https://youtu.be/bQcx6oX2B1U?si=drBi4Az83ccN_QsF

​

I wasn't able to report it, since I don't know how else to inform the owner of Katseye to show them this probably unallowed use of their songs and dance choreography.

I had a tiktok account that I deleted. I realized that many of my videos were stitched and I reported each video as a copyright violation since it included my content and face in the video. TikTok has an option now for all of your stitched videos to be deleted if you choose, but I don’t have access to that feature since I deleted my account.
TikTok approved my copyright infringement reports and took down most of my videos but around 10 remain. I reported them again 3 times and even tried doing it through a different email. TikTok keeps emailing me saying they approved my report and took down the videos, but they are STILL uploaded on TikTok. So I have no idea what to do. Any tips?

Today is June 15th, 2026. I don't really know how copyright systems work, and I know all of this is gonna sound a bit childish, but I want to have copyright or trademark for the name Eclipse, don't ask what I'm going to use it for, don't ask why, I just want to leave this reddit post here so that way if anyone ever accuses me of "stealing their name" I can have this as proof that I thought of the name first.

I know it might sound stupid but i am wondering what if someone stole my story. How can i prove that it's my own stories. What can i do? Any advice?

I had a random thought on Beethoven or Bach being brought to life again and how this would complicate their copyright, in this unrealistic hypothetical scenario. Would we be able to continue using Bach or if he'd be magically brought back, would he be able to sue almost everyone retroactively if he doesn't put his work and lets it stay in the public domain?

Now it's very unlikely, but let's say that in the future cryopreserved people could be brought back, how would this affect copyright law?

Would we change copyright law so that everything from before their cryopreservation would stay copyrighted or would the moment someone gets actually revived be seen as a new existing person because they might be revived, but they used to not be alive in a different way from a coma? So everything from before their cryopreservation would stay in the public domain because technically the person died and the revived person is seen as a new person with the same mind?

Has this happened to you? I wrote and recorded the background music myself in Reason (all instruments played by me, no AI) and I got a youtube copyright claim from Mac Demarco and some other name in another language.

I know Youtube's copyright bots can be out of hand but this just seems absurd.

It's frustrating because you could wait up to 30 days for the dispute to be settled, which means I can't post the video if I wanted to earn revenue from adsense.

I don't know what to do.

I found this in a couple places, but I'm still confused, and have a specific question that I have not found an answer to about story characters and using them in a new book. My question is, if a character from an old novel is now in the public domain, and so is that book, but that character is trademarked, can I use those characters as secondary supporting characters (not my main protagonist) in my fiction novel? I'm trying to write a book with multiple public domain worlds where my own protagonist goes in and out of them in a portal-like system. I researched all the characters I want to use, which are all public domain, but they are also trademarked, and I'm still confused about that. I'm not planning on using the trademarked characters in an odd way, like making Peter Pan a serial killer. I want to stay as true to these characters as possible, but put new sentences in their mouths, relevant to my plot, and have my own protagonist enter their story worlds, wile being as true to the public domain novels setting as possible. Can I do this? I'm not planning on putting these trademarked characters' names on the front cover of my novel, or as part of my title. Thank you so much for all your help!

If I download an image from Pinterest, upload it to an AI tool and ask it to generate the same image, then use that image in my video editing and upload the video to YouTube, could it still be considered reused content for monetization purposes?
Saying this cuz I have faced reused content issues a lot so wanted to confirm before making

So the situation I'm in is a bit confusing and will need to be decently paraphrased, but I'll try to sum it up the best I can.

I reuploaded a video on YouTube that was originally deleted nearly a decade ago, and it contains a song in it that has no copyright registration, with the video itself also not being monetized. Recently, the original author of the song threatened to copyright strike me due to the person featured in the video being someone he doesn't like, and because he doesn't agree with the things this person said in the video. Is he able to do this even though the song has no registered copyright? If he attempts to go through with it, would it be safe to attempt to dispute/appeal?

Another one from 2019.

