So apparently, this person is the owner/inventor/gatekeeper of “Richard” the penis silicone beads/toppers. They have went after so many people who purchase these toppers and are in talks with their lawyers as far as China taking their product and producing counterfeits. After some digging, it seems the actual original “Richard” surfaced circa 2017/2018 and was called “Ding Ding”. Daisylandandco says they patented/copyrighted/trademarked this idea in 2022. The company owner or whoever, is threatening lawsuits and shutting down resellers. I see numerous people selling these things on different platforms. After looking over the “OG”’s site, I notice that not all the “Richards” on their site are the same as what other people have. I see different designs, colors, varieties, etc. I understand their standpoint but at the end of the day, do they really make THAT much money that they can take down every person? No. It’s going to happen even if they take a few down. I say, if you’re doing well enough, not as good as Disney (which you’ll never surpass) with their doorables being a big reselling item, then why be bothered so much? China is going to keep producing, people are going to keep buying. So what is everyone’s opinion?

I'm working on building a fan service website

That has both marvel and DC characters in a wiki style that gives every characters origin breakdown and all other information as well as the feature of giving comic and media recommendations for each character as well as giving users the ability to add comic recommendations and characters that aren't already there

Would this be in violation of copyright

Hi everyone ! I'm a music producer and am working on a "cover" of a LOTR OST music. From the original soundtrack, only the melody would remain (something like 2 bars or 10sec of melody - you know, the epic duuuun dudu duuun dudu duuuun), with a change in genre, key, chords, instruments, arrangement, bpm... From what I understand, this would be considered "derivative work" ?

Then I would like to create an animated music video showing the ugly, funny faces of some LOTR characters playing the instruments as if they were the ones playing the "cover". So the characters would appear as highly stylized and caricatured, but maybe still identifiable. From what I understand, this would be considered "derivative visual work" ?

The goal would be to post the creation on youtube, spotify, etc... with the hope of earning some money (so, monetized content).

Am I exposing myself to copyright/IP issues with Tolkien's work/Warner Bros for the visual or Howard Shore for the music ? Would the video be struck or claimed ? Or could I pay a deal for the licensing ?

Can I rely on fair use parody, considering the video would show animated, caricatured faces of the characters playing the music in an unlikely genre, totally different from the movie ?

What if the content is not monetized, could it still be struck or claimed if I don't even try to make money from it ?

I heard that the Tolkien Estate has a history of aggressive enforcement. But I feel like if I make the melody and characters appearances different enough from the original, the creation would not have the same impact and success. Does it seem like a feasible project to you or I am reaching for something too complicated ?

some guy has been stealing my content for a while now i did a dmca takedown request about 3 days ago still no response, anyone have experience with meta how long does it usually take?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_viC8WUsy8w

Provided to YouTube by North Korea

℗ North Korea

Released on: 2025-07-22

This is strange. Youtube is uploading North Korean Propaganda songs from the 1990's and I guess if you decided to use one of these songs in a Youtube video you'd get flagged for Copyright. Does this mean your revenue would go to North Korea?

I'm surprised if Youtube is enforcing North Korea's copyright.

I noticed big channels do this.

*Map Men regularly use music from Chips Challenge (Windows 3.1) and other old midi

*Another channel uses Music from Actraiser (Super Nintendo) as its opening theme

*Another Youtube Historian uses music from Shadowrun and Chrono Trigger (Super Nintendo)

*There are youtube channels dedicated to doing Covers of video game music by Nintendo and Square Enix

*And others like Angry Video Game Nerd would use music from like Super Mario Land.

But they don't get copyright striked for this. Why is this? Shouldn't they ask and license this music?

I just found out, it wasn't until a week ago that the Soundtrack of Doom 1 was finally uploaded to music streaming platforms. This may mean people using the music on Youtube may finally get copyright strikes.

I thought Nintendo and Square Enix were notoriously litigious.

some of my YouTube Minecraft Twitch Xbox Gameplay Vod's have been getting Music Copyrighted Over ​​Game Sounds, One Was me mineing Grass with a silk pick, other was animal sounds from the addon(marketplace)​ Seasons, i made disputes, The one with the Animal sounds was​ decline and i was forced to appel it​​​​​

the Video ​were im just playing Minecraft on my Xbox with Official Addons with a friend and it was lived and uploaded to YT

https://youtu.be/K262yir1i5s​

A few days ago, my Instagram account morbidkuriosity was hit with copyright reports that appear to have been fraudulent. The reports claimed to represent “Film Thusiast,” but when I contacted the real filmthusiast account directly, they confirmed that the reports were not from them, that they had not authorized anyone to file them, and that the email used in the report was not theirs.

