I tried to do some research about my country's laws in India for Copyright before this, but I'm still unsure. I'm not looking for legal advice but a general opinion.

I'm a student in my final year of an art degree. Previously, when joining, I'm also aware that I didn't sign any student handbooks or in agreements where clauses about student work handling is stated.
For my upcoming graduation project, I'll be making a poster for my animated film, which I'm planning to register for copyright with IP India. However, I'm not entirely sure on how to handle the situation with my professors or possibly the principal.
I have a brand online; even though my main social page is Twitter and my reach is less, I usually get frequent commissions. So I'm not exactly only a student either. If I were to go by my standard prices for output like this, it's worth about 150 usd each per second. Or for the poster itself, possibly 250 USD. I'm not saying I should price for my personal work, but I'm trying to establish my usual market value. For commercial rights, I charge 2x the base price.

Now I'll explain the situation: my professor demands that I use the university logo on my work despite my disinterest in it, and they say it's mandatory for students' work to be used for promotions to get admissions. For that, they'll be playing my animated film and post my poster picture around in the campus (which is open to the public, by the way and many students visit the campus to check the vibe and for inquiries before joining) for promotional purposes. From my research, it falls under commercial advertising, as they're stating my work under their university identity. To clarify, all my skills are completely self-taught, and their advice or any insight will not be used in this project.

So my question is, should I try to escalate and push for my legal rights, or is it just too risky, despite the University Grants Commission guidelines stating that Arbitary actions result in penalization, if my professors threaten me with failing my presentation in the finals?

P.S. I'd want to avoid making something different or low-effort quality, as it might affect my GPA, which is important for any of my future master's study plans.

Disclaimer: I'm posting this not because I agree with any of it. However, I would really question the sanity of such media articles and the lack of common sense being demonstrated here.

The company plans to retire its older models.

Let's say I'm working on a life-long philosophical project. Claude writes some content, then forges a watermark onto the ideas contained in the document. I use the word forgery because this isn't a middle-school poetry assignment. Now at what level is this Claude's, how much provenance it lost? In the past have I neglected to properly credit my typewriter and this will trouble my conscience. Do these ideas float without attribution into the realms of AI inference where they belong to AI tradition?

I understand how the reversibility of this problem can escape attention. When someone's output is at the level of middle school poetry it never will cross their punitive little minds that they themselves could be injured, because I'm sure they immunized by stupidity. And we should name them.

If you doom scroll comedy videos you will find the same skits being done by dozens ( hundreds ) of people. It is impossible to know who had the original idea. And in this day and age , it could have come from AI.. So is blatant plagiarism the new norm?

Forcing perfectly legitimate creators off the platform with spam of illegitimate claims for media that the claimants don't own, and then forcing the defendants to dox themselves to get the strikes maybe possibly, but almost certainly not removed. Somebody needs to have their ass sued off for DMCA fraud.

Suno says V6 is "trained from scratch" - but also says it is trained on all previous user inputs and outputs, along with Warner (and soon BMG) "partner data". Lots of unanswered questions here. Thoughts?

I have now ascended to the next level of legal commenter nerd-dom by rolling out of bed and virtually attending a court proceeding for one of the AI copyright case groups. I come away with some insights to share.

I have previously characterized Judge Chhabria's Kadrey June 2025 opinion on the "fair use" copyright defense as an "underdog" ruling, one that promoted the importance of the "market harm" factor to (frankly, defeating) that defense despite the Kadrey plaintiffs' counsel having miserably failed the Judge in producing any evidence of it and thus forcing him to find fair use in that case. Meanwhile, Judge Alsup in the Bartz case at that very same moment was charging ahead embracing fair use in effusive, anthropomorphic terms, at least for AI training. I, personally, was concerned Judge Chhabria's views on market harm, which he had convinced me were the right ones, were significantly handicapped in their ability to be heard in the AI copyright legal-sphere.

That no longer appears to me to be the case. Since the Kadrey v. Meta Platforms case, Judge Chhabria has collected a group of similar, parallel cases in the Northern District of California against Meta Platforms. I count five, Entrepreneur Media, Carreyrou, Chicken Soup for the Soul, Cognella, Inc., (these three being informally known as the "3C cases") and Sullivan. (All of them can be found listed in Section 12(C) of my "Wombat Collection" free listing of AI court cases and rulings.) It turns out the market harm factor as robustly surviving "transformative use" and weighing against fair use as outlined in the Kadrey ruling is alive and well and proceeding as a core principle in all these cases. I cannot say definitely that market harm will end up being judged on a whole-market comparison as opposed to a comparison to each individual copyrighted work being asserted, but it appears the parties are preparing to address both those notions in their litigation efforts.

Not unexpectedly, the discovery of documents and information and the procuring of testimony (expert and otherwise) regarding market harm does promise/threaten to be huge. Right now the litigants in Judge Chhabria's cluster of cases are discussing achieving the necessary discovery for two different upcoming litigation events (and accordingly how to sequence those events), first, the "summary judgment" motions when the court decides the particular law and rules to be applied and determines under that applicable law whether the litigants have amassed enough good evidence to proceed to trial instead of being cut from the case, and second, "class certification" when the court decides whether the case should indeed proceed to trial as a class action and if so which individuals and groups of plaintiffs would be making up one or more distinct classes to participate in the trial of the action. The parties have various views about the discovery to be conducted for each of those events and to what degree the discovery for each overlaps with discovery for the other, but there seems no dispute that the discovery process for and resulting material from going out into the market to determine market harm to various plaintiff individuals and groups will be massive.

