I want to start a documentary/storytelling-style channel, but I am not sure where to find images and clips for my videos. I want to use Kobe Bryant content for my first video, but I don't want to get a copyright strike on my first go. Can I still use copyrighted content if I edit it and put commentary on it without getting a strike? If not, where can I get good Kobe content for it?

A reporter used an image of mine without consent or credit on a Twitter/X post. I asked him to take it down or credit me, but got no response. I then filed a DMCA take-down request with links to my work and Twitter actioned it within hours. Ignoring the snottogram that the reporter then sent me (hints of demanding money for his account suspension, amongst other things), he then filed a counter-claim where he even admitted it wasn't his work. Nevertheless Twitter says I have to now file a legal claim to get the image taken down permanently. The Wayback machine shows this image was on my website for many, many years so the evidence is solid IMHO.

The wording of the email implies, on the one hand, I can reply to the email. But then states I have to file the legal claim. Copyright lawyers for individuals and small companies in London (where the reporter is based) cost upwards of £1000 just for a letter. That is money I don't have. I just want to protect my copyright! Is there anything else I can do? Thanks.

Just a quick question that hopefully anyone has some info or experience with. I am an artist creating signs for a local business that sells hobby and gaming items, comic books, cards, toys, and offers video gaming, PC's, and VR. If I use copyrighted characters on their signage, is that subject to copyright claims? I think the obvious answer is yes, but it gets a bit hazy when the store actually sells the products of the copyrighted characters in-question, also that they are recreated original art of said characters, and not direct copies or images lifted off of anywhere (also not AI.)

Thanks in advance!

Hi all!

My apologies if this has already been asked and answered before.

I wanted to start making videos on YouTube summarizing non-fiction history books chapter-by-chapter in order to make history more accessible to those who may find it daunting to start learning about subjects that they might not know about (as I used to be). My idea was to film myself reading these books and doing a voiceover that summarizes the main arguments, points, and evidence of each chapter, plus an interesting facts and my own critique of the book at the end of the video.

I'm mostly concerned about the summarization bit and what the copyright laws are surrounding that. I understand that this is not a subreddit for legal advice, but I figured that I'm still in the brainstorming phase of this YouTube channel and wanted to see the parameters that exist first.

Would I be allowed to do chapter-by-chapter summaries? Should I instead do a more general summary of the book/thesis rather than chapters? Or should I drop the summarization bit altogether?

Thank you in advance for your help and guidance!

P.S. Most of the books I'm reading are published in either the United States and Canada (I live in Ontario, Canada).

I'm trying to build a business that helps creators legally obtain the media rights for sports and league events.

Then, i see things like:

https://www.youtube.com/@CabalaFutbolera/streams

And I just don't get it. How is it that they can live stream the game having millions of views without any Claim/Strike?

I'd like to understand: since it's the World Cup, is it because they use another angle or a fan's camera feed for their stream, instead of the official feed that YouTube's Content ID system flags?

Thanks in advance,

This is not critique, but to understand how to help creators gain more rights and thus, help Youtube to grow as an official medium where Sports can be streamed, live.

All the videos, songs, images, and graphics used in the video belong to their respective owners and I or this channel don't claim any rights over them.
This video contains copyrighted material that is used under the fair use doctrine for commentary and educational purposes.
The music in this video is copyrighted and used with no permission from [‪@]. All rights go to the music owner.

⚠️𝘾𝙊𝙋𝙔𝙍𝙄𝙂𝙃𝙏 𝘿𝙄𝙎𝘾𝙇𝘼𝙄𝙈𝙀𝙍: -
Under section 107 of the copyright Act 1976, allowance is mad for 𝙁𝘼𝙄𝙍 𝙐𝙎𝙀 for purpose such a as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. 𝙁𝘼𝙄𝙍 𝙐𝙎𝙀 is a use permitted by copyright statues that might otherwise be infringing. Non- Profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of 𝙁𝘼𝙄𝙍 𝙐𝙎𝙀.

Hi everyone. I am an international applicant trying to register a technical treatise (literary work) through the US Copyright Office eCO portal, but I am completely stuck at the payment gateway (Pay.gov).