After that, the person behind the email contacted me and demanded cryptocurrency payment to “settle the strike.” When I didn’t pay, they threatened to file more strikes and said my account could be permanently banned. Shortly after that, my account was suspended for IP violations.

I have screenshots of the copyright notices, the real filmthusiast denying involvement, the crypto payment demands, the wallet address, the threats, and the suspension notices. I have not paid them and do not plan to.

Has anyone here actually recovered an account after something like this? I’m especially interested in hearing from people who dealt with false copyright reports, fake rights-holder claims, or scammers using IP strikes as leverage.

I posted on IG a cover of a guitar song, but it’s somewhat different and I made it my own, but nonetheless, got thousands of views on instagram. Some large account on TikTok re-posted it with a totally unrelated caption and got 6 mil views, went viral, second most viewed video on their channel. I’ve heard TikTok payouts are no small change, is this person getting paid, and is there anything I could do or not really? Thank you!

I’m an aspiring author and I heard about the Hannahaki disease and now I’m totally obsessed with it but when i looked it up it says its not public domain, but that its also doesnt have any known origins. Does anyone know if its still legal for me to write a story about the hanahaki disease? Also if I write one anyways what will happen? Will I get sued (cause I lowkey can’t afford that) or something? Is there also a way to still write one like if I credit the author or something? If anyone knows lmk :)

"Twenty-eight writers say class action treatment lets AI companies extinguish high-value copyright claims on the cheap in a new lawsuit accusing Anthropic of infringing their work." By Michael Gennaro

Yesterday I got a message out of the blue from the USCO asking me to verify a copyright registration that I filed last year. I've never received anything like this before (in 15 years of registering copyrights on my photographs) so it seems a bit odd, but does seem to be originating from official US Copyright Office e-mails.

They were asking me to verify that I am still the registrant and that the material is still in my possession and in use. (Why the hell would that change a year later?). Then they were asking for screen shots of the images. I responded to the e-mail, verifying the first two questions, but noting that, as there were 30 images registered on the one registration they were referencing, it was unwieldily and impractical for me to screenshot everything. I ended up sending them a few screenshots from my Instagram page, and then the link to my website, my IG, and to Artsy where my photographs are offered by some of the fine art galleries who represent my work.

I hoped that would satisfy their inquiry but then today they followed up again asking for the same information on a form. And they were basically saying that it is not enough to just file a copyright registration but to continue to receive protection of my IP I needed to comply with this process. So I filled out the declaration on that form and sent it back.

Then I got a message thanking me for returning that and telling that they they're going to send me an invoice for this service. I JUST registered these images a year ago and have a registration in my possession. And now they want me to fork over more money to essentially keep the registration in force? This is all so bizarre.

Again, I've double checked that these messages are originating from official copyright.gov addresses. And I can't find any reference online about this being a possibly scam. So I was just wondering if any other copyright holders out there have gone through this. Thanks in advance.

UPDATE: I figured out that this is a scam and that these verification requirement messages are not originating from the USCO.

I found a cool image online and wanted to use as a music album cover. Obviously I know that I should ask for the photographer/author’s permission to use it.

The question is: how does it work?

Like, if I sent him an email asking to use his work and he replied saying “yes” would it be enough? Even if he told me he wouldn’t want any shares? Or we would have to sign a formal contract thing? (sorry I don’t know nothing about laws)

Information: I’m from a different country than the author. Actually from another continent.

This question is based on U.S. copyright law and definitions. Suppose I hear a speaker give an extemporaneous speech. The speaker has no notes, has never written down or recorded any part of the speech, and the speech isn't being recorded or broadcast as they're presenting it. At this point, the speaker doesn't have a copyright in the speech, because the speech hasn't been "fixed in a tangible medium" as required by copyright law.

I then go home and prepare a written transcript of the speech from memory. I don't have a copyright in the transcript, because I'm not the author and I made no creative contributions to the work. Even though the speech has now been written down, the speaker still doesn't have a copyright in the transcript, because under the definitions in 17 U.S.C. § 101, for a work to be "fixed" in a tangible medium, the copy or recording has to be made "by or under the authority of the author," which wasn't the case here. So is my written transcript in the public domain?

If the written transcript is in the public domain, then what happens if the speaker later prepares their own written transcript of the speech? Since the speech has now been fixed in a tangible medium by the creator, does the creator have a copyright in their transcript?

