AI Vs. Copyright Trolls: Securing Your Creative Rights In The Digital Age

While AI brings opportunities, it also unleashes sinister threats to creative rights. Just take a look at the amount of AI-enabled copyright trolls that are waiting to pounce and make money off of you. Let Tom Hazzard and Tracy Hazzard guide you to secure your creative rights in today’s digital landscape. Learn the essentials, from documenting royalty-free content to obtaining licenses, with their comprehensive checklist to fortify your defenses against malicious forces. Don’t be intimidated by cease and desist letters; armed with proper documentation, you’ll navigate through unscathed.

Watch the episode here


Listen to the podcast here


AI Vs. Copyright Trolls: Securing Your Creative Rights In The Digital Age

This is a subject that is important for all podcasters to be aware of in many different ways. It’s something that is a particular area of interest for us. We have some strong opinions about it, and we’re going to share them with you.

We’re going to talk about copyrights, but we’re talking about copyrights in terms of not your content being copyrighted, although this is what some of the implications of what we’re discussing affect. We’re talking about things like using royalty-free, which isn’t free. We’re going to define that in a moment.

Royalty-free doesn’t mean you’re not paying something for it, but you only pay once, not ongoing.

You don’t pay ongoing royalty. That’s the definition there, but lots of people misunderstand. We’ll redefine that here in a greater way. We’re going to talk about royalty-free licensing of images, sound, and other things that you might come across and the implications of what you need to do about that on your end to make sure that you are documenting and doing what you’re supposed to be doing.

When you do what you’re supposed to be doing, there are a lot of copyright trolls out there that are AI-enabled that are pissing me off. The implications for the content creator space are bad. We need to hold some companies and our own behaviors accountable for this. We buy royalty-free images and music. Typically, it’s music for intros, outros, and advertisements. We do it on behalf of our clients, but we also encounter many people in the podcasting space who do that.

Let’s frame this up more because royalty-free music, podcasters, or, for some of you who are new and going to start a podcast, you aren’t aware, but most people are aware of it. It’s something you need once or most podcasters. You’re going to buy it in the beginning when you set up your podcast. You use the music for a prerecorded intro or outro.

As Tracy said, you use music underneath some calls to action, promotions, or ads. You might put that in your podcast. That happens with fewer podcasts than the intro and outro. That’s something you’re going to do once. We’re not going to take a deep dive into that. You want to make sure the music you’re using, you have the rights to, and you’re going to pay for it once and never have to pay for it again. That’s important.

If you’re using royalty-free music, you want to document where your source was. There are ways to put it into YouTube and some other places, but there are also things that will come up, and we’re going to talk about that because that has to do with these copyright trolls I was referring to before. They’re going to question it even though you documented it in your main channel.


Feed Your Brand | Copyright Trolls


Let YouTube know that it’s fine, but if you keep reusing it episode after episode, things can happen again. The same thing goes with images. There are lots of royalty-free image libraries. We’ve used 4 or 5 of them over the years. We rotate them because they get stale. We bought, in my calculation, over 30,000 images in the last several years.

Properly licensed and purchased images for our own use, podcasts, or our customers who we produce. We have done for your production for that. You might think, “You’re doing audio editing. Why do you need an image?” We do a lot more than audio editing. There are video editing and YouTube thumbnail images. You might use it. There’s the episode art because a seasoned podcaster knows, but for some of you new podcasters, you can upload a unique square image for every episode. We do recommend you do that.

We have an episode coming up on the power of episode art. That’s coming up. We’ll go over that again. We also use stock video footage sometimes in trailers and other things that we do. We use stock video footage. We buy all of these things, and we have agency licenses for them, which means that they transfer to our clients with our transformative use.

We put titles on them, or we use them in various specific ways. We insert them into blogs. We do various things with them. We put them into intros and video bumpers. All of that is proper usage. We have and purchase through these licenses. In my calculation, we’re about 30,000 images or more. The team is building and consolidating our library. We should have a more accurate number in about a couple of months.

