original RAW file allows identification of:

  • The camera model used to capture the image
  • In many cases, the software used for subsequent processing

Raster copies (such as .jpg, .png, .webp) may also contain EXIF data; however, such metadata cannot be considered conclusive, as it can be easily altered or falsified using widely available tools.

Raster image formats are generally not considered reliable evidence of authorship, because their EXIF metadata can be edited, replaced, or fabricated using standard software.

In contrast, a RAW file preserves the original sensor data and capture parameters and cannot be modified without destroying its technical integrity.
For this reason, the RAW file remains the most reliable technical source for authorship-related analysis.

Yes.

Current legal practice and court precedents in multiple jurisdictions do not recognize AI-generated images as works authored by a natural person, and therefore such images may not qualify for copyright protection.

EXIF Analyzer is capable of detecting metadata markers and signatures associated with modern AI image-generation services.
This allows the analysis to support or challenge authorship claims, depending on the technical findings.

In many copyright and intellectual property disputes, it is necessary to confirm or refute whether two images are identical or derived from one another.

One image may have been modified through editing, retouching, cropping, color correction, or compositing, making visual comparison unreliable.
Additionally, images may appear similar while still representing independent works created by different authors.

Comparative technical analysis helps determine whether there are objective digital similarities between images beyond subjective visual perception.

Yes.

PixMatch is designed to identify matching image regions at the digital level.
The system detects coinciding areas even when the images differ due to:

  • Watermarks
  • Cropping or compositing
  • Color adjustments
  • Rotation or mirroring

Matching fragments are automatically highlighted, and the results are documented in a structured technical report.

Visual comparison is inherently subjective and may be influenced by perception, context, or expectation.

PixMatch applies an automated, algorithmic approach, analyzing pixel-level structures and mathematical patterns within the images.
This allows the identification of similarities that may not be apparent to the human eye and reduces the impact of subjective judgment.

Yes.

PixMatch is specifically designed to work with images that have undergone various forms of modification, including:

  • Retouching and filters
  • Color correction
  • Partial overlays or montage
  • Scaling, rotation, or reflection

The analysis focuses on underlying digital features rather than superficial visual appearance.

No.

PixMatch does not make legal conclusions regarding infringement.
It provides a technical comparison report that identifies digital similarities or differences between images.

The legal interpretation of these findings — including their admissibility, relevance, and evidentiary value — remains the exclusive responsibility of the court or qualified legal and forensic experts.

Yes.

PixMatch reports may be useful in both pre-litigation and litigation-support contexts, including:

  • Risk assessment before responding to claims
  • Internal compliance reviews
  • Evaluating the strength of allegations
  • Supporting negotiations or settlement discussions

The service helps parties rely on objective technical data rather than assumptions based solely on visual similarity.

The PixMatch report documents:

  • The presence or absence of matching image areas
  • Highlighted coinciding regions (where applicable)
  • Technical parameters of the analysis
  • A structured summary of the comparison results

The report is intended to support technical understanding of image similarity, not to replace legal or forensic evaluation.

PixMatch is commonly used by:

  • Intellectual property attorneys
  • In-house legal and compliance teams
  • E-commerce platforms and marketplaces
  • Content owners and rightsholders
  • Businesses responding to copyright claims

It is particularly valuable in cases involving allegations based on visual similarity alone.

The Defender Network is a curated directory of intellectual property attorneys focused on copyright defense. It connects vetted lawyers with businesses and website owners who have already received copyright claims and verified the technical validity of those claims using forensic tools.

You engage with highly qualified leads who:

  • Have received demand letters or legal threats
  • Face claims totaling tens of thousands of dollars for images, fonts, or media
  • Have already used forensic tools to assess risk
  • Understand the cost of inaction and are actively seeking legal defense

These clients are informed, motivated, and prepared to retain professional counsel.

Unlike generic directories, this platform connects you with users in a state of educated urgency. They arrive with:

  • Verified forensic reports (EXIF, image comparison, font analysis)
  • A clear understanding of the legal risk
  • A readiness to invest in professional defense
    There are no cold leads, intermediaries, or referral brokers.

Approved attorneys receive access to a dedicated dashboard where they can:

  • Create a detailed professional profile
  • Publish expert legal articles and guides
  • Receive direct inquiries from clients
  • Collect verified reviews and testimonials
  • Use shared forensic reports as a foundation for legal strategy

Yes.

Attorneys can publish original articles directly from the admin panel.
These articles are:

  • Featured on the platform’s homepage
  • Indexed for SEO
  • Positioned as authoritative content
    This helps establish your reputation as a subject-matter expert and drives inbound inquiries.

No.

There are:

  • No referral fees
  • No commissions
  • No intermediaries
    Clients contact you directly, and you control the engagement terms.

Currently, yes. Participation is free during the early-stage ecosystem build.
Attorneys who join now will retain free access even after the catalog becomes a paid service, provided they actively contribute through expertise, articles, or community engagement.

We maintain strict vetting standards to protect users and the integrity of the platform. Applicants must:

  • Demonstrate experience in IP or copyright defense
  • Provide concise examples of defending respondents (not claimants)
  • Align with ethical opposition to abusive copyright enforcement practices

Users arrive with verified technical evidence generated by platform tools (image matching, EXIF analysis, font identification).
This allows attorneys to:

  • Assess claims faster
  • Reduce investigative overhead
  • Focus on legal positioning and negotiation strategy

Need more help?
Ask here.

Drop us a line with your question. Our experts will review it and point you in the right direction.
Apply to Join

Need a hand? We’re on it

No worries – even the best tools sometimes need a tune-up. Whether you’ve hit a snag, have a question about a feature, or just want to know more about how it all works – tell us what’s on your mind.

We’ll make it right. You can expect a personal response from our support lead in under 24 hours.