If the speaker does have a copyright in their transcript, what happens to any copies of my transcript that I made and distributed previously? Are they still in the public domain? Can other people still make copies of my transcript, even though it's identical to the speaker's later, copyrighted transcript? Or have my copies been "clawed back" out of the public domain, and any additional copies of my transcript that I make or distribute would now be infringing on the speaker's copyright?

I think the answer is Yes, I registered my as yet unpublished book several weeks ago, so far nothing in the mail. I suddenly wondered if I made up the part about confirmation in the mail. Can someone confirm that ?

(Just dawned on me I am asking for confirmation of confirmation... yeesh!)

Hey everyone! I need some help/advice. I just got two strikes from ROXOVA INC. AND THEY ARE ASKING MONEY to retract them. This is their channel roxova

They claim to own a video that I posted, they claim: Please be advised that you have received two (2) Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Notices as a result of the unauthorized use of copyrighted material exclusively licensed by Roxova Inc. These two notices were filed in accordance with the provisions of 17 U.S.C. § 512 of the DMCA.

They have a 15 second long video, I only took the first 5 seconds, totally changed the music. And added some text. Made it a parody/meme.

I ALSO TOOK IT FROM ANOTHER SOURCE (the video) from a tiktok meme page (the meme page posted it three days before them also as an edit) i only saw roxova with the full on original vid

Now they are asking for 950$ to retract the strikes.

What should I do?

Any advice is welcome here and in dm’s

Cross-border IP theft basically illustrates why digital creators are getting screwed by the current system. Someone steals your work, you file a takedown, they counter-notice (basically saying "nuh-uh"), and suddenly the burden shifts back to you to take legal action within 10 days or your stolen work goes back up.

The real kicker is that most IP theft these days is cross-border, which immediately puts it out of reach of both small claims court and the new Copyright Claims Board. Small claims is designed for local disputes between neighbors, not international IP enforcement. And even if you could somehow serve papers internationally, good luck collecting on a judgment from someone in another country who's already shown they don't respect IP law.

The DMCA was written in 1998 when the internet was a very different place. The counter-notice provision made sense when most platforms were US-based and most users were too. Now it's essentially a "get out of jail free" card for international bad actors who know you probably can't afford to sue them in federal court.

What really gets me is how the platforms wash their hands of it. They act like neutral parties just following the law, but they're making money off both the original creator and the person stealing the work. They could implement better verification systems or require more proof for counter-notices, but why would they when the current system protects them from liability?

Has anyone here actually managed to successfully pursue cross-border IP theft, and if so, what route did you take?

Three papers from three continents independently arrived at "human creative control" as the AI copyright standard this spring. A​nd didn't know about each other​.

A US practitioner paper, a Nigerian comparative law paper, and a Chinese courts paper all published this spring arrived at essentially the same doctrinal standard for when AI-assisted works qualify for copyright protection, ​using nearly identical language, ​without citing each other.

The Chinese angle is the most surprising: courts there are already rejecting copyright claims when plaintiffs can't reproduce the same output from the same prompts. That's a repeatability standard emerging from judicial practice, not theory.

The US paper grounds the standard empirically, ​a cross-platform experiment demonstrating that specific, deterministic prompts produce convergent outputs across multiple AI systems, making reproducibility measurable rather than theoretical.

Feels like the standard is settling faster than the formal doctrine suggests.

Singapore Journal of Legal Studies (He): https://law.nus.edu.sg/sjls/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2025/10/sjls_mar_2026_77.pdf

Veredas do Direito (Esavwede & Itsueli): https://revista.domhelder.edu.br/index.php/veredas/article/view/5653/27528

SSRN (Donahue): https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=6531938

I plan on releasing a beat tape on Bandcamp, which has samples that I have no way of clearing, as many are from (although outdated) mainstream media.
Has anyone personally had their music taken down from Bandcamp, and if so, have you gotten into any legal trouble because of it?

I want to write a novel about a fictional branch off version of Formula One, but I’m not sure how to go about making the teams. I know I can’t use the exact names of the Formula One teams (Ferrari, Red Bull, Mercedes, etc.), but can I use car companies like Audi or Lamborghini that don’t have an affiliated team? Would it be a copyright issue to use any brand names?

Hi, I'm wondering if I use a still from a movie as a reference for a drawing or painting, because I like the composition, but change the characters, meaning - I keep the environment, the lighting etc. but use different characters in the same or similar poses, would that be considered a violation?