This April 2013 email chain records a rights query over images from a “Siberian cannibals” story that had appeared in Bild and been supplied through CEN/action press channels. A Siberian Times contact asks action press for details of the person at CEN who sold the pictures, claiming the images were exclusive to The Siberian Times and that neither action press nor CEN had requested to buy them. Action press then asks CEN whether it had the rights to syndicate the images. CEN replies that it had traced the material, saying the story came from its office in Russia, that numerous images from the set had come from rescue services and were non-exclusive, and that the Russian rescuers had been credited in publications. CEN adds that the remaining images were non-exclusive collects taken from social networking sites with permission from the families, and were not the copyright of The Siberian Times. The document is significant because it shows CEN responding to a rights challenge by checking provenance and distinguishing between rescue-service images, credited public-service material, and family/social-network collects. In the wider evidence chain, it helps show that picture rights and provenance disputes around unusual international stories were handled as practical syndication issues, rather than automatically implying fabrication or bad faith. It is also useful context for the later BuzzFeed narrative, because it shows that some rights disputes arose from competing claims between agencies, publications and local contacts over non-exclusive material circulating through the international picture market.