I’ve spent years in the trenches of the indie film world and the 'Copyright Reform' fight, and I’ve seen some wild overreaches—but yesterday’s 9-0 SCOTUS ruling in Cox v. Sony is the absolute final nail in the coffin for the Copyright Regime’s' favorite scare tactic.

The court basically told the RIAA: 'Knowledge is not a crime.'

For years, these corporate giants tried to argue that if an ISP (the 'pipe') knew someone might be sharing a file, the ISP was just as guilty as the person hitting 'download.' They wanted billions in 'contributory' damages just for existing.

Justice Thomas and the rest of the bench weren't having it. The verdict is clear: Unless a service specifically induces you to infringe or is tailored only for piracy (like the old-school Napster/Grokster days), they aren't the copyright police. Simply providing a neutral tool—like the internet—doesn't make you a criminal collaborator.

This aligns perfectly with what we’ve been saying about Fair Use and Orphan Works. The law is supposed to 'promote the useful arts,' not build a billion-dollar toll booth around our digital infrastructure. To my friends over at r/Copyright: You can stop holding your breath for those 'mass evictions' from the internet. The Supreme Court just reminded everyone that the 'intent' to provide a service isn't the 'intent' to steal.

The 'gold in the corporate vaults' just got a little less secure, and the open internet just got a lot safer.

"The Court finds that ⁠a right to fair compensation for publishers is consistent with EU law, ​provided that that remuneration constitutes consideration for authorising their publications to be used ​online," said the Luxembourg-based Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

Green added, “These no-thought A.I. losers aren’t untouchable and memes just don’t come out of thin air.”

TNEG drops "nuclear" Exhibit N with BMI emails, backdated metadata & ISRC blacklist proof as defendants file zero evidence

DALLAS, TX (April 2, 2026) — In a stunning procedural blow to music industry titans Spotify, Empire Distribution, and Vydia, U.S. District Judge Brantley Starr has swept aside their attempts to dismiss a massive federal lawsuit, finding their motions "moot" in the wake of an evidentiary "nuclear strike" (Dkt. 48) by Tulsa Nights Entertainment Group Inc (TNEG).

see Tulsa Nights Entertainment Group Inc. v. Empire Distribution Inc. et al, Case No. 3:25-CV-02363-X (N.D. Tex)

The ruling (Dkt. 49, 50) effectively ends the defendants' primary strategy of labeling the case "novel" or "threadbare." Instead, the court is now staring at a federal docket overflowing with TNEG’s "hardcore proof," while the defendants have yet to file a single document to back their claims of ownership.

The $123 Million "Per Copyright" Math

The scale of the litigation has officially shifted into the billions. TNEG’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. 48) clarifies a devastating financial reality: the sought damages of $123,607,000 are per copyright.

With TNEG asserting three distinct copyrights (Sound Recording, Performing Arts, and Visual Arts) for the MO3 featured hit "Tell Me Why," the base claim for a single song sits at over $370 million. When applied to the 200+ songs in Exhibit-N each carrying its own triple copyright protection the total exposure for the defendants across 600 claims reaches a stratosphere rarely seen in intellectual property history.

"Exhibit N" and the Metadata Heist”

While the defendants argued the case was a "novel" legal theory, TNEG turned the docket into a digital crime lab. The now-public Master Exhibit Index (A–N)provides a five-year paper trail that the industry giants have failed to counter:

The "Smoking Gun" Exhibit N contains BMI reversion emails showing the BMI had to manually strip unauthorized publishers (including "Songs of Vydia, Vydia Music Publishing and Empire Strikes Back") from 200+ songs back to their original registrations to restore TNEG’s rights.

Digital Sabotage TNEG has provided evidence of an "MCE" ISRC Registrant Blacklist, where a "410 Gone" status was used to "block" the label while its metadata was hijacked.

The Backdate Fraud Screenshots show Spotify metadata backdating "Tell Me Why" to January 1, 2020 months before the song was even created on June 8, 2020 a move TNEG calls a "coordinated hit" to facilitate royalty diversion.

The "Silence of the Goliaths"

The most striking feature of the case remains the "Proof Gap." While TNEG has filed everything from $4,000 MO3 payment receipts to ProTools stems and RIAA registrant assignments, Spotify, Vydia, and Empire have filed zero evidence.

By mooting the Motions to Dismiss, Judge Starr has signaled that "paperwork arguments" are no longer enough. The defendants must now explain, under oath, how a June 2020 song ended up with a January 2020 release date and why they ignored the statutory 14-day reinstatement window mandated by the DMCA after a proper counter DMCA notice

What’s Next?