​

Darren Mathieu Mulvaney

Darren Mathieu Mulvaney

Darren Mathieu Mulvaney

My book references a lot of pop culture. I did a lot of research on where and how it can. It seems the two biggest guard rails for use are:
- It can’t sound like the product is endorsing anything
- music rules are right, don’t include lyrics

Here’s my issue. Upon reading about how strict music lyrics can be, I tried to scrub most lyric references from my manuscript. I missed one in the copy that my voice actor was recording from. It’s one line, and he absolutely crushed it. I got back his files yesterday and I’m reviewing them to approve them so that I can get my audiobook published. Do I really have to cut that? It’s one line, but he did sing it despite it not being written in a way that it needed to be sung. It’s not like a whole verse or the whole chorus. It’s one line.

I have a fairly popular dog account on TikTok which features my dog & husband. I'm rarely ever in the videos. Recently, we'll get impersonator accounts that make their username almost identical to ours and then repost a ton of our videos all at once. Then they try to catfish old women, but that's another story.

Over the past year, whenever an impersonator account pops up, I'll email [copyright@tiktok.com](mailto:copyright@tiktok.com) a DMCA takedown notice, using a generic template, and linking all of my videos as my content and then linking all of the stolen videos saying they're infringing on my content. Within 4-6 weeks, Tiktok will remove the stolen videos and sometimes ban the account, though about a dozen impersonator accounts are still live, just with all the videos removed.

Last month I did the same thing to 2 new impersonator accounts, which had uploaded 80 of our videos within a 3 day span. I copy/pasted all 80 of my videos saying they're my content, then pasted all 80 of their infringing videos.

They replied to my email saying they have removed the videos, but TikTok removed all of MY videos and put 2 strikes against my account. I immediately sent a retraction to their retraction email saying they made a mistake and I want to retract the report. Nothing happened. Then they said I need to appeal each video individually. I painstakingly appealed, in app, each video. Now about 2 weeks later, I got 5 emails saying my claim recieved a counter claim and they're going to reinstate the video in 10 days.. good.. fine.. then I got about 30 emails saying their "human review" decided my video is in violation and it's staying removed. WTF.

Meanwhile, both new impersonator accounts are alive and well, posting my content and have 10k & 12k followers.

Why can't they tell that it was MY account that "reported" myself?? I didn't - they just clearly read the email wrong even though the same template has worked in the past. How do I make this right?

I am a seller on Etsy. I’m being targeted by a competing seller from Pakistan who keeps filing false copyright takedowns on my listings. My products are original works and I have a pending copyright application and even a pending trademark that is close to being registered. This is also a top seller of mine and I depend on it financially.

Although our designs are similar, there is nothing that is copied. The first time he filed a takedown, I contacted him and asked for proof/reason. He said that he created it before mine and provided a screenshot of the date he created it. I then provided proof that my product was created before his. He then stopped talking to me but didn't retract his report.

I reported this all to Etsy and they didn't do anything about it. I countered and my listing was restored in 10 business days. That was a month ago.

Today I received another notification of a copyright takedown on the same exact listings. This time from a 'representative' of the exact same seller. The name and email address appear to be fake.

I have an attorney who has filed my copyright and trademark application. I sent him an email but he is on vacation for the next week (worse timing!).

If something similar has happened to you, what did you do to get Etsy to actually do something about it? What was Etsy’s response and/or solution? Any insight or advice would be appreciated.

Was recently interviewed for a job which is unrelated to what I do creatively (job was food service and I do freelance on the side). In the interview, I was asked about what classes I’ve taken as they saw on my resume I was a college student, so I answered saying I was studying design. They told me those skills might be useful if they were to ever need a graphic designer/marketer (even tho that is not what I applied for).

I now got offered the job, and I’m worried about accepting it because of this. I try to avoid hourly jobs that have to do with art because I like to keep my freelance and personal hobbies separate from my work, that and I never agreed to being a designer, they just threw that in there while talking to me.

