Fiverr Forum

How can buyers be protected from sellers selling copywritten property that they don't have the rights to themselves on this site?

My question is precisely the title and i’m curious why Fiverr is so popular with selling images. I came here because I was suggested it for that purpose, but looking at this place and seeing how it functions, i’m not sure how it’s even allowed to host photography selling other than fiverr being protected from potential lawsuits by proxy of their TOS depending?

In gigs, you can offer your skills. In the case of photography which appears to be a big subject on this site, you send the photography privately to the seller - and this in masses. It isn’t like the picture being posted openly as a pre-viewed image to be sold where moderators review each image through different sources such as fiverr itself (Stealing other seller’s property), Adobe images, Flick, and so many more, and even then in some rare cases images can be overlooked. In this case, there doesn’t appear to be any monitoring, which is why I really want to warn buyers here.

This can be from intellectual property such as shows that aren’t well known, quotes (yes quotes are often copywritten and I have actually seen that here from what I can tell), and so on. You can report the person(s), but there appears to be so many people doing these things just judging from other posts, that banning isn’t solving the issue. And the reason it isn’t solving the issue well appears to be the above; this site innately shelters that behavior by not rigorously monitoring and checking the use of each pictures on platforms. At all. Judging from this I feel as though there’s a lot of people on here who spent their money, who posted the artwork they were sold that’s just waiting for a potential lawsuit if it kicks off.

What’s being done for this? What can be done for this? If it’s this bad how is fiverr so commonly used for that? It just doesn’t make sense for me. And either way, buyers be warned. This site does not seem to be the place to buy artwork/designs from what i’m gathering.

1 Like

One thing they could do is do a google search either for the text if it’s a text delivery (and plagiarism checker sites) or the image if it’s an image delivery. They could also check the usage rights for images found.

They have the report options if necessary if they find it infringing rights and the TOS says CS will cancel if it’s found to be infringing copyrights. I assume the user could get a warning too.


Second this. Those are two very good things. The flaw I see is that images are easily altered, even metadata depending and that really scares me. I’m sure they’re trying their best with their limited team as well. Is there a photo plagiarism search engine you know of that can somehow negate that effectively? That would be super helpful to post here. Or if you know of another thread on these forums mentioning ones that do let me know please!

1 Like

I meant to use the Google image search option. You provide a link (URL) to an image (or upload it) and it will find the similar/same ones if possible. There’s also an option on the Chrome web browser where you can right click on an image and click “search Google for this image”.

There’s also tineye .com reverse image search which is like Google’s image search.

Since one or both the above can search for similar images, not just for identical images they should help even if an image has been changed. Though it won’t be a perfect solution.
Also for plagiarised text it might be better to check the text is in plain text format/type a section into plagiarism checkers in case the seller encodes it into a format to try to confuse plagiarism checkers.


In fairness, it does not sound like you understand how rights to things like images work. There are several sites like Pexels where images and video shorts can be sourced completely free of charge and be resold legitimately after being amended or altered in some way.

On other sites like Shutterstock, it is possible to buy higher quality images and videos with commercial rights licenses. - This means they can be used by people like Fiverr sellers and legitimately sold to a third party.

You want to know how it is possible to prevent sellers from using images and the likes that they don’t own the rights to. In most cases, this is simple. Most images protected by copyright can’t be downloaded and used from sites like Shutterstock without watermarks. At least, not unless Shutterstock users pay an appropriate license fee.

In all cases, it also comes down to copyright holders to raise complaints with Fiverr if content they own is being distributed on the site outside of their license terms. This is not a case of Fiverr innately sheltering fraudulent behavior. This is simply how the Internet works.

It needs to be asked here, have you actually bought anything on Fiverr and been provided with material infringing someone else’s copyright?

Thousands of people buy thousands of different kinds of services here every day. Many of those people already know how to check material for copyright issues and raise concerns if they need to. They do, and when necessary, Fiverr takes action.

You aren’t really helping anyone by warning people not to use Fiverr, when you yourself do not seem to have a direct complaint.


First, read and then ask the sellers:

-In other words, there’s no fee to download or use these StockSnap images in accordance with the CC0 license. They’re free to download, free to edit, and free to use - even in a commercial project!


-All photos on Pexels are free to use.
Attribution is not required. Giving credit to the photographer or Pexels is not necessary but always appreciated.
You can modify the photos. Be creative and edit the photos as you like.

Do you need more?


…no, I get that there are images on that site that are royalty free for free. There are images on that site that aren’t. I’m not sure why Pixels was added to that list. What was intended was to add common image hosting sites which either don’t or have a mix of free/purchased images. You seem you have misunderstood me, I never said anywhere that isn’t any free royalty free work.