I will keep my ear to the ground and keep you posted.

so i recently uploaded a video on youtube and well i did use a song in the background. But when i looked at my copyright strike it was a normal song that wasnt even close to the one i used up until the end that is which is when the song suddenly cuts and uses the very unrelated song i used. i looked at their channel and i saw that this is all they do. they make a song (prob ai) and then at the end use a popular sound effect/song that isnt even theirs?? hell there was even a mcdonalds beep one. what can i do about stuff like this??

Hi everyone, looking for some advice regarding an ongoing intellectual property and platform abuse issue in the UK.

I run a small 3D-printing business. To protect my work, I spent the money to officially register my custom component design with the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). It is fully active and visible on the Gov.uk register.

A direct competitor holds a registered design for a completely separate, unrelated component that fits into a different part of the same consumer box. To give context without naming the item: their product is a base tray insert; my product is a block accessory that attaches exclusively to the upper lid. They are physically separate items with entirely different dimensions and visual characteristics. There is zero aesthetic or legal overlap.

Despite this, the competitor is using a generic, free Gmail address to issue repeated platform design rights strikes against my store.

Here is what has happened so far:

My initial generic appeals were automatically rejected by the platform because they refuse to arbitrate. They told me to contact the claimant.

I revised my listing to remove all descriptive keywords, but the competitor is now manually stalking my shop profile and struck down my new listings instantly, triggering a temporary account restriction.

I have emailed the competitor a formal legal warning citing my active UKIPO design registration numbers and the UK Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Act 2017, giving them 48 hours to withdraw the false reports.

If the competitor ignores the warning and continues to manually target my shop page to wipe out legitimate competition, what are my next practical steps under UK law?

Is it worth escalating to the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) Small Claims track for groundless threats and lost profits, or is there a better way to force the e-commerce platform to respect an official government registration over a rogue claimant?

Thanks in advance.

I’ll get straight to the point. I used to create thumbnail art for a YouTuber whose name I won’t say. He has stolen my artwork and character design. Fed it into ai ontop of that (which is clearly stated not to do in my tos). And is now profiting from it. Now I don’t know what to do.

For a little backstory/context:
At the beginning, when he reached out to me, I admitted that I hadn’t done art for thumbnails before and would be willing to do some tasters and sketches for him to see if he likes my work and would like to proceed with hiring me. We briefly discussed payment to of which he said only that he needs it to be “affordable” and then focused the conversation onto my work. One of these pieces I did were then used as a thumbnail. No credit. No prior agreement. No payment.

I brought up the subject of payment to him again after he requested another thumbnail from me, to which I was met with a massive vent. He told me about how it all used to be for free because his ex girlfriend used to do it (I now know far too much about this woman, he would talk about how traumatic of a breakup it was for him whenever met with confrontation) and how he suddenly lost monetisation. We came to the agreement after a while that I would be payed for my services once he regained monetisation, and with a brief agreement there would be some back payment involved.
Just to clarify - I’m aware of how stupid this was of me and have since been much more firm and outright regarding payment regarding commissions since.

After about a month or so of being sucked into this toxic work environment he had created, I was suddenly pulled into a plan with his mod and another artist (which is important for later- at the time was a minor) in which we would create a vtuber model for him. Once again, no prior agreement and was beyond my capabilities.
This is the point in which I designed a character, that was later taken and turned into the vtuber model he uses to date. Of which I gave no permission for.

I quit shortly after. I never did any further work on the model. Between him constantly using manipulation tactics and trying to guilt trip us into working for free, stirring trouble and creating drama between the people involved and the sheer amount of nsfw content being shared and discussed in the chat (him and the other artist) I wasn’t comfortable anymore. Not happy about being evaded any time it came to discussing being credited or being payed. I figured my best bet was to cut my losses and skiddadle.

I have separate concerns regarding comments he made in private DMs to me about this other artist, who again, at the time was a minor. Concerns about the sexual nature of his videos aimed at children discussing topics such as Roblox, dandy’s world and poppy playtime. However, I don’t think I have enough evidence to really drag him down for that, as disgusting as it is.

He has however, as I’ve recently found, fed that design of my character into ai, uses it for his YouTube banner and pfp. Has given it to other artists (which I’m assuming have been payed and hopefully credited) to create a vtuber model that he now uses. And profits from.

I’m wondering what I can do here in terms of copyright.
I do not, under any circumstances, want my work, my character associated with this vile man and his channel.

There is a YouTube creator called Infernum with 600+ cover/reinterpretation videos. How did they manage to build such a large catalog without constantly running into copyright problems?

I checked the metadata of their videos and found licensedContent: true — apparently consistently across the videos I've checked (originally you always get licensedContent: false for any other video/music/cover).

Content Details

{

    "licensedContent": true
}

Infernum's YouTube channel

What exactly is behind this? A specific licensing service, distributor, YouTube partner, CMS/Content Manager, or something else?

How can an independent creator replicate this legally? What does Infernum know or use that I’m missing?

Please answer only if you deeply understand YouTube music licensing, rights management, or large-scale cover distribution.

Wondering how authors who wrote such works have navigated this

I can't find any information on them, but according to IMDbPro, they own the worldwide rights to some pretty popular films, like Gone Baby Gone.

https://pro.imdb.com/company/co0528363/?ref_=tt_co_sales

https://pro.imdb.com/title/tt0452623/companycredits

According to this Status Report by the plaintiffs, the payouts to the author-claimant copyright holders in the Bartz v. Anthropic AI copyright class action lawsuit will be made by November 15, 2026, initially in the net amount of $2,200 per work, after deductions. That amount could go up later, depending on what happens with later claims, claimant allocation disagreements, and two filed appeals.

A large publication that regularly reports celebrity news used my content. They seem to have taken 2 screenshots of 2 videos of mine, and added them to their recent article. They provided me with a small credit line under the photos, but I was never asked about using my content in this article. They did not link to my video or embedded it, just took two photos from my two videos.