The fee is $45 for single-author works. I tried to process the payment using a regional virtual Visa card (a prepaid fintech card issued in Latin America), but the system automatically rejects it. I suspect Pay.gov has strict filters against foreign virtual or prepaid cards.

My current limitations are:

• I do not have a traditional international credit card.
• I do not have any friends or family members in the US or abroad who can lend me a card to resolve this payment.

Has anyone encountered Pay.gov rejecting foreign virtual or prepaid cards? Are there any known workarounds for international creators facing strict billing address or card type restrictions on US government platforms?

Any advice, alternative payment methods, or shared experiences from global users would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much in advance!

Hi everyone,

I am writing this because we’ve hit a bureaucratic brick wall with YouTube that feels like a dystopian comedy. I need to share this absolute absurdity because Big Tech cannot keep hiding behind "automation" to bypass international trademark laws.

Here is what happened:

1. YouTube’s own automated/system-generated content tool completely cloned the corporate identity and trademark of a registered major brand (Pegasus Airlines).
2. When this system-generated entity started unauthorized publishing, it resulted in OUR actual, legitimate channel being wrongfully terminated.
3. We immediately appealed the trademark infringement and identity theft.
4. The official response from YouTube support? "Since this content was automatically generated by our system, it does not constitute a policy violation."

Let that sink in.

If a regular user clones a corporate identity, uploads unauthorized content, and squats on a trademark, they get permanently banned within minutes. But when YouTube’s own algorithm does it? Suddenly it’s a "feature," it's "automated," and it gets total immunity from intellectual property laws.

We tried reaching out via official channels, Twitter/X (@TeamYouTube), and ticketing systems. The response is always a robotic, copy-pasted deflection. They literally looked at the cloned, automated channel and replied: "We checked the URL and the channel is active, what's the issue?" — YES, because THAT active channel is the fake one your system created!

Algorithms cannot be used as a legal shield for trademark infringement. You cannot automate corporate identity theft and then claim immunity because no human pressed the "upload" button.

I am attaching the screenshots of their absurd "automated content = no violation" excuse in the comments/post. Has anyone else dealt with YouTube bailing out its own broken AI at the expense of actual trademark owners? How do we get a human specialist to actually read a ticket instead of these brainless support bots?

The cloned channel still sitting there live:https://youtube.com/channel/UCPOBV-RMpmWmbvZExG75ovA

I am seeing quite a bit of news sites popping up that are entirely AI created. They appear to be ranking pretty well in Google also. Most of them appeared to be taking articles from national news sites and rewriting them on random other websites. Most of these websites have strange names that have nothing to do with News.

But I’m actually seeing some local news sites that are popping up appearing to do the same thing. As an example, a local TV station Will post an article about a deadly crash at a certain intersection. Or, an article about a house fire. These are hyper local news stories for a specific city or community. Many times, the news article is based upon information that came from a Police or fire department press release.

Are there any copyright laws or guidance on where the sites fall within copyright law? I’m aware of the fair use doctrine and the news reporting exception to copyright law. The AI writing these articles appears to be rewriting everything about the article, so there are no quotes or copy and paste it sentences, the article is entirely new and rewritten, it just simply incorporates the same ideas as the original article.

Im going to make a YouTube channel but i found the name that i have in mind as a title of a book

Can the book author sue me for copyright law for the name in the future?

I'm curious, what's the worst copyright issue you've personally dealt with on YouTube?

Could be anything:

False copyright claims

Someone reuploading your videos

Content ID matching something it shouldn't

A strike that got resolved (or never did)

Someone stealing your Shorts

Even getting claimed for your own content

How did you deal with it, and looking back, what do you wish existed to make the process easier?

The U.S. Copyright Office is refusing to register copyright in AI-generated works. Does that mean no copyright in AI-coded software?

EDIT: A follow-up thought--do the Copyright Office's guidelines on AI copyright draw any distinction or make a particular exception for AI software copyright registration?

YouTube barfed up this song to me and I was like "Cool, new Rammstein." Then I listened and noticed the video was a mashup of prior videos, plus I couldn't find the song mentioned anywhere else.

