bruqi.com

4.1
4.1 Based on 29 reviews

...

Unclaimed Profile
Business profile not claimed
This business hasn’t yet claimed their profile on our platform and may be unaware it's listed. As a result, their rating might not fully reflect their customer service or responsiveness.
Angus Clark
"Worst practice" case study what if you use Bruqi and violate other peoples copyright instead

I was contacted by Google that I (photographer) have violated copyright with one of my OWN images and am using it on my OWN website. My project (photo) is called "Raven Claw". As the author, I hold full copyright, including the original RAW files, EXIF metadata, and signed model releases.An "artist" called devilsraven666x who is using the services of Bruqi reported that she has the copyright on my images (published on my webpage). Which is false and seems to be based on the automated service of Bruqi, probably crawling just for keywords.Don't steal other people’s time by selling services which are just a blender to people who do not understand what copyright is and what can be protected. I have tried to contact your compliance team. No reaction (but many visits from your admin console on my website).You have created a vice-versa law case for your client now as my copyright is violated. -----THIS is the feedback of my lawyer to the case:Under Section 7 of the German Copyright Act (UrhG), Bilderausstrom.com is the sole author of the work. Accordingly, Bilderausstrom.com holds the exclusive rights of exploitation as per Sections 15 ff. UrhG, including in particular the right to make the work publicly accessible (Section 19a UrhG).The complaint, filed via the automated takedown service Bruqi.com, appears to rely solely on the presence of the word “Raven” in the title of the work. This claim has NO legal basis. Isolated words or short phrases — such as titles — generally do not qualify for copyright protection under Section 2 (2) UrhG, as they lack the required level of individual intellectual creation. The copyright claim is therefore factually and legally incorrect.Moreover, the use of an automated, unverified reporting mechanism in this context constitutes an abusive application of the “notice and takedown” system, originally derived from the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and now shaped in Europe by the E-Commerce Directive and the current Digital Services Act (Regulation (EU) 2022/2065). These mechanisms are intended to protect rights holders, not to enable unfounded censorship or reputational harm.

1
Date of experience: Jun 11, 2025

Is this your business?

Claim your business profile now and gain access to all features and respond to customer reviews.

Business Details

We use cookies to personalize your experience. By continuing to visit this website you agree to our use of cookies

More