You’re 100% correct that we’ve used that many with the sheer number of episodes and how many images you use per episode. Let’s be clear. The vast majority of images available up until now have all been actual photographs taken by artists. The artists put them up on those sites. They have a financial arrangement. They make some money every time somebody like us licenses one of those images. They make money one time.

They make arrangements with these libraries. There’s iStock, Shutterstock, Adobe has their own stock library, 123RF, and Envato, which has more videos. We use more video footage from there. Soundstripe is one of the music libraries. What are a couple of the other music libraries?

PremiumBeat and others like that are there. There are always new ones emerging. It has been a significant industry, not just for podcasting existed before podcasting, but there’s been an industry of artists and creators creating music, images, and video footage that artists make available on some of these platforms as a way to make money and license what they have created to companies like ours. This has existed for quite a long time, but there’s been something new happening in this industry as it gets disrupted, which is causing problems. That’s what we’re going to talk about today.



You might have heard that iStock is owned by Getty. You may hear of the lawsuits in AI and other things with Getty images. They are the parent company, or somehow they’re related. When we refer to that, think Getty in the back of your head if you’re reading the news and you’re seeing all these AI lawsuits that are going on. They’re one of the big players in that.

The artists that contribute and the content creators are called contributors. They’re contributing content to the stock library. That’s what we are. We’re all podcasters. We’re contributing our content to the Apple and Spotify directory, but it belongs to us. We are the copyright holders. They’re distributing it. In the distribution process, iStock, PremiumBeat, and all of these companies are taking a cut for the distribution and the connection to the purchaser, businesses, and agencies.

Sometimes, you’re running ads on your show or the directories. We are lucky in the podcast industry that Apple is not charging us for access to the listeners. They could be. They’re not giving us anything in return in terms of connection to that listener. That’s what they can consider to be their cost for it. They’re making money off of the content because they get more people on their platform. They get more people using their apps. They get more people using the phone for longer periods of time, which means that they’ll buy phones again. It’s a sustainability program for them to have a lot of content.

They’re making money, don’t get me wrong on it, but they’re also not giving you a kickback on that. You’re willingly participating in this. You want to know that, in our terms and conditions, we’re giving them a license to distribute our show. That’s what these contributors have done with the iStock libraries of the world.

There is one key distinction that I want to make clear, if this isn’t obvious to most of you existing podcasters, is all of us podcast authors and creators are distributing our content through Apple, Spotify, iHeart, TuneIn, Amazon Music, ad all these different apps, for free. We’re agreeing to do that for free in the terms and conditions we have to agree to when we register our RSS feed on this platform.

For most podcasters, that is an equitable arrangement. We’re getting distribution through all of these different apps for free to bring our message to the world. We’re allowing them to do it for free, but we still hold the copyright, and there are things that copyright protects us from. That’s a discussion for another day. We’re not going to go down that rabbit hole here in this episode. We want to talk about something that is new and has happened regarding the images that we have been using as a company for a long time. It’s frustrating and counterproductive.

Let me finish the point that I was making, Tom, on this. The difference is when we sign this agreement to let them have our content, we’re also signing that we have a right to all, and we have copyright use of all of the pieces of what we’re airing. That means our music. If they’re displaying an episode art, that means the art that we’ve used for our cover art.

If we do not have the license right to do that, the directory can shut us down. This is why people get pulled off of YouTube. You hear them pull off a monetization from YouTube. It happens first. You’ve been seeing all the Taylor Swift music on TikTok with no music playing and the TikTok videos. What happens is you can get shut down if you do not have licensed use of it.

I want to make this clear. We are not advocating for you not to pay for the licensed use of music and images. We are saying you should do that. We are about to tell you that the industry practices are making it. In the future, we may never buy an image again. We may only use AI to create images. That’s because of some copyright tool practices that are going on. Here’s what’s happened. There’s a company, and I’m going to put them right here. There are many companies, but this is the one that’s personally harassing me.