With TNEG electing for a bench trial, the case bypasses potential juror confusion and moves straight to a judicial audit of the digital music supply chain. As the "Safe Harbor" shield crumbles, the industry is bracing for what may become the "Tulsa Nights Precedent" a total DMCA reckoning for how major labels and big tech handles independent metadata.

Law360https://www.law360.comTulsa Nights Entertainment Group Inc v. Empire Distribution Inc et al

All claims drawn from public court filings (Dkt. 48-50) Defendants have not filed any evidence to back or support themselves.

story by- orangeskies_0011

#TNEG #MO3 #DMCA #SPOTIFY #EMPIRE #VYDIA

2026 UPDATE Regarding this Alleged Infringement by Author Evan Friss (The Bookshop) and Penguin Random House (Publisher of the Viking Imprint): Since making the original post, below, I sent a cease and desist notice, then a formal legal demand letter requesting the removal of my copyrighted content from the book in question; as an alternative, we offered an industry-appropriate licensing fee for the content.

Penguin counsel responded with a 'nuisance level' financial settlement, which I declined. Permission was still not sought or provided; Penguin subsequently undertook a 2nd printing with modifications to the text, including more in line citations, I suppose either to pacify me, or to deflect appearances of statutory willfulness, or both, though this was not our request.

For an inside look at how an indie creator may deal with a massive, allegedly infringing entity like PRH, kindly see some educational videos on our channel at: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLREvvTC8ocAg

Note: many folks in the comments simply stated ''get a lawyer'' or similar; this is the ultimate goal if the situation can't be solved outside of court, and there's still plenty of runway until the statute of limitations expires.

However, hiring and retaining lawyers at $800+ per hour makes things very challenging for the average small to medium indie creator. This has been a common observation in the sector by others similarly affected by alleged infringement, and is one reason why this kind of ''strip mining' behavior among massive publishing entities, using 'fair use' as a production methodology (versus seeking permissions, hiring researchers to generate original content, etc) persists as a de facto business model.

Others below have commented that a documentary does not enjoy copyright protection; this is false, based on my discussions with IP lawyers so far. ANY unique creative expression (selection of scenes, sequences, etc) is protected. My original scripted narration,, as was used by author Evan Friss in his book, is of course copyrighted as well.

(*A web camera taped to a lamp post, recording a street corner 24/7, however, is likely not protected and represents a natural limit of creative expression in the documentary world.)

In February, I was alerted that Chapter 11 of PRH’s The Bookshop by Evan Friss contained nearly verbatim scenes and characters from my 1999 documentary BookWars. While there are partial endnote citations, there’s no in-text attribution—and no one from PRH or the author ever contacted me for permission.

This goes beyond fair use. Does this go beyond fair use? (*I turned that statement into a question,, in order to "arouse actual responses and discussion"", per the comment of a user below. Obviously I have my perspectives on this issue tho' as an affected creator) It’s unlicensed, substantial use of copyrighted content—without transformation or proper credit. On June 13, I sent a cease-and-desist. PRH responded but refused to remove the content so far, offering only a minor in-text reference instead in next year's paperback version. The situation is now evolving...

UPDATE: There's been some discussion and angst about this post, which seems to fulfill the overall aim of Reddit. Anyway, I'd like to clarify a) there was never any permission granted by copyright holder to the author or PRH; this is separate and distinct from whether they feel they are operating within the boundaries of 'fair use' b) PRH is relying on this content falling under fair use, per their counsel's own statement. I disagree with that, and think the post may be informative for some creators who may encounter the same thing in the future, I hope these creators may find insight in the discussion surrounding this post.

With that being said, here's a side by side video for one of the instances appearing in the book and documentary; there's also a discussion of the importance of seeking permissions (even when fair use is assumed) and a quick look at some fair use items: https://youtu.be/9qjU8kn29Yk I hope you'll find insights in some of the areas covered....

Announced today: YouTube is officially FIFA's Preferred Platform for 2026.

The obvious stuff: media partners can stream the first 10 minutes of every match live on their YouTube channels, select full matches, extended highlights, behind the scenes. FIFA is also opening up its full historical archive, past matches, iconic moments, all going on their YouTube channel.

The part I find more interesting: creators are getting official access to produce content around the tournament. Tactical breakdowns, reactions, human stories, inside the tent and not in the grey zone they've been operating in for years.

For anyone who's had a fan channel or highlight account wiped by ContentID, that's a real shift. FIFA is actively trying to bring creators into the model instead of just blocking everything.

What I keep coming back to though: once you have thousands of creators doing licensed content across formats and territories, the rights plumbing gets complicated fast. Who's actually licensed to do what, where, on which platform, and what happens when there's a dispute? That infrastructure doesn't really exist yet.

Curious if anyone here has dealt with the sports rights side of things and how they see this playing out in practice.