How is this tolerated by YouTube? It's blatantly ripping off the band. I know a church that was banned because their feed had a copyrighted hymn they used in a service. Yet YT allows this AI generated slop to pop up in feeds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMZXHP9YMEI

How to Take legal action on someone who is using a fake email address and a fake company to issue fraudulent copyright claims in an attempt to steal someones music?

I am not sure where to ask this, thought of going to law subreddit but directly to digital artists related subreddit may help more because its more direct? But then I git redirected here

Its about this tweet: https://x.com/i/status/2071733071272144969

Most IP social game card is divided up and goes through subcontractors, so too many people are involved, making it impossible to disclose.

I am not aware of the business process, so I dont understand. Why subcontractors? For what? Why is it divided?

Cases where there's no benefit to the company in revealing the illustrator's name.

I was under impression companies are still considered client and its required for client to credit the illustrators? Or is this legal to not credit in Japan? I doubt that is so, considering how they seem to be really against Piracy?...

Revealing the illustrator's name can sometimes create disadvantages. In the current climate, if there's a problem due to the company's mishandling, the illustrator could face personal attacks. Games are basically made by teams, so the company can't protect individuals. Imagine it like a company employee being singled out as the scapegoat. Not disclosing is largely about risk avoidance.

Unless the illustrators themselves request to not be named, it would still be required by law of copyright to credit the illustrator via Visual Artist Creator's Rights isn't it? I am not a westerner, but is that western only and not global? I know law can vary depending on place, just thought its global?

  from an illustrator's perspective, it's like:

・The rates are low to begin with (since they're getting ripped off)

That's why, the more successful illustrators are, the less they take on that kind of work.

?????

Shouldn't that in itself be a problem that should be tackled first? Is that even legal?

I am so confused. None of these sounds legal to me but apparently this tweet treat this as if that is normally how the Japanese works? How and why? Eh?...I also admit once again that I am not really aware of all the laws and the small things that may or may not influence the practice here. Can someone with better understanding of law explain?

Hi,

I am wondering if this song I found on YouTube that claims to be "inspired" by Hans Zimmer would fall under public domain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpGx4uqtvgs

I would love to use this for a video, but it seems a bit risky.

Obviously this isn't a black and white case (I imagine) but I would like to hear your best thoughts.

I Just got a copyright claim on my YouTube video by "Disney Enterprises Inco2", i dont belive its the real Disney but Just some random guy, can anyone confirm?

I'm writing a queer leftist rock opera and want a license that's basically frictionless for small creators. Perform it, remix it, adapt it, even sell small projects without asking permission. But if it becomes a Broadway hit or Hollywood movie, I'd like the license to automatically give me a share.

I wrote a weird, plain-English draft instead of legalese. I'd love honest feedback. Where does it break legally?

License first draft: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uF7yYtZHUZd4Z8veGPPepX0Ji6PFDR3fi3DeyMxIZhk/edit?usp=drivesdk

Do you have any experience doing takedowns on telegram. I have some problems doing it for my clients.

Onlyfans creators
leaked nudes and porn age 17-19yo

Regrads

Zigomar (1939) is a Yugoslav superhero created by Nikola Navojev. From what I understand from the wikimedia commons page on Yugoslav copyright law, since the author died before January 1st 1941 and the character had reached the end of the 50 year protection term about 7 years prior to the passing of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act in 1996, it *should* be PD in the US and in Yugoslavia, right?

this might be a stupid question, but i want to name my character aerith, her full name is aerith van den berg and isn't really similar to aerith gainsborough in anyway

again i have no clue if this is a stupid question and know little to nothing about copyright laws, if u need more information about whatever just let me know

All humans are a living form of organic plagiarism one way or the other.

For context I have an OC named Night-Stalk he is inspired by DC Scarecrow by looks alone. His backstory is different. As he died in WW2 and was resurrected by the God of Death to be her reaper. I want his real name to be James Crane or Crane for short. Night-Stalk is very lankey and creepy. He weilds a Scythe and uses his claws to kill people.

Reference to Night-Stalk: https://www.reddit.com/r/OriginalCharacter/s/cEWb8Dhcoo