We, as a company, are harassing a lot of our customers and us because we’ve used images on their blogs and episode art, their graphics, or social graphics for every episode.

This company is called Copytrack. They’re out of Germany. It’s an AI bot in their system. An image creator, a photographer, or an illustrator who created an image drops it into their system, registers with them within an account, and drops in their images, and those images do an AI reverse search through the internet, the entire space looking for blogs, where that image is. Rather than checking to see if this was purchased from somewhere or they made money off of this someplace else, they send a cease and desist letter and a demand letter for money. That’s what they do. They put it on you and give you ten days maximum to submit proof that you purchased that image.

It’s a significantly threatening letter. They’ve already calculated. Whatever webpage they find that the image is on through this reverse image search, they can see when that webpage was published. From that date until now, they have calculated what they assess to be a penalty for using that image without permission.

They don’t know if you had permission or not. They’re assuming you don’t. They’re hoping you don’t because they see a pile of money here at the end of this rainbow for them. They have a lot of threatening legal language that if you don’t pay by this date, the penalty will increase. They will end up taking you to court and assessing a much larger damage.

They have a threat that says, “If you think this doesn’t apply to you because you’re in the US, you’re wrong. Here’s why.” It gives you legal language. We’re not going to talk about that legal language. We have someone who’s been on our show before who’s going to have a conversation with us. We’re hoping she’ll come back and discuss it with you, whether or not any of those provisions apply and are real or these are not threatening at all. What the penalties would be in court? We can talk about some of those with her. For now, we’re not going to address that portion of it.

Let’s say that we don’t want to take the risk that is the problem, and we want to be much more customer-friendly than that. We don’t want our clients to stress over the fact that they’re getting these demand letters. We have done everything we can to comply, but here’s why I urged you at the beginning. If you don’t have documentation, you will not be able to comply. If you can’t remember where and when you bought it and don’t have an accurate date and the number that belongs to it, it can be difficult to find your image and the proof of receipt.

If you're using royalty-free music, document that. Share on X

All those stock libraries are tricky. For some of the images, they’re reporting because they’re going in reverse order. They want the oldest images because that’s where they think they can make the most money. They’re hitting me on images purchased in 2018 that are still on my site. Lucky for me, that was our first stock library that I used, and I picked most of these images myself. It makes it easy for me to find them. I can go into my account. I can go to 2018 and see which images I bought because I was only buying four a month.

It wasn’t big back, but I still have access to it because I buy images from there. You must maintain your user accounts. This is the number one thing I want all of you to remember. Even at a minimum, the user profile lives with your account and switches to a per-credit purchase if you’re no longer using a monthly account.

When you use one of these stock image sites, music, or video stock footage, you have the ability to download all the license information, save it, catalog it, and organize it when you download it. You need to do that. I would highly recommend it. We get several of these demand letters weekly, either for our podcasts or from some of our customers. They’ll get this letter, send it to us, and say, “Podetize, do you know anything about this? Can you supply this information? It seems to come from a blog you created for us for an episode.”

Fortunately, we do have all the information. Every time it’s been requested, we’ve been able to provide the license, satisfy them, and they go away. I’ll tell you something. It’s a huge pain in the butt, to put it mildly, to go and get that information provided to them every time. We’ve had to dedicate an employee to doing this because it’s happening frequently now because of the AI reverse image searches.

Those reverse image searches are dumb. They’re not smart at all. They have no idea. All of these things are being automated through their system. There’s no human in the process at Copytrack because if there was, they wouldn’t do the dumb things that have come across me. When an image is loaded into your website, it’s put in the image library of the website. It’s shared on the blog page or onto a blog roll page. It’s shared from its core position on your website. You don’t load each image. If you load it, it goes into the main library.

