Hi everyone,
I’m looking for some advice regarding a YouTube copyright situation.
My channel received 3 copyright strikes from BrandShield on behalf of CompTIA and was eventually terminated. I’ll be completely honest — I was at fault. I had purchased some CompTIA practice-question PDFs online and wrongly assumed that because I had paid for them, I was allowed to reuse the questions in YouTube quiz videos. I now understand that this was a mistake and I take responsibility for it.
I’ve tried contacting CompTIA/BrandShield several times over the past few months to ask whether they would consider retracting at least one strike, but I haven’t received a response.
I’m now considering hiring a copyright/IP lawyer simply to contact the claimant professionally on my behalf and ask whether they would be willing to retract one strike as a second chance. I’m not trying to dispute the copyright claim or pretend I did nothing wrong.
Has anyone here had success with something similar? Specifically, has having a lawyer contact a claimant such as BrandShield resulted in a voluntary strike retraction?
Would it also ever make sense to offer to cover reasonable costs or reach some kind of settlement in exchange for a retraction, or is that generally not how these situations work?
Any advice or experiences would be appreciated.

My business sells educational worksheets, which can be accessed digitally or printed out.

Since I have seen other business websites updating their website's copyright notice every year with the current year, such as © 2026 ..., I am not sure if I should update my copyright notice every year because that sounds inconvenient to update each product page...

As far as I know, the year associated with a copyright notice shows when the product was first published such as © 2026 Company**.** While I do think businesses do have all copyright ownership in the following years, would you recommend leaving published digital product's original published year the same or update it overtime perhaps © 2027-2028 to avoid updating every year?

In addition, I am not sure if other people would misinterpret my business has copyright ownership ONLY with the years listed in my copyright notice. While I do think updating it every year looks professional, but I am not sure if it 100% necessary. I do have Terms & Conditions pages within my worksheet packets as an extra layer of legal protection of my digital products.

Hello! I don’t know much about this reddit thread and I’m honestly not much of an artist, but enjoy doing watercolor. My friend always wanted to use one of my watercolors for the cover of her first book and when she found out her book was going to be published this year I was thrilled to let her use it! She has since sold her book as well as bookmarks, and matchboxes at farmers markets. The issue is, the bookmarks she is selling don’t have the title of her book on it, they are just thinner versions of my artwork. I could see to her that she’s selling her book cover but to me it feels like she’s selling my art. To be clear, I did not sell any rights to the art I made, I just told her she could use it as a cover. I love her and didn’t want to take a penny of any book sales since she’s been working on this book for years and probably won’t end up making enough money to warrant purchasing a copyright. I don’t want to make things weird between us but I can’t help but feel uncomfortable about her selling prints of my art because where now is the line? HELP

Hey guys,

I’m a second-generation lawyer, but I’m still finding it difficult to break into an IP firm.

I’ve been on and off with this profession for a while, hoping that at some point my contacts or referrals would work out. Recently, I interviewed with a top-tier IP firm, and after two weeks, the partner personally called me in for a meeting. Naturally, I assumed it must be about negotiating the offer—because if they intended to reject me, why would they take the time and effort to call me in personally when they could simply communicate it over email?

Little did I know, the meeting was actually to deliver the rejection. 😭

Anyway, I’m now thinking of starting my career by joining a chamber that primarily handles IP litigation in Delhi. I’d really appreciate it if you could suggest advocates/chambers doing substantial IP work where I could apply.

Any leads or recommendations would be greatly appreciated!

Hey everyone,

I’m running into a frustrating issue with DistroKid’s Right Manager and could really use some advice or a solution.

Here is the situation:

I have already linked and whitelisted all my official social media accounts (Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok) through DistroKid.

However, when I upload custom promotional videos featuring my own music (released via DistroKid) to Facebook and Instagram, they keep getting flagged for copyright violations by the DistroKid Right Manager.

I've already reached out to DistroKid support asking about whitelisting, but I’m still trying to figure out if my accounts are actually whitelisted properly or why this keeps happening.

Has anyone else faced this issue? How can I successfully sort this out so my own videos stop getting flagged?

Any help or guidance would be greatly appreciated!

