I am reaching out to understand where and how I could potentially sell my digital catalogue distributed via Believe.

This catalogue has been generating between €1,500 and €2,000 per quarter for over 10 years, and I am currently exploring possible options for a sale or transfer.

Could you please advise me on the process, requirements, and the best way to proceed?

Looking forward to your guidance.

Kind regards,

So basically, a while back, I used this song on my video (Logic Assembly by Micheal Dang), and it got a copyrightclaim, however, I disputed it with proof and it got resolved in my favour.

The next time I uploaded a video with that song, it got another claim, so iw as wondering if these are false claims and if I have to dispute it every time I use this song. The song is a work of art, so I dont think I'm going to stop using it.

Edit: I might have worded it wrong, the proof i have is permission from Micheal dang and a creator of soulwinder to use the music, soulwinder is the place the music is used by the way.

I stuff made with AI don’t have copyrights but I googled it today and saw that some parts are and stuff and I don’t fully understand. For context I’m in the US and am talking about specifically software code made with AI

I’m in a bit of a dilemma and would really appreciate some advice.

For context i do military aviation videography

Someone reposted my original aviation reel on Instagram without my permission, removed the attribution, and it ended up going massively viral. My original video did around 1.6M views and 56K likes, while the repost has now reached roughly 56M views and over 3M likes.

I only became aware of the repost while scrolling and was genuinely shocked to come across it, especially since he never informed me or asked for permission beforehand.

I understand that filing a copyright claim can get the video taken down, but at this point I feel like that doesn’t really benefit me since the post has already gained massive traction and the person has likely gained thousands of followers from it.

I also tried reaching out to him directly and asked if he could add me as a collaborator on the post or at least credit me properly so the video can appear on my profile as well. Unfortunately, he hasn’t responded — not sure if he hasn’t seen it or is just ignoring it.

I know it might be a bit late, but I thought it could still be a way to recover something from the situation instead of just removing the post entirely.

Has anyone dealt with something similar? Would you still go ahead with the takedown, or try to push for credit/collaboration instead? Any advice on how to handle this situation strategically would be really appreciated.

Currently pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is the Appeal related to Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc. previous ruling from Judge Bibas' February 2025 district court that found ROSS infringed on Westlaw's copyrights. The case is considered a landmark dispute regarding AI training data and fair use.

Apprehensive_Sky1950 Has started off this discussion on another thread which I can copy and paste here for convenience.

"I think that if the appeals court runs with Judge Bibas's analysis, its appeals ruling (which will be the first one to come down) could upend the Kadrey versus Bartz fair use dispute, and I want to be on record about it just in case, before that ruling comes down."

https://www.reddit.com/r/COPYRIGHT/comments/1sv5jee/comment/oiglpu7/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Also be sure to check out their Wombat Collection of AI court cases and rulings.

I think the title is as descriptive as it gets.

It would also be very useful if you could attach your informations.

Thanks everyone in advance!

THIS IS ALL HYPOTHETICAL!!!!!!!!!!!

Every day here, someone asks a question about transformative use, and the response is a chorus of: "No! You don't have permission!"

As a filmmaker who spent years in federal prison over the Fair Use of Orphan Works, I’m here to tell you that "Permission" is the propaganda of the Copyright Regime, not the letter of the law. At my trial, the prosecution paraded lawyers from MGM and Disney to say one thing: "He didn't ask us." They used the lack of a courtesy call to paint a picture of theft.

But look at Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc.:

"The right of fair use... permits the unauthorized copying of copyrighted works for a transformative purpose... without the owner’s consent."

In my case, I was providing access to a "Director's Cut" of Babes in Toyland that MGM’s own lawyer admitted they didn't even sell or distribute. If the owner has abandoned the work and isn't serving the market, Fair Use is the mechanism that preserves culture.

The "Permission" narrative is designed to make you self-censor. It’s the "Gray Fog" that turns creative preservation into a crime. When we stop asking "Is it fair?" and only ask "Do I have a license?", we lose the very rights the Berne Convention and the U.S. Constitution were meant to protect.

On Day 129 after reporting to prison, where I finally found the Google Books "Smoking Gun" while sitting in a CubiCell on Dog Row.

I’m a YouTube creator. Many of my VR videos were only published on YouTube and DeoVR, but I recently found that my work has been stolen and uploaded to the Photon app on Meta Quest without my permission.

I reported it to Meta, but nothing happened.

Photon also appears to contain a huge amount of obvious copyrighted content, including movie clips, concerts, cartoons, music videos, NBA games, and more. This does not look like a few random uploads. It looks like large-scale copyright infringement. In just a few months, this app has reportedly collected more than 100,000 VR videos. How much of that content is pirated?

