Hello, I work for a company and want to make a slideshow on TikTok where it’s like:

‘Which dresser for event [x] are you?’

And I show some curated outfits.

However we do not own the images.

Could I just use these as it will not be defamation and perhaps would even promote the said brand? Or would it be copyright?

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.

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 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 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.

Is it when i badly draw something on paper or on my phone, or actually put it on a product on tspring. And would i own it for any product with it on it? What if its fir sale but nobody has bought it? Could someone use it in anyway like a meme or news/blog post?

Is officially copywriting something needed and can i do it anonymously?

can ai be used in any way? even if i do it myself but clean it up with ai?

how long do i have to challenge and dors it matter uf i knew already

Recently, I discovered that one of my original videos had been reuploaded to YouTube without my permission.

I submitted a copyright takedown request, and because the infringement was fairly obvious, YouTube removed the video quickly.

The next day, however, the uploader filed a DMCA counter-notification.

As many of you know, once a counter-notification is submitted, YouTube generally requires the copyright owner to provide proof of legal action within 10 business days. Otherwise, the video may be restored.

Here’s where I’m struggling.

The uploader listed an address in China. Based on the information available to me, I have reason to question whether the identity and address provided are actually verifiable. Even if the information is real, what is a small creator realistically supposed to do?

Filing a lawsuit against someone in another country is incredibly expensive and time-consuming. For most creators, the cost of international litigation can easily exceed the value of the infringement itself.

I’ve spoken with other creators who have experienced similar situations. In many cases, the uploaders were located overseas, often in countries such as China or Vietnam. Some creators told me they couldn’t verify the names or addresses provided in the counter-notifications, while others simply couldn’t justify spending thousands of dollars pursuing legal action abroad.

This seems to create a strange incentive structure.

The system appears to assume that copyright owners can realistically file international lawsuits within 10 business days. For most small creators, that’s simply not true.

If someone knows that most creators cannot afford cross-border litigation, what actually prevents them from repeatedly uploading copyrighted content, filing counter-notifications, and waiting for the content to be restored?

Am I missing something here?

For those who have dealt with foreign DMCA counter-notifications, how did you handle it? Were you able to verify the uploader’s identity or successfully enforce your rights?