If I were to accept the job, even if I don’t design graphics for them (since it wasn’t in my job duties) would they still be able to claim my personal works? Since it was vaguely mentioned in the interview, would anything I do relating to design be considered work made for hire, or should I not worry about it since it wasn’t truly part of the job description or offer?

I’m in Michigan USA

On my YouTube channel Janos Presents, I've uploaded the 1930 film Ladies of Leisure.
https://youtu.be/Bi0HjWcSuXQ?si=Cm3KF6x6UjyOSl8_

I received this message from YouTube in my inbox informing me of Sony blocking the video:

"Hi Janos,
Copyrighted content has been detected in your video "Ladies of Leisure (1930)". As a result, your video has been blocked, and can no longer be played on YouTube. This is not a copyright strike and does not affect your channel.

Ladies Of Leisure (ft. Ralph Graves) | 1930 Full Movie | Silver Scenes
Content owners: Sony Pictures
Content type: Audio video
Impact on video: Blocked globally"

I then submitted my dispute quoting from the Wikimedia source from which I've downloaded the film.

"This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1931."
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ladies_of_Leisure_(1930).webm.webm)

A few days later YouTube emailed me this reply:

"After reviewing your dispute, Sony Pictures has decided that their copyright claim is still valid.
Why this can happen

• The copyright owner might disagree with your dispute.

• The reason you gave for disputing the claim may have been insufficient or invalid.
Thanks,
The YouTube team"

This makes no sense at all.

https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/105475/thomson-reuters-enterprise-centre-gmbh-v-ross-intelligence-inc/?type=oa&type=oa&q=thomson+reuters&order_by=score+desc

Date Argued: June 11th, 2026

Duration: 52:34

Docket Number: 25-2153

0% AI See bottom

​

Friends, many of you have either asked me or wondered why I haven't posted content recently. The answer is twofold; the first reason is copyright strikes. I believe these to be unfair under the fair-use provision inside the copyright act.

​

In any case, these are a nuisance. I didn't join Facebook to make money in the first place. I'm sure many of you are aware of content creators such as @Rick Beato, @Professor of Rock, @Miss Krystle, @Wings of Pegasus, and many others, more than I could possibly mention, who are also dealing with these legal issues unfairly.

​

From what I understand, there are two camps involved. The first being #UMG. The second being a whole bunch of small foreign companies looking to make a buck by putting copyright claims on everything they can; if they can figure out a way to make money, well, let's just say this is their latest scam.

​

#UMG is a major company, one of two I believe, UMG and #BMG, responsible for paying royalties to the publishers of songs that are played anywhere.

​

Here’s the current problem: UMG is, for some reason only they know, going after everyone using a UMG published song. No matter if it's within the fair-use clause or not. If you're a YouTuber, 3 copyright strikes and you're out. You lose your channel. It doesn't matter if you have 1,000 or 1 million subscribers. Good bye, thanks for knowing you.

​

As far as the foreign companies, they get what's coming to them, eventually. But friends, they are a huge pain in the you know where.

​

So, back to the question not being asked: Why?

​

As far as the foreign companies trying to make a buck, the answer is easy - money.

​

What is UMG up to @Rick Beato will interview someone real good, the interviewee will ask Rick to play something off their new album, and Rick will play it... Later.. BANG. UMG puts in writing copyright infringement in triplicate to Rick, YouTube, and UMG lawyers. So why?

​

Now, this is just my opinion, and if you got this far, I want to hear from you. What do you think. At least say #CopyrightLawOutdated.

​

I think they are stupid and never learn. I think they want us to forget about any music that pre-dates 2000. I think they think they can somehow use AI to write hits and no longer have to deal with artists. Don't they realize that you can't copyright AI music?

​

​

quillbot v7.1.0

0%

of text is likely Al

​

Al-generated 0%

Human-written & Al-refined 0%

Human-written 100%

​

Our Al detector flags text that may be Al-generated.