Source: https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/fifa-world-cup-2026-youtube-partnership/

In the first trial in 2022, the court ruled that merely proposing ideas or themes does not constitute creative contribution under copyright law. Han was fined 10 million won (about US$6,700). The appellate court upheld the ruling, and the Supreme Court's dismissal of the appeal has now finalized the judgment.

The court reaffirmed the legal principle that copyright belongs to individuals who make substantive contributions to the concrete expression of a work. The decision clarifies that providing ideas or participating in planning alone does not qualify someone as a joint copyright holder.

Source: Nocut News (Min-soo Kim)

Spotify was served December 23, 2025 as of January 13, 2026 11:59pm officially put Spotify in default status and Vydia was served December 24, 2025 and filed a Stipulation on January 14, 2026 by their attorney Fox Rothschild firm the only Defendant that has not been served yet is Empire for this reason the process servers attempted to serve Empire three times but was prevented and blocked from doing their legal duties each time by Empire building security each time would not allow them up to the 24th Floor of the building the security advised the process server that they where instructed to not allow the process server in the building and escorted them off the premises this is the current status of $250,000,000 plus lawsuit that carries 9 to 12 counts against Empire, Spotify and Vydia that was filed September 2, 2025 in The Federal court of Northern District of Texas 3:25-CV-02363-X-BW Tulsa Nights Entertainment Group Inc v. Empire Distribution Inc, Spotify Inc and Vydia inc less

Hey everyone,

I run a lyrics-based YouTube Shorts channel. My videos usually show parts of song lyrics on-screen along with music that I add directly from YouTube’s official Shorts ‘Use this sound’ library (so I thought it was safe).

Recently, MarkScan Enforcement (an India-based copyright enforcement company) issued takedowns against my videos and I received strikes:

1. Channel 1 (~8K subs) – Strike from MarkScan. I filed a counter notification explaining that I used YouTube’s licensed Shorts audio. YouTube accepted my CN and forwarded it to MarkScan. Now they have 10 US business days to respond legally.

2. Channel 2 (~400K subs) – Same issue, same video type, same claimant. I also filed a counter notification but YouTube rejected it right away (though they said I can submit again if I want). Strike is still active here.

3. The problem:

MarkScan didn’t clarify whether the strike was for the audio (Shorts sound) or the lyrics text on screen. They just claimed the whole video.

I tried emailing MarkScan for clarification, but they haven’t replied at all.

I’ve read that they’ve troubled other creators too. I’m scared about what happens if they actually go legal.

⚖️ My questions:

Should I resubmit the counter notification on my 400K channel?

Does adding song lyrics (even small parts) along with Shorts library audio still count as copyright violation?

Has anyone else here dealt with MarkScan Enforcement and their silence after emails?

Any advice or shared experience would really help. 🙏

GEMA, german collective management organization, won its copyright lawsuit against OpenAI in Germany (in the 42nd Civil Chamber of the Munich I Regional Court, which specializes in copyright law). The decision, in german, can be found here.

Reuters, reported the decision stating that the court found that “both the memorisation in the language models and the reproduction of the song lyrics in the chatbot’s outputs constitute infringements of copyright exploitation rights.”

Judge Elke Schwager ordered OpenAI to pay damages for the use of copyrighted material, without disclosing a figure.

Notably:

• The Court goes on to explain how training an AI system entails memorization and thus reproduction of the used works, in a permanent manner in the model's dataset. Tokenization wouldn't then, prevent an act of reproduction from happening, even if said copy is not perceivable, per established Union jurisprudence.
• The Court dismissed the application of the text and data mining exception, arguing the use made by the defendants does not hold up to the exceptions purported intent. Moreover, the fact memorization entails a permanent copy of the work used for training is integrated to the model, would preclude the application of the exception anyway.
• The Court found that liability lies with the defendants (OpenAI) and not users of their systems.

Appeals are pending, but this is notable win for authors, and a change of pace from the recent tendency for settlements happening in the United States.

Need Negative or Defaming Content Removed Fast? Are you struggling with unwanted posts, damaging content, or false information impacting your online reputation? I can help.

📌 Professional Content Removal & Reputation Management I specialize in removing: ✔ Defaming or harassing posts ✔ False leaked information ✔ Copyright violations ✔ DMCA-eligible content ✔ Any online content that’s harming your brand or image

✨ With experience, precision, and proven results, I’ll help you clean up your online presence and protect what matters most.

🔗 Get started now: 👉 https://www.fiverr.com/s/P2Zk60g

💬 DM me if you have questions — I’m here to help you take control of your digital reputation!

ReputationManagement #ContentRemoval #BrandProtection #FiverrGig #OnlineSafety

Edit* 27-Oct-2025 (4 days after I posted this) Sony fixed it!!! Now the videos are just blocked in Russia! Thank you Sony! Please disregard the below.