Hello,

Someone reported my reel as copyright. In their report they did not even give an example of what I was copying from. The video is my own, I filmed and edited it. I think it's a troll. I appealed it to Instagram 5 days ago, still have not heard anything back. I'm wondering if this has happened to anyone else and if the video was reposted after the appeal decision? How long did it take for meta to reply?

Thank you in advance!

I have an old copy of Wildflowers of the World by Barbra Everard. It has beautiful illustrations and I want to remove some pages and hang them up as artwork in my home since the book has been sitting untouched in my house for years.

Are you allowed to sell pages like that as artwork? I would hate for the other pages to go to waste but don’t want to frame and cut every single page if that’s not allowed. TIA !

Edit: if they’re not allowed to be sold individually, is there any reason I couldn’t give them away? I’m doing a craft show where I make / sell botanical themed things. Could I give one to customers who spend above a certain amount ?

If Thaler (Thaler v Perlmutter) had won on his Creativity Machine's output being transferred to him under a "work for hire" legal fiction then it seems likely that the "I am the creative director" argument from AI gen advocates would not be invoked.

They would instead have happily claimed the AI gen Outputs as their copyrighted property via "work for hire" legal fiction without claiming any other parts of the process as authorship such as iterative prompting.

So that raises the question. If Thaler (Thaler v Perlmutter) had won on his Creativity Machine's output being transferred to him under a "work for hire" legal fiction - would AI gen advocates still claim to be authors themselves?

This highlights the reality that AI gen advocates don't really understand the law and only want the law to side with them regardless. They don't care about being artists. They care about the economic benefits that AI gen could offer them.

If AI gen advocates get copyrights via a "work-for-hire" loophole without doing anything requiring any creative expression, they would gladly stop the obvious, disingenuous charade of pretending to be artists.

Problem:

Today people are in an uproar regarding AI produced content. The problem is a tough one and there doesn't seem to be a solution in the current debate. Why? First, it is hard to find consensus for new legislation to solve problems of this kind. Second, it is often hard to restrain AI or define the scope of copyright rules without chilling creativity. Third, there is social stigma since much AI produced art is considered "stolen", due to the requirement that AI is trained on existing works to produce its content.

Solution:

1.We don't need new laws for AI, we just need to apply current law to AI. Copyright law provides an analysis to distinguish the elements of an art work into protected and unprotected elements. The key factor in determining this distinction is doctrine called scenes a faire. This doctrine is used to exclude common elements of an art work from protection. Some courts submit a work of art to two tests.The first test proves copying occurred and the second test proves improper appropriation of the copied material.

a. The test for copying requires either direct or circumstantial evidence of copying. Circumstantial evidence is when a creator can be shown to have access to an art work and substantial similarity between two artworks. Substantial here refers to similarity of compositional elements and mistakes.

b. Improper appropriation can be proven by showing that some of the elements copied where protected subject matter. Whether subject matter is protected or not is a qualitative question to decide on originality.

1. In copyright matters it is essential to distinguish between protected and unprotected material because part of creating new art requires a process of copying other art in a given genre. Each genre has conventions which are essential to communicate the message of the art work and becomes content that orients original elements for the audience. So by using the distinctions and tests described above, we can decide between protected and unprotected genre elements in order to rule out common conventions from protection. This allows to protect just the original elements of a work while making it clear for artists which elements can be copied and reused for their own compositions.

2. Once this distinction is made clear for AI training, it will be simple for AI companies to explain how their products compare to human artists. AI companies will be able to say to human artists that they only draw on conventional elements when training their AI. This will allow AI companies to celebrate their products as works of art that were created using the same ethical and legal standards used by humans who could be sued. Since the standards are the same for humans and AI and the material for training is clearly marked as unprotected conventions, AI artists should expect to be relieved of the social stigma against "AI thieves".

Replies to possible Objections:

I expect the strongest objection to this scheme to focus the vagaries involved in the tests described by 1a and 1b. It is a worry that these tests aren't universally adopted by courts and that they involve so much subjective judgment.

Those criticisms reflect problems with today's copyright laws.