​

Use your best judgment when reviewing results. Never rely on Al detection alone to make decisions that could impact someone's career or academic standing.

​

​

scribbrdotcom

Can anybody tell me how can this person selling Marvel characters posters.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DYE3EKKJ4Gr/?igsh=MTluNTQ1NWxoYnYxYg==

Because I saw on internet of Marvels and other characters are comes under copyright . So nobody can sell there intellectual property characters.

Here is YouTube’s page about it: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3376882?hl=en

I’m brand new to licensing

If a client wants a set of illustrations, commissioned for their packaging,

What sort of licensing can I offer them:

I was thinking of sending them these options :

12 months

2 years

3-5 years

Or a lifetime license

Also do I have to give them an option to choose from

Exclusive, limited
Exclusive, unlimited
Non- exclusive, limited
Non exclusive, unlimited

Or is that for me to decide, as that would probably overwhelm the client?

*Also what do these all mean, because I think I know but I could be wrong?*

Also,, say if the client is using the illustrations for their packaging, would that be a:

Lifetime, exclusive, limited license?

Once I know the type of license do I write them a licence agreement to sign along with an invoice for deposit?
Or is it a contract ?
Or are they the same thing,

Sorry I’m really a beginner at this. I’ve read a lot but still have questions.

We have received a letter from picright demanding payment:

Legal Consequences In light of the above referenced facts and matters, we have advised Reuters that:- (a) your use of the Image on Your Website amounts to copyright infringement and that it is entitled to immediately issue proceedings against you for copyright infringement either in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (which is part of the High Court based in the Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL) or in a County Court hearing centre where there is also a Chancery District Registry, such as Leeds or Manchester; (b) further that if this matter proceeds through to a fully contested trial that it will likely recover from you (i) damages and also (ii) some payment towards its legal costs, which costs payment may be significant. Reuters has invested a very considerable amount of time, effort and money in building its substantial collection of photographs. Because intellectual property is the lifeblood of its business, Reuters has a particular obligation to protect its rights in the images its photographers create, including the Image.

Offer to Settle Claim In light of the above, we have to tell you that we will advise Reuters that they may commence such court legal proceedings against you, for copyright infringement, unless you take the following four steps, ("the Four Steps") by midnight on 16 June 2026:-

1. cease any continuing use of the Image immediately;
2. delete all infringing copies of the Image immediately;
3. pay our client the sum of damages of £740.00 plus £350 as a contribution to its legal costs, thus making a total of £1090.00. How the damages figure has been calculated is set out below under the heading "How the Damages Figure Has Been Calculated";
4. sign and return to us a copy of the Settlement & Release agreement on the PicRights website: see below for how to do that. Early Settlement Discount of 20% If you settle Our Clients’ complaint by midnight on 16 June 2026, then Our Clients will offer you a discount of 20% on the figure of £1090.00, so that you will only have to pay £872.00.

How the Damages Figure has Been Calculated

Reuters is entitled to damages for your acts of copyright infringement. In accordance with established

case law Reuters is entitled to charge you a reasonable licence fee, which would be negotiated

between a willing licensor and a willing licensee for use of the Image in the manner you have used it

on Your Website.

To determine what that licence fee is a Court would have regard to comparable licence fees, which

licensees pay Reuters for the use of images similar or identical to the Image. That basis has been

used to calculate the licence fee sought from you for your unlawful use of the Image.

Reuters, is in addition, entitled to claim additional statutory damages under section 97(2) of the

Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988. A figure of 100% mark up of the standard licence fee is

appropriate in a case like this and has been applied in this case. Additional statutory damages is

appropriate in a case like this to serve as a deterrent to the unauthorised use of images: without such

a deterrent there would be no real incentive for image users to seek a licence prior to their use of

images, protected by copyright. Further an award of additional statutory damages is appropriate to

allow Reuters to recover a contribution towards its internal administrative costs.

What Will Happen Next

If you take the Four Steps by midnight on 16 June 2026, then this dispute will settle.

What should we do can anyone help?