If I use it on my blog page and it appears as a thumbnail on a different page, that’s not a second use of it. It’s only once. What happened here was I received my fourth copy track demand from the same artist because its name stood out to me. It was on a blog roll page, and there are thousands of images on the blog roll page because I have lots because of our 3D printing podcast.

This is a page that is a feed of all blogs. There’s a thumbnail image, a smaller version of the big image from the main blog shown as a list, and it’s displayed there. You click on it. You go to the full blog. She got a demand letter for the main image on a blog page and blog roll page. It didn’t even identify the image. It said, “One of the images on this page is one of ours.”

It didn’t say which image. It was ridiculous. There’s no way to respond to it properly in the automation system and get it cleared. It makes it difficult to reply to these because Copytrack doesn’t have any real humans at the other end of it. It’s email correspondent. It’s a form you fill out. It says it is accepted if you fill the spaces in. It came with a valid license number or an image number from the image library where it came from.

I can’t do that here because it doesn’t tell me which image, but I’m assuming it’s the same. When that happened, I went back through the other requests that I had received. I received six requests in the last several months. Two from one artist and four from this other artist that I was referring to. Those two match to one single image, and the four match to another single image. They’re repeatedly requesting the same information from me again. It’s becoming harassment.

I said, “This is ridiculous.” I bought it. I happened to buy both of those images at 123RF back in 2018. I went to 123RF, and I said, “Two of your contributors are repeatedly forcing me to prove that I own this, and I bought it from you.” Their stock answer was, “Give us the image number. We’ll pull up your history and give you the license information you need.” I’m like, “I already have it. I could’ve supplied it four times. You’re not answering my question. What are you, stock image library, going to do about this?” These are your contributors acting badly and against people who were patrons of their art.”

We bought them and gave them money for their art. We gave them credit. We’re like, “This is a good image. I’m going to use it. Now, they’re harassing us. What are you going to do about that? Do you have a contributor complaint process? Do you have a way for me to report this?” We’ve reached out to two, and none of them have any process.

All of these stock image library companies are realizing that their business is in jeopardy, not only from AI itself being a place where people will go to get images. They’ll no longer need to go through and search through their stock images. AI is attacking them from another side with these reverse image searches and annoying their customers. None of these stock library companies want to get in the middle of a fight over, “Did you license this properly? Did you not?” They want to stay away from it. It’s nothing but going to suck a lot of time and money from them that they didn’t plan on when they licensed the images in the first place.

They’re not cooperating and helping to provide any solutions. It would be helpful if they provided image license information directly to all these predators. I’ve even reached out to Copytrack multiple times to try to say, “We’ve licensed tens of thousands of images. What can we do to work with you guys to provide you with the information so that you guys stop harassing our customers and us for images we have legally paid for?” They have not come up with a good solution. I’m even trying to get a meeting with these people and have been unsuccessful at that so far.

They claim, “We’re in Germany. We can’t make time for you. We don’t meet your time zone. We can’t have a conversation.”

They’re like, “Our time zones are far apart.” I’m like, “I’ll talk to you in the middle of the night my time. I don’t care. Let’s find a time and meet.” It hasn’t happened. This industry has a couple of problems.

Feed Your Brand | Copyright Trolls
Copyright Trolls: That is reverse image search methodology in that they’re only looking at the image and not at any of the data beneath the image.


They’re whining about copyright infringement and their images going into AI, but they’re using AI to troll legitimate purchasers. That’s a problem right there. How does that make you feel, and what is your response to it? My response is, I’m going to stop buying your art. You’re going to be out of business.

That’s the risk. These image libraries, providers, distributors of stock images, and the artists who are making money distributing their images this way do not cooperate and come up with a system to make it clear when they search and find an image on the website, “That one is covered. I’m not going to bother them. I’m not going to harass them.” For us, this is harassment. That’s how it feels to us.

By definition, some of the practices we’ve been experiencing are harassment. If they don’t come up with a solution for this, they’re digging their own business grave because we are not going to continue buying images from them. We’re already exploring AI. We’ve been testing it. We want to go to AI image creation as fast as we possibly can so we don’t have to deal with this.