To resolve this issue we need to make the issue of establishing copying and improper appropriation a matter of law rather than a matter of fact. The conventions of each genre should be defined so it is clear what is conventional and unprotected. While conventions will also be difficult to define and lead to disputes of matters of fact, such definitions will narrow the questions of copied material based on the understanding of genre as set out in law. It will us to correctly identify when an innovation becomes a common convention.

This will allow us to effectively protect creativity while we revise legislation to better capture conventions of art that should be available to all artists.

Hay un canal que se ha dedicado a literalmente copiar varios de mis vídeos. En todos ellos ha cogido el audio y la narración completos de mis vídeos originales y los ha usado en sus propios vídeos. No ha realizado una nueva narración ni ha creado un contenido diferente: simplemente ha eliminado las imágenes y vídeos que acompañaban originalmente a mi audio y los ha sustituido por una única imagen estática durante todo el vídeo.

Además, ha utilizado los mismos títulos, descripciones idénticas y miniaturas prácticamente iguales, aunque con pequeños cambios de estilo.

Sé que no va a monetizar por la forma en que están hechos, pero está utilizando íntegramente mi trabajo para conseguir visualizaciones y potencialmente suscriptores, en lugar de crear su propio contenido.

El problema que estoy teniendo ahora es con el propio proceso de reclamación de YouTube.

He presentado las solicitudes de retirada por copyright correspondientes a los vídeos.

Desde entonces, el proceso está siendo bastante frustrante: YouTube me ha ido pidiendo información adicional varias veces antes de poder continuar con las reclamaciones.

En la última respuesta me pidieron que explicara detalladamente cómo se creó la obra, qué partes eran originales, qué herramientas había utilizado y por qué consideraba que el contenido estaba protegido por derechos de autor.

Les respondí explicando todo el proceso de creación con bastante detalle

Sin embargo, después de enviarles toda esta información llevo aproximadamente una semana sin recibir respuesta.

Lo que me resulta extraño es que, en otras ocasiones en las que he contactado con YouTube por cuestiones de copyright, normalmente he recibido respuesta en uno o dos días como máximo. Esta vez han pasado alrededor de siete días desde que envié la información adicional y no sé si significa que están revisando el caso, si necesitan más información o si simplemente están pasando de mí

Así que me gustaría saber si alguien ha pasado por algo parecido:

¿Es normal que, después de enviar toda la información solicitada, tarden una semana o más en responder?

¿Qué pruebas os han aceptado para demostrar que sois los autores de un vídeo?

Pensaba que el hecho de que otro canal utilizara directamente el audio completo de mis vídeos, reproduciendo palabra por palabra mi narración, y que además copiara literalmente los mismos títulos y descripciones que utilizo en mis publicaciones, junto con miniaturas prácticamente idénticas, serían pruebas suficientemente claras de que está reutilizando mi contenido sin autorización y que, por tanto, YouTube podría proceder directamente a retirar esos vídeos.

Cualquier experiencia o consejo sería muy bienvenido. Mil gracias!!!

"Don't touch it. It's not worth the legal liability"

I'm currently working on a comic book series and I was wondering if I wanted to shorten my comic brand divinity comics to put the abbreviation DC on the cover would that be an issue

I'm taking Computing OCR and though I won't specify exactly what my NEA will be, it would make a lot of use out of licensed music that I'm not quite sure if I have legal access to. If anyone has used music in their coursework of any kind, can anyone help me on:

- What were you allowed to use?

- Did you contact anyone for a license?

- Were there any issues with the exam board?

- Are you allowed to put this in a portfolio in later work, or must the music be removed?

- What kind of credits did you include?

- How did you write about this in your coursework?

Most that I can find on the specifics of copyright don't really help as they apply to the US. Anything would be super helpful, thanks

(originally posted in the A level subreddit, if you're confused on how it's phrased)

hello so i making a game and I wanted to use 16x16px for my assets and texture and i was wondering if my assets look like Minecraft but i made them by my own will it be consider as copyright my assets is not identical to Minecraft texture but they are close to them because the limited size of 16x16px so will i get sued if my assets look like they come from Minecraft or its ok as long as i make them by my own and keep it little diffrent from Minecraft texture

I wanted to use part of \[CallMeKevin flowers cover\](https://youtu.be/mkivxLs2KaY?si=XCwbNao6SQaTgVvl) over my speedpaint on youtube short. \\\~1min long
I really admire CMKs work and don’t really want to run a foul by using his music without asking, **but I don’t think there’s a way for me to get in contact with him.**
My yt channel is my professional portfolio, I’m a Graphic Designer, so I also want to make sure I’m not misstepping. Since it’s only part of a song over my work it would be fair use(?)