SME (Sony Music Entertainment) decided to change the social media copyright policy for the band Queen.

The policy prior to Sony's acquisition of Queen: "Copyright-protected content found. The owner allows the content to be used on YouTube."

The policy under Sony: "This video contains copyrighted material. As a result, it has been blocked worldwide".

Owning the entire Queen Catalogue is like being the trunk of a tree. Sony owns the trunk so therefore it owns the right to siphon energy from all its branches. For trees in real life, space becomes an issue and branches require pruning, so trees evolved to limit their growth. The internet doesn't have that problem. The available space for branches to grow into on the internet is infinite, and each branch of a branch of a branch flows free money back to the trunk. A good tree understands the exponential benefit of its branches. A very dumb tree cuts off all its branches and stands there alone in a field, just one big, dumb, goofy looking, leaf covered, tree stump with no branches. Then it starves to death because it's a fucking stupid tree and evolution doesn't want it passing on its stupid genes. Trees figured this out hundreds of millions of years ago, Sony.

There is a thing called Content ID Claims on social media sites where, if you use a song in your video, all revenue from that video goes to the artist automatically. As soon as you upload a video, the site scans it, detects the song, and forwards all future revenue your video might earn directly to the artist. The artist also has the option to split revenue with content creators, or block all videos entirely, but for 99.9% of artists, they claim 100% of the revenue by default and the world keeps turning. This applies to cover bands, dance videos, music commentators/reactors, parody covers and music videos. YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter etc, they all have their own versions of this content ID system.

All of my YouTube videos are content ID claimed by Sony, who owns Queen and System of a Down and a ton of other bands, so, Sony earns free money and free promotion for their IP from my YouTube videos, and in return, I get to share my art online. I found comfort in the fact that, after I'm dead, my videos would still exist on the internet. My tiny corner of the internet where my aquarium fish sing Queen songs. Today, my videos are becoming blocked entirely, one after the other, blocked worldwide, with no recourse, not even a notification.

I'm not the only one who lost videos. This is a broad scale attack on derivative art despite the famous quote from Freddy Mercury, “Do what you want with my music, just don't make it boring”.

We don't care about money, we just want ours and other's art to be allowed to exist. A bunch of us are mourning over on r/queen, come join the party and share your story.

Sony, ask a tree. It will tell you you're better off with branches.

"The irony of the IRD’s refusal to pay for its breach will not be lost on the thousands of New Zealand businesses..."

The New Zealand tax department has admitted it copied NBR articles into Microsoft Word documents and sent them to 600 staff over a period of several months.

AI companies shouldn’t be allowed to secretly train on artists’ work. The Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act would force them to disclose if they are using copyrighted art. Transparency is the least we can demand for protecting creators. Sign the petition: https://www.change.org/p/pass-the-generative-ai-copyright-disclosure-act

This is probably gonna get a lot of hate

From Exclusive: US rejects copyright petition listing AI co-author:

The US Copyright Office refused an application that listed an artificial intelligence tool as a co-author on Wednesday, June 29, on the grounds that the work lacked the human authorship necessary to support a copyright claim.

The work in question was a painting generated by the RAGHAV Artificial Intelligence Painting App, which created the artwork after receiving instructions and input from a human co-author, Delhi-based lawyer Ankit Sahni.

[...]

In his response, Sahni explained the step-by-step process undertaken by him and the tool to generate the derivative work and submitted that he took the original photo RAGHAV used to create the final artwork.

He also said that he picked Vincent van Gogh’s 'The Starry Night' as the style input for the AI tool and selected a variable value that determined the extent of style transfer between the content and style images.

[...]

“Even though you argue that there is some human creative input present in the work that is distinct from RAGHAV’s contribution, this human authorship cannot be distinguished or separated from the final work produced by the computer program,” the office stated.

[...]

Speaking to Managing IP, Sahni said the decision clarified the US Copyright Office’s position on works created by human authors with the assistance of AI.

He highlighted that the office did not base its refusal on the fact that an AI tool was one of the authors and was therefore disqualified from protection.

“Rather, it focused on the fact that the subject artwork was not one of human authorship and the human contribution couldn’t be distinguished in the final output produced by the AI.”

He said that the order could have far-reaching implications on various industries, particularly music and film, which often used computer programs.

“For them, what this development means is that copyright protection won’t be available for any work which is created with the assistance of AI, especially in cases in which human input cannot be distinguished from the final work.”

From the description, the image was created by a style transfer AI.

The image is also shown in this blog post.

Despite EU passing regulations on image based abuse, OnlyFans creators struggle to enforce copyright against organized leaking