We’ve asked many times, from both Copytrack and all the stock libraries, “What do I have to do to mark these images?” Sometimes, it’s possible, and sometimes, it’s not. Think about it from this perspective. In a blog, if you need me to mark the image number, the artist, and the library number in a caption, I can do it. I can’t do it when I publish it on Apple. I can’t do it in my cover art when it’s in the general directories. There are places where I can do it and others where I can’t. It’d be better for us if we could embed them in the metadata of the image itself that’s being used. They came back, and they will not give us the information.

From my experience with the reverse image boxes that are out there, that’s what it appears that Copytrack is using and many of these other trolls. What they claim to be using on their websites is a reverse image search methodology. They’re only looking at the image. They’re not looking at any of the data beneath the image.

They’re not downloading the image and looking at any of the metadata, which they could because I’m sure that’s hard. That’s more work than they want to do. It’s much easier for them to say, “Here, this image is on all these sites. Send each of them a demand letter because I can automate that process, whatever the date is, assess the fee, fill out the form letter email, and send it out.”

They’re trying to make easy money, scaring people. I bet there are an awful lot of people, Tracy, who have not properly documented the license. They don’t remember where it came from. They go and pay the money because they’re worried about being on the wrong side of copyright law, and they pay it to make them go away.

We had this happen with one client whose guest provided the image, or he provided the image. We didn’t. We have an acceptance. If you provide us with images, you are saying you have the right to use them. He didn’t document it. He believed there was the right to use it, but he couldn’t find the documentation. He didn’t have access to the account anymore. Like I was discussing with you.

Here’s what we want you to do at minimum for yourself. If you accept any images from any of your guests, make sure that they’re signing an acceptance that says that they have a right to use it, and it’s on them. If you are searching for and buying your own image that you’re going to use, make sure that you document the image number, the library where you purchased it, the URL for where you found it, the transaction information on the other side, and the artist’s account. This is what I did find. The artist accounts don’t match. Whatever they registered for in Copytrack is not the same as what they registered for in 123RF. You will be unable to search for that person by the name that you receive on the demand letter in the image libraries. It won’t work.

They don’t always match up like they had. It’s the user account name versus their actual name.

There’s no way to match that up. I tried using it to see if it was underlying the profile information, but it’s not. You do need their username because that’s the only way for the stock library to find them. Last but not least, make sure you have the date of purchase because that date is a critical factor in making sure that you can find that in history.

Those are the things. I suggest you put them in the metadata for the image. Sometimes, when you move images from one library to the other, don’t put them in the descriptions. They don’t always work. They don’t always transfer from library to library. It’s critically important that you’re putting this information in there for yourself so you don’t lose it.

I want to say a couple of things here while we’re fired up about this. We are not saying you shouldn’t use images. Images are an important part of raising awareness of your podcast and your podcast episodes, whether they’re used on social media, your website, a blog, or within the podcast RSS feed. Images are important. When there are unique images, they get more click engagement than using your cover art for every episode. We are advocates of using images. All we’re saying is to make sure you use images that you have the right to use properly.

The other thing is there are alternatives to everything we’ve talked about. Not every podcast is a good fit for it, but depending on your podcast, it may make sense for you to take your own images. Taking your own photograph with your phone or any other camera is completely legitimate. You own the copyright of that photo. You took it. You don’t owe anybody anything for it. If you can use original photos or if your guest has original photos, that’s great. Get permission from them to use it, and document that. Your own images or AI-generated images are going to be our friends going forward in the podcast industry.

It may happen late, Tracy, that all these stock image library companies get serious about solving this problem, making sure their customers are not harassed, and they cooperate with all these companies and trolls trying to dig for money and provide license information directly. When they reach out and say, “I’m this customer of 123RF. I’m this customer of iStock.” They could match it up.