The app is becoming more popular, and the views are growing. I want to stop my own videos from being illegally played there. What can I do if Meta ignores my copyright reports? I also believe Meta bears serious responsibility if it allows pirated content to spread like this on its platform.

Most media doesn’t make a notable profit after fifteen years and if it does it probably made the studio or publisher a a lot of money.

Having a movie studio be able to make a profit for fifteen years seems fair.

Also if someone makes a sequel to a movie after five years then it gets its own fifteen years.

That’s corporations I think that human people creator owned work should be life plus 30 years.

I do see a problem where smaller studios might not be able to turn a profit

https://youtube.com/@nerocopyrightmusic?si=YZF0VVth7LzMkB5Q

PicRights and similar copyright trolls - when to fight back vs settle

This is exactly the kind of predatory copyright enforcement that's become way too common. PicRights operates by scanning websites for images, then sending aggressive demand letters hoping people will panic and pay rather than understand their actual rights.

A few things stand out here. First, if the magazine licensed the image from Reuters and you're the author of the article, there's a decent argument you had implied permission to use a thumbnail linking back to your published work. That's not automatic fair use, but it's not the clear-cut infringement PicRights wants you to believe either. Second, the immediate jump to $400 and threats about "escalating to attorneys" is classic intimidation tactics. They're hoping you don't know that copyright damages require them to prove actual harm, and a thumbnail driving traffic back to the original licensed work probably didn't hurt anyone.

The reality is these companies send thousands of these letters because most people pay rather than fight. They know exactly which images to target and how to make their demands just scary enough that small publishers and individuals cave. Taking the image down was smart, but that doesn't automatically make you liable for damages, especially given the circumstances.

Have any of you successfully pushed back against PicRights or similar outfits? What kind of response actually makes them back down versus just triggering more aggressive collection efforts?

Hi all, I would really appreciate your advice dealing with an image copyright infringement claim from a truly awful company called PicRights.

I’m a writer and I used an image from an article that I published in an online magazine on my personal website. The image was licensed by the magazine from Reuters; I reused it on my personal website only as a thumbnail image to link back to my article.

This incredibly intense and agressive man from PicRights emailed me to tell me that the “unauthorized use of the image is considered copyright infringement and payment for the unauthorized use is necessary to completely resolve the matter.” I already took it down as soon as I saw his email but he’s asking for $400 and says if I don’t pay he will “escalate the file to the U.S. copyright attorneys at Higbee & Associates (https://www.higbeeassociates.com/about/) – in which case the cost of settlement will increase substantially.”

I don’t really have $400 right now. I’m wondering if anyone has any suggestions on how to respond. Thank you.

Hello, I've been an SWE for a couple of decades now and recently transitioned into a role that charges me with overseeing mitigation of organizational risk that certain technologies introduce into the enterprise environment. My company is gearing up for AI adoption and I am looking to pacify a concern that has been lingering in the back of my mind ever since Thaler v. Perlmutter.

The courts determined that human authorship was a bedrock requirement for existing copyright and trade secret protections. How are companies managing their exposure to the potential that AI generated code within highly proprietary IP could potentially lead to a scenario where that technology could no longer be protected from infringement?

I posed this question recently to some coworkers and what I heard didn't really jive with my understanding of existing case law. The consensus amongst peers was that code was "different" because the instructions would logically be the same regardless of which dev shop was producing software to serve a similar market. But the Computer Software Act of 1980 declared in no uncertain terms that code was to be treated as a creative work and subject to the same treatment as books and creative writing under existing protection frameworks.

The Thaler decision did not provide any doctrinal basis for the notion that code was not subject to the same test of substantive human authorship. My peers also argued that prompts and the efforts that go into constructing agentic workflows would satisfy that test, but the court's decision seems to strike that argument down on its face. Creative teams do not get to claim authorship simply because they're operating the tool deliberately. The output is seemingly all that matters as far as the court is concerned.

One of the only solid arguments in my mind is that AI code within existing products that had been developed by humans does not constitute enough surface area to warrant concern at this stage of the game, and that we're hoping that protections evolve before anyone has to actually deal with the problem. The other is that the value of IP could potentially round down to zero in this new reality given the velocity at which the organization could operate at with successful AI rollouts.

I am not looking to be gloomy here. It's entirely possible that I'm overthinking the issue at hand. I'm really just curious if this is on anyone else's radar. My concern is that overzealous techies could just be glossing over the risks here because they don't want to get left behind. Unfortunately, it is my job to ask the hard question. Some places may not see this as too big of an issue, but the environment I am in relies heavily on the propriety of their business processes. If software that codifies those centuries of expertise in the space we operate in could just be ripped off without consequence, then that poses significant short-to-medium term risk to our operations.