Yes they can. This post mentions nothing about artwork which is sold legitimately by sites which openly host them as a pre-viewed image which are monitored before purchase for free. In have no clue where you somewhere read in this post how I describe there not being any free royalty free images on any of those sources. This post is just about the concept that you can rip off images easily and use them on Fiverr, Fiverr is not systematically monitored for those copyrights like the site you mentioned did for me. Someone could just screenshot a free image from royalty free images and use it here.

…Again. You don’t seem to understand how people are illicitly getting images and you seem to have the idea that all of these pictures which are posted for purchasing have watermarks on every sites and in general. That isn’t how it is. I don’t think you understand how easy screenshotting something is as many people are doing. It isn’t just about ripping images from a source, but created copywritten content as artists their selves. Images can be screens hotted/saved and then have their size/metadata changed after. That’s not hard to do. If everything used watermarks, that would be great! The good thing is you’re right that a lot of sites do use them. But there’s sources that don’t obviously and artwork being created that the artists didn’t have the rights to either innately through ripping off someone else’s work. Again, that’s another thing. Just re-designing someone’s work to be slightly different/drawing something like a game character that has cooyright infringement to things less known. It’s not like android where sites are protected by screenshot. That function doesn’t necessarily exist on a PC platform.

Raising complaints is not effective here for what I mentioned before. If quality for copyrights is not being heavily monitored such as on those sites, it shelters that behavior. There’s an amass of threads talking about these issues from what I can see constantly. The biggest issue I arrise in this thread from my knowledge would be actually creating artwork that was based on copywritten content.

1 Like

Is URL not simply changed by almost any alteration? Right I know you can get past google image search by simply resizing the image depending. I don’t see how those sites are effective with how easy it is to change.

1 Like

The URL you paste into Google image search is the image you want to check. It doesn’t matter what the URL is that you want to check normally. Just copy the current URL that you see the image on (or use the option in Chrome to directly search for it on Google without having to copy/paste the URL - you’d just right-click on the image and select to search for it on Google).

Google image search tries to find images on the web even if it’s a different size. eg. it can say “No other sizes of this image found.” - so if it is able to find the image in other sizes it should show them. But yes the image could be changed a lot from how it was originally and so not get shown by a google image search.

Sometimes Google image search finds a source image even when it was only one of the things used for a new image (eg. if an image was used somewhere in the making of a logo but other things were added to it - and it can still (at least sometimes) find the original source image).


That’s really good info again. But i’m still confused because you’re making this sound full-proof which is not safe for other viewers who can potentially be victim of this. From what i’m seeing, reverse image searching commonly doesn’t pick up images that have had free transform used, contrast changed, text added over, etc. As it changes the metadata which those engines use to find related images. Can you please site something which shows that getting past reverse images is as hard as you’re suggesting? Because from what i’m searching, there’s only sources showing it can easily be gotten past.

If you are so sure that so many sellers are doing this, why aren’t you reporting them to Fiverr?

More to the point, why is Fiverr some kind of boogeyman here? I can go to Shutterstock, screenshot an image, and sell it on any one of almost a hundred other freelance sites. Alternatively, I could print designs on t-shirts.

You are describing a problem that stems with image sites not watermarking their images. That is their problem. There is nothing stopping them from adding watermarks to images people view in full screen mode on a desktop PC or tablet.

You seem to have never used Fiverr to buy images, but have gone to great lengths to figure out how you would sell images here fraudulently yourself. Now you are arguing that the way you could grab and sell images illegally online is an exclusive to Fiverr problem and this so very bad…

To be honest, you just seem to be trolling.


I don’t think those image search engines only use metadata otherwise they wouldn’t be able to find other sizes of the same image (which they can do - or at least Google image search can) or have a “visually similar images” section (which obviously just look similar but image meta data can/will be different).

Fiverr checks things like gig images as far as I know (that it’s not a copy of one somewhere else on the web) so I assume they could do the same for delivery images. If you wanted to change how the system worked (eg. to check for copied images/plagiarised text in deliveries) you could put your suggestion/how you think it could work in the “Fiverr Site Suggestions” section of the forum, or maybe in the redesigned section if the forum gets changed soon (and which may have more participation from Fiverr staff). Or maybe you could contact Fiverr support with your suggestion for how the system could be changed.

Though any delivery checking system would need to take into account that the seller could have obtained all necessary rights (where needed), so it couldn’t just flag the delivery as infringement if a similar enough image/element was found (ie. they’d need to check with the seller to confirm any necessary rights had been obtained I assume, eg. ask them for proof of rights info where necessary).

1 Like

Again, gig images are one completely different thing than the images you pay for which are sent privately. Those aren’t monitored…to my knowledge as well. Those are also what you payed for, which is a bigger thing. This post is to warn others and possibly arise concern. If they somehow figured a way to change this function…yes they would need to figure out whether or not they had the rights like any other site that you use image work on like printing. Even then sometimes that will get past.