Make sure that you are using images you have the rights to use properly. Share on X

I want to talk about YouTube because that’s a good example of how cumbersome it can be on your part. We naturally use an image. A lot of times, you change your blog page. You move it to a different site. The actual image that was here used to be on a 3D start point and was moved to has-designed, the image in question. For some reason, it got copied and has the one about 3D-printed guns. That’s the image that was used in that. There’s an image at the top of it. I happened to have it twice because when they were transferring it, they messed up, and somehow, they ended up with the blog twice. There’s a main name of the URL and a dash two.

In the world of music, you have to individually license it. If YouTube questions the video that it’s on, they don’t look at your channel and say, “This person has the right to use this music across everything in the channel.” They send you a report letter. You have to go to the sound library and get an individual license level that you drop into that video itself to comply.

On my part, what I was saying here is that if it’s on us in the stock library to drop our URLs every time we use the image, that’s a lot of work on our end as a customer. That’s where we have to get into a place where this needs to be simpler for everyone. There needs to be a standard marking that is acceptable, stating that these bots are not allowed to send you demand letters if you’ve got these proper markings in your image.

You mixed a few to your explanation. We’re talking about music and images. The music industry has done a better job of this, but they’ve been facing copyright issues like this for a long time. With Soundstripe, which we use for music, we can get a single-use code. It is what is required for every YouTube video that you put on YouTube. Even if you’re using it in the prerecorded intro, that’s the same for every episode. You still have to have a single-use code to put in every video, but you can go and get one. It is cumbersome. If you do that proactively, they won’t bother you.

You can also do it reactively. You can wait until YouTube questions it, “Do you have the right for this?” You can get it and put it in. That’s okay. YouTube doesn’t demand any money from you. They would take down your video if you don’t comply and show that you have it, but you have time to do it. The images are where it’s gotten off the rails. There are these predators that are going and digging for what they hope is gold from unsuspecting users of images.

We have a chat going on at the same time in Zoom with our clients. One of the comments there, and I’m going to read the question because this is a good point, and this is what’s going on. The question is, “Are the original image owners, the contributors, or the artists hiring these folks, meaning Copytrack, or are they finding images reaching out to that artist and saying, “We’ll get you money.”

It’s both because this is following the same model of patent trolls. That’s what they do. As soon as they see a patent is issued, they say, “We’ll go after people for you, and here’s an example.” They show how much money they’ve made for somebody. This is a marketing effort on Copytrack’s part. It could be that they’re doing this where they’re telling these contributors, “We’re going to get you money.”

These contributors are stressing and worrying about the fact that they’ve been making less money on the platforms because, like in podcasting, less than 2% of all contributors to the stock libraries make any money. It’s the same number in music. ASCAP reports that less than 2% of their 100,000 musicians make a living off of that platform and royalties. It’s got to be the same way that this company is trolling and preying on the contributors. In the end, those contributors are going to find themselves out of income by participating in this process.

We don’t know if Copytrack is soliciting the artists or if the artists are reaching out to Copytrack. You’re right, but we don’t know with certainty about that. These artists, regardless of participating in this and by Copytrack doing this, are driving us, who are big customers of these images as a company, away from using stock images at all. I imagine as this grows, other companies will also agree. This isn’t worth the hassle. Let’s either use original images or AI images. Let’s do something that we’re never going to have to deal with this hassle ever again.

The AI images are coming a long way. That’s the thing I want to close with. It is a competitive threat for all of these artists and contributors who are doing this. It would’ve been simpler and easier for us to stay in the process we have, but this forced us to look at it sooner. You may be putting the nail in your own coffin here in the process of this.

One of the great examples I’d love to point out, and they’re happy to let me know because the site went live and is in a good place. One of our clients, of which I’m going to be on their podcast, and I am a participating member of their organization. The most important conversation,, is the website, is that every image they’ve been putting into the site is AI-generated images. They are not faster than searching through the stock library. It took us much longer to make those images,  create them, and get them where we wanted them to be than it would have to be to search a stock image library and pick one.

