ChatGPT, My Friendly Attorney
February 2026
I do hope this story has a positive ending, but the intricacies of the legal system can be so unpredictable.
It began with a panicked email from my friend Ken asking for my advice. He had received an email from a German company accusing him of copyright violation and demanding that he send them $350 within 10 days. Yikes.
In 2012 he had posted a short item on his blog pointing to an interview with filmmaker David Lynch. His post did indeed include a small low-resolution photo of Lynch—the same photo that was posted along with the interview that he pointed to.
And no, he hadn’t gotten permission from the copyright holder to use the photo.
Upon receiving his email I immediately had two thoughts: Ken’s use of the photo likely falls within the “fair use” clause of U.S. copyright law. And my second thought: this sure sounds like a scam.
Ken asked if I thought he should contact an attorney. But I didn’t respond to that, thinking that hiring one could maybe end up costing more than the $350 they were demanding.
Instead, I immediately turned to ChatGPT, of course.
My first question was whether this was simply a scam. ChatGPT replied, “Copytrack is a real company, but it is widely regarded as controversial, and many critics describe its practices as over-aggressive or abusive.”
Of course, ChatGPT then went into considerable detail, giving reasons why it’s a legitimate company but also explaining why people call Copytrack a “copyright troll” that sends out broad, automated demands, with poor verification and heavy pressure to pay. ChatGPT noted that some victims have said they received the demands for $350 even though they had already licensed the image.
Yet, ChatGPT still advised caution.
I next asked about fair use. ChatGPT then explained in detail why Ken’s use of the photo was indeed an instance of fair use according to U.S. copyright law. But it also explained that Germany has a much narrower definition of fair use that is more favorable to copyright enforcement companies. Uh oh.
But then it explained:
- U.S. residents cannot be easily sued in Germany over a U.S. blog
- A tiny photo used in 2012 on a noncommercial U.S. blog would never meet German enforcement thresholds
- A German court would have no jurisdiction over Ken unless he had business operations in Germany
Whew.
ChatGPT then drafted a reply to Copytrack that asserted that the blog is operated in the U.S. and subject solely to U.S. copyright law, including fair use. Copytrack’s reference to German jurisdiction is not applicable. And it explained that the usage in question was part of a news-reporting commentary and is clearly allowed under 17 U.S.C. §107. And it said that unless Copytrack can demonstrate U.S. copyright ownership and actual market harm, this matter is resolved.
End of story? You’ve got to be kidding. The automated rebuttals just kept coming, and ChatGPT just kept drafting ever stronger replies. Finally, ChatGPT concluded that Ken’s replies (drafted by ChatGPT) had won the day, that nothing in their messages had demonstrated that they have a real legal claim.
And so it drafted one final reply:
This correspondence is closed.
The referenced 2012 blog post constitutes fair use under U.S. law (17 U.S.C. §107). It involved non-commercial commentary on a news interview concerning a public figure, accompanied by a small, incidental image used for identification. There was no market substitution or commercial exploitation.
Your characterization of the use as “commercial” is unsupported. Your assertions regarding fair use are incorrect as a matter of U.S. law. No compensation is owed.
You have acknowledged that ownership documentation is still being requested from your client. Until you can demonstrate U.S. copyright ownership, jurisdiction, and actual damages, there is no basis for further discussion.
No payment will be made. I will not engage further. Any additional non-judicial communications will be disregarded.
If your client believes it has a viable claim, it may pursue it through properly registered U.S. counsel and formal legal process.
Do not contact me again unless serving such process.
I’m impressed by my ChatGPT attorney.
Of course, it wasn’t the end. Yet more emails came from Copytrack, despite their earlier saying it was their final notice. And Copytrack again gave Ken 10 days to submit payment. But following ChatGPT’s advice, Ken ignored these emails and resolved not to reply again.
Then the emails stopped coming. Will it be the end of the story? Who knows? If both Ken and I end up in jail, it will give me something to write about in a future column.
Seriously, what’s the lesson here? Do be cautious about using ChatGPT as an attorney, but it can be very helpful if you suspect something is a scam.