Can you source where you’re seeing that reverse image can detect these changes efficiently none the less with more than one done? And of new images that people created? That you can’t get past it? Again every single source i’m seeing is stating that it’s easy to get past reverse image through free transform/contrast change, etc. I’m sure if that’s something reverse image has it helps and that’s good. Source something that states you can’t though please.

Cyaxrex, I do not know each and every individual doing this. I only echoed that I have seen numerous threads about people who have been cheated by others on here due to pirated/photos that were made with copywritten content. Ask others that are complaining about this individually. I to my knowledge have not experience this, I haven’t purchased much photos from here in the first place.

Because fiverr is not monitoring the photos for quality checks on copyrights. I explained this near the beginning. Your seller is sending you the image privately. Either way, if images were posted as a pre-viewed image before purchase, i’m sure they wouldn’t have too much manpower due to the saturation of different content on this site. This post is only intended to help users if they see this post by clearing the risks and things you can do. Copyright strikes are an issue everywhere.

That is a problem they can control. I’m just saying it’s a problem. Again from my understanding the biggest issue would be people CREATING content, actually drawing the content without needing to source it, when they do not have the rights to that intellectual design property.

Since it’s likely that Google image search (and others) have changed over time and may not have always had things like the “visually similar” search (or maybe have been able to detect multiple sizes of the same image) you could check the date of any article that states how it works to see if it’s recent enough (eg. last couple of years). eg. if the article says it only works by things like metadata/things on the web page, that will be out of date.

I’m not saying it’s impossible for someone to avoid detection by things like that but saying exactly how would probably help those who wanted to commit copyright infringement so specifying exactly how it might/could be bypassed probably isn’t a good idea. In images (eg. real life ones) there’s a limit to how much an image can normally be transformed while still looking natural. Also many of the changes that might be done to it to try to avoid being detected could be reversed and checked.

Again, gig images are one completely different thing than the images you pay for which are sent privately. Those aren’t monitored…to my knowledge as well.

That’s why I suggested you could make the suggestion for the system to be changed (eg. in the suggestion section of the forum or to Fiverr themselves eg. through the helpdesk/support email) so it did check those delivered images, since they already have the technology since they are using it to check gig images. But like I said, they’d need to check with the seller as they may (and probably will) have the necessary rights for anything used, even if it was similar to something existing. If Fiverr did the checks they could also make the system do more checking for variations (like the different transforms if necessary). Though it might be a lot of work for them to manually check with the seller that they have the rights to anything used in every delivery if it found some similar element on the web.

Also where I’ve seen a seller or buyer give images without making sure they had the necessary rights they were detected by the image search engines/sites.


In summary, be careful when you buy on the internet. And offline. Basically everywhere.

In terms of the many threads and discussions about this, the vast majority of the time when you dig a little deeper into those claiming copyright infringement etc, you find that they paid $5-10 for something that should cost $100-10,000. Any right minded person who looks at that should understand something is wrong and not just assume that they found the best deal ever. Those who don’t query it are just asking for trouble and deserve what they get.
For example, those expecting a logo they are paying $5 for to be a totally original piece comparable to the great logo designers rather than being a customized template are simply deluded and need to educate themselves.

There are occasional exceptions but if you want the luxury of Fiverr vetting every seller you buy from then I suggest you look at the Verified Sellers in the Pro section - you might see the prices are significantly higher though. You can also look at going and buying images from the paid sites that guarantee rights to their images and also pay the premium that entails.


Maybe there’s an idea for a gig here - “I will check your image for copyright infringement/uniqueness” :slight_smile:

Though maybe really they’d need to show the existing images that it was most similar too - maybe that could be problem - unless only links were given.


Attempting to assume that it cannot be done and giving others a false sense of security is equally if not more dangerous than what you’re suggesting, which is why it’s good we clarify, as it seems that copyright issues on this site are more of an issue than you’re crediting and fiverr being so popular is what brought me here. Again, cite me something that claims it is hard to get past reverse image, etc. Any slight transformation changes data that’s used to search it. If what you’re saying at the ending statement were efficiently true here, watermarks would not be an effective means for stopping these things. Users could simply reverse the image as you are stating. Which is partially true. That’s a big issue.

I am not sure how they could change this to being secure. The nature of sending a private image innately isn’t going to protect users from fraud virtually at all unless they somehow have enough manpower/system to systematically do so effectively. The amount of content they have and the quality checking they already do, I don’t believe they have that manpower/capabilities. This post was just to warn people not to use this site for photography, since they can’t monitor photos in that sense for the user’s safety.

Probably because they were not altered. But i’m not here suggesting that can’t be picked up at all either.