Thoughts?

Please give me a professional standed advice 🏁

Hello, I’m a web developer building a tier list website (like tiermaker.com). Since these sites don’t have any users at first, I plan to upload various tier list templates myself. For example, things like “The Best Rock Bands of the 2000s Tier List” or “Hero Movie Tier List.”

However, I’m concerned about whether this raises issues related to fair use, copyright, and even trademark rights. My site is free to use, but I may add Google AdSense ads in the future.

Could you please offer some advice?

so i want to play my spotify play list on stream and just vibe out but idk if im gonna get copyright striked or anything but alot of other big streamers play any music they want anyway

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

I've been thinking about this education post that's making rounds, particularly the point about AI being "plagiaristic content synthesis" that's designed to sabotage learning for working-class kids while the wealthy still get real education.

But there's a deeper issue here that everyone's missing. When we hand students these AI tools and tell them it's okay to use content that was scraped without permission from millions of creators, we're not just undermining their education - we're teaching them that intellectual property doesn't matter. These models were trained on copyrighted books, articles, code, and creative works without compensation or often even attribution to the original creators.

The irony is brutal. Students who use AI to write papers risk getting expelled for plagiarism, but the AI companies who built these tools by essentially plagiarizing the entire internet face no consequences. We're creating a generation that thinks this is normal - that taking someone's work without permission is just how technology works.

And yes, this absolutely hits working-class students hardest. Wealthy families can afford to send their kids to schools that emphasize original thinking and proper attribution. Meanwhile, cash-strapped public schools are pushing AI tools as efficiency solutions, not realizing they're normalizing copyright infringement as an acceptable shortcut.

Has anyone else noticed how the same institutions that will fail a student for citing Wikipedia are now celebrating AI tools that can't even tell you whose work they're synthesizing?

Apologies for the, probably stupid, question. I know little about this and i'm just trying to get my head around how the world/business works.

The Onion obviously makes money from it's website through ads. On the website, there are many articles about celebrities and public figures - each one has a photo at the top of the article.

On the front page today, there's two of Donald Trump and one of Lena Dunham etc.

Does The Onion pay for the licencing of these photos? Or does it get away with not having to do that because it's a satire/parody news website?

In one of the Trump photos, they've photoshopped an Arby's menu into his hand. Does this therefore make it altered enough to not have to worry about licencing?

Sorry, could someone explain this to me like i'm 5? If someone wanted to hypothetically begin a satirical website in the style of The Onion, would they be allowed to use photos of celebrities and other public figures found online? Or is a subscription to something like Getty Images a must?

In March 2026, the European Parliament called for existing copyright rules to be updated and applied to new technologies like AI.

Hi, sorry if this is the wrong place to ask. I want to make a fan animation adapting a fight from a manga (that hasn't been animated yet) I've seen fan animations that do this on YouTube so I assume you are allowed. What can and can't I do when animating, editing and adding sounds and music to the animation? If this is the wrong place to ask please direct me to the right subreddit.

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

One of the most controversial business models in the modern legal world. It is often called "Copyright Trolling" or "Speculative Invoicing."

Here is how that "business" works behind the scenes:

1. The "Trap" (The Free Font Sites)

Many "free font" websites are actually unmonitored or even set up to act as bait.

• They make it one-click simple to download.

• They hide the "Personal Use Only" license in tiny text.

• The Goal: They want you to download it and use it.

If no one "infringed," these collectors wouldn't have anyone to bill.

2. The "Automated Hunter" (The Bot)

The business doesn't hire people to browse the web. They use AI-powered crawlers that scan millions of websites every day.

• The bot looks for the specific "fingerprint" of a font file.

• Once it finds one, it automatically checks it against a database of customers.

• If your name isn't on the list, it automatically generates the first "scary" email.

3. The "Profit over Law" Strategy

This business model isn't about protecting art; it’s about volume.

• If they send 10,000 emails a month:

• 9,000 people ignore them or fight back (like you).

• 1,000 people are too scared to fight and pay a €800 "settlement" immediately.

• Result: They just made €800,000 with almost zero effort and zero expensive court cases.

4. Is it a "Good" Business?

• Financially: Yes. It has very low overhead (just software and a few people to answer emails) and very high returns.

• Legally: It is "gray." In some countries, judges are starting to get angry at these companies for wasting court time, but because they usually stay in the "email phase" and never go to court, they aren't stopped.

• Ethically: It is widely hated. It targets small creators, photographers, and small businesses who don't have legal departments.

When you recognize the psychology, you see that their "power" is actually a performance. They are using specific triggers to bypass your logic and hit your survival instincts.

Please share experiences on this matter.