It is not faster, but the effect is well done here. We’re going to do this for every podcast blog, which is something new. We’re moving to do for all the podcasts that are going forward for them. We’re now going to have AI images and everything. The more you do it, the more your prompt is refined, and the faster it is the next time you generate an image and the next time, but it does take a while to get it dialed in the first few images you’re doing. It’s a great example if you want to take a look at it and how it can set a style and change the scope of your brand. It’s a good example of that, and this is where I think it’s going.

I also want to highlight the two companies because we bashed a few here. I’m not happy with a few of them, but the one that I would like to highlight is Adobe’s AI System for Image Adjustment and Creation, which allows you to transform an image well. They call it Firefly, and it does a good job. Their stock image library is weak. It’s not good. If you’re going to use a stock image, use one from somewhere else. Bring it into the library and transform it with AI. That’s a great way to do it. When you transform it, make sure you own the rights to that image. We have 30,000 images to start from now. We can transform them, and that artist is not going to earn any more.

Legally and properly, we can transform them. They prefer you transform them when you use them if you read through the license.

It’s a part of the license that we are going to do that. We have a right to redo and use these 38,000 images again in the AI process and no one can stop us. When the reverse image search comes out, there’s no way they’ll be able to detect it’s related.

Feed Your Brand | Copyright Trolls
Copyright Trolls: We have to get into a place where this needs to be simpler for everyone. There needs to be a standard marking that is acceptable and these bots are not allowed to send you demand letters if you’ve got these proper markings in your image.


It won’t match anything.

Even underlying the image, we purchased that legitimately. We have the license to use it in that way. For us, this is going to be a boon to the whole new processing. You’re all going to see some different things coming out of us here at Podetize in the future. The other library that I think has the best possibility for doing right by both the contributors and their clients and doing some creative things with AI is Shutterstock. I sat in on their AI Premier. The way they talked about the ethics involved in developing AI and the way AI works is great.

How many times have we gone in, looked at an image, and said, “This would be great if there weren’t these people in it? If I could put my text right there, it would be much better, but it’s too much work to erase them from this image. It’s complex.” There’s a beach and hair flowing. It’s going to take too long to do that. You skip over it.

With their AI, you can do it. You remove people, and they’re gone. It looks amazing. You can say, “Flip to the right so I can put my text to the left.” It does it instantly. Shutterstock has the best AI going on out there in terms of how it works integrated with their stock images. Those are the two to watch and the ones that we’re going to be paying the most attention to.

One thing I know for sure is this is constantly evolving. I’m sure we’re going to have more to report on this as we go forward. We’ll come back. We talked about a couple of different things that we’re going to address in some upcoming episodes in the not-too-distant future, but this is to be continued, or, as they say, “More to come on this issue as we continue to embark on it.” I want to thank everyone for reading.

This is an extra-long episode for us.

It was a borderline rant, but my temperature has lowered by talking about it. Thank you for reading. I’ll admit that selfish for me. I hope you all got something valuable out of this episode.

Thanks everyone for reading.


Important Links

Picture of Tracy Hazzard and Tom Hazzard

Tracy Hazzard and Tom Hazzard

As podcasting and monetization marketing experts, husband and wife team, Tom Hazzard and Tracy Hazzard help major publications, sports stars, and entrepreneurial influencers broadcast their original messages. A highly successful inventor and product designer, Tom has been rethinking brand innovation to build in authority and high-converting revenue streams. Tracy brings an insider media/promotion perspective as a former Columnist for Inc. Magazine, contributor to BuzzFeed and international speaker. Together, they are the blog writers and podcast co-hosts for Feed Your Brand and The Binge Factor. They provide businesses of all sizes actionable tactics and strategies to spread marketing messages, grow valuable audiences, and retain valuable platform authority without a lot of time, cost or effort.
Scroll to Top