Someone published a copy of my add-on on AMO

Add-ons addons.mozilla.org
#1

Hi

I just coincidentally discovered that someone has published a copy of my “xIFr” add-on, but calling it “EXIF Master Pro” instead.
Now, xIFr is open source, and people are free to fork it or play around with it. And I haven’t checked every line of code in this new extension, so I don’t know if there are any modifications or if it is an exact copy. Haven’t tried installing it either.

BUT the new add-on is published on AMO, and the new AMO-page stills says “xIFr” in “About this extension” and the homepage-link for the add-on points to my GitHub repository for xIFr. THAT makes me fell very uncomfortable.

I cannot see anywhere to report things like this. But maybe someone sees this and can take some kind of action?

/Stig

4 Likes
Web-ext signing error
#2

Still haven’t made a complete check for modifications (or tried to install it), but a glance in source code tells me that all references to “xIFr”, my name, my github repository, my personal homepage and my other extension (Flickr Fixr) looks to be intact in manifest file and on onboard-, upboard- and options-pages.

At first glance looks like a pretty exact copy of version 2.12 of xIFr (I deleted most old versions on AMO not so long time ago, but 2.12 is still available on github)

#3

I found an amo-admin’s email address to contact, and I have received the following - I think very disappointing - response as an answer:

Hello,

Thank you for letting us know about the copied add-on. While we can review
the copy according to our policies,
https://extensionworkshop.com/documentation/publish/add-on-policies/ we
cannot evaluate other content like names and linked support sites etc as
part of that.

I recommend to file a copyright/trademark infringment report via
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/report-infringement/.

Best Regards,
The Mozilla Firefox Add-ons Admin Team

Really!? I need to “file a copyright/trademark infringment report” for this!?
Isn’t it really obviously a situation that not only I, but also AMO should be very very uncomfortable and unhappy with? The extension link to me as the responsible, contact and support for something I haven’t actually uploaded!?

Btw, if you go to the AMO-account profile for the uploader, the homepage-link on profile links to what looks like a travelagency page. I think we can ad spamming and/or “SEO” to the problems here…

1 Like
#4

I wonder if that’s a valid reason to “Report this user for abuse”

1 Like
#5

And now there’s two four copies uploaded by different accounts.

All appear to be pretty exact copies, though I haven’t checked them bit-by-bit. The first I discovered is named “EXIF Master Pro”, the others are “EXIF Explorer Pro”, “Image Data Master” and “Photo Data Viewer Pro”.
Maybe there’s even more I just haven’t discovered yet?

I haven’t gone through the trouble of making a formel DMCA. I’m not even sure about what exact requirements are needed to do that. Looks like a lot of work at least.

I just don’t understand it ain’t as much in Mozilla’s interest to stop this as it is mine.

It’s not exactly the “copyright” I really worry about. It is more the trust in AMO and my extensions here. And I would think it would be just as much Mozilla’s than my interest to stop this spamming. Not sure exactly what the purpose of the copies is. Maybe to sneak in some malware (haven’t had time to check if they are exact copies bit-by-bit)? Maybe it is only to plant links for SEO-optimization (Profiles of uploaders have “homepage-links” pointing to sites that make no sense in context).

Sigh…

PS. And no, I haven’t tried the “Report this user for abuse” either, as suggested by @hans_squared. Now I want Mozilla to acknowledge there’s a general problem, and they need to handle it proactively somehow. Some kind of “reality-check” when completely new extensions are posted?

#6

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?q=exif&sort=updated

  • Image Insight Pro Max
  • MetaView Max Pro
  • Imago Meta Detect
  • Meta Visio+
  • Imago Meta View
  • MetaXplorer
  • Pic Meta Detect
  • xMetaViewer
  • Image Insights+
  • MetaViewr
1 Like
#7

Wauw! That’s wild. I’ll write those AMO admins again. Thanks!

#8

These Firefox extensions are clones of the imageinfo sample extension for Chrome:

  • GetImageinfo pro plus
    (removed by Mozilla)
  • GetImageinfo plus
    (removed by Mozilla)
  • Gold Image info
    (still on AMO)

I’ll report the users and see what Mozilla does about them.

1 Like
#9

It seems all mentioned extensions has disappeared from search results now.
I haven’t kept any direct link to the found extensions, but the link to an account I previously posted in this thread, also is blind now. Hopefully permanently.
So something definitely happening now :slight_smile:

But wonder if we only discovered the tip of an iceberg of problems?

1 Like
#10

Google still has links to the extensions, and the ones I’ve checked have been deleted.

Many, but not all, extensions with “Pro” in their name seem to be clones.

Clone: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/manifest-tracker-pro/
Original: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/hls-stream-detector/

#11

These spammers just don’t give up:

Image Metadata Master Pro
MetaLens Master
DataLens Pro Max
EXIF Inspector Pro
MetaLens Pro
Photo Metadata Viewer

(I’m not linking to them, because that could somehow help the SEO spammers, at least until Mozilla removes the extensions)

2 Likes
#12

Thanks @hans_squared.
I have mailed amo-admins again :-/