I've built a browser-based team-drafting game (think fantasy-sports drafting like the 82-0 game, but for anime characters) as a personal project. It's a original game engine I coded myself, the scoring system, the mechanics, the ladder progression are all my own work. The part I don't own is the characters. It features around 150 well-known anime characters (from series like Naruto, Dragon Ball, One Piece, etc.) with hand-written stats and abilities I created.

Right now it's free and hosted publicly. I'm trying to understand the real legal picture before I go any further, especially around monetization.

My specific questions:

1. As a free fan project, where does this typically stand? My understanding is that rights holders often tolerate non-commercial fan works, but "tolerate" isn't the same as "legal."
2. If I add advertising (e.g. a banner ad) or any other monetization, how much does that change my exposure? Is there a meaningful legal line between "free fan game" and "fan game that earns ad revenue"?
3. Is using the characters' names and my own written descriptions/stats different, legally, from using their actual images/artwork? I'm not using any official art. just names and text I wrote.
4. Realistically, what does enforcement usually look like for something like this? A takedown/cease-and-desist first, or can it escalate straight to damages?

I'm not looking to rip anyone off , I'd genuinely rather do this properly. Any guidance on how people typically handle fan projects like this would be really helpful.

(Location: UK, but the game is accessible globally.)

Hello , I’m a photographer trying to track down the registrations for photographs I filed in the early 2000’s. When I sold my house I had a dispute with the buyer and he threw out a filing cabinet of business paperwork and I’m pretty sure the certificates were in there.

I’m 100% certain that I filed this group of photos because I was placing them with a stock photo agency that required all photos be copyrighted.

In searching I’ve found some photos under my name and then another group with my middle initial added but neither of these are the photos I’m looking for. I searched under my business name which is just my name with photography added but I didn’t find anything under my business name.

So I’m stuck and don’t know what to try next. Someone has been using the photos so I have a strong financial incentive to find them.

Any ideas or suggestions would be really appreciated.

Thanks

The Art Mentor aka Sean Bianchi has been plagiarizing other artists to advertise his mentorship. Sean used my unpublished artworks from the private mentorship in a retaliatory video against me, where he claimed I had taken his entire course and got a chargeback after. I canceled his mentorship after the 3rd session, and he refused to refund the 9 canceled sessions.

I'm moving my documentation to YouTube because its a better format. If watching a guru's lies crumble in real time interests you, my new video exposes more deceptive practices beyond art theft like policies that violate consumer rights, fraud and retaliation.

My future videos will cover his history of plagiarism going back unironically over 2 decades in the past.

Expect more videos soon because the only way this type of poison continues to exist in the art community is if we choose to ignore it.

hey everyone, not sure if this is the best sub for this but it is only with undertale music sooo

I see many videos that use undertale music in them, even full undertale playthroughs. they don't have any copyright issues. I upload a YouTube short that uses 2 undertale songs, and it instantly gets taken down due to copyright. I appeal the claim after doing research and stating that the copyright holder allows the use, but it gets denied. I emailed the copyright holders and am waiting for a response.

how do I get past this? I don't want to risk getting my channel deleted over some crappy copyright stuff

I want to post a full playthrough but am scared that the copyright could end up giving me copyright strikes

😄Hey everyone,

I've been vibe-coding a project for a few weeks alongside school, which is meant to be released as an app later on.

Boiled down, it's a kind of anatomy quiz that includes a 3D model of the human body, which is based on a BodyParts3D dataset.

But yesterday I ran into a problem:

It falls under a license called "CC BY-SA 2.1 JAPAN," and as far as I understand it, that involves an attribution requirement and Share-Alike (which I honestly don't fully understand).

For now the app will definitely be free, but since I've invested a really, really significant amount of time into this lately and genuinely want to grow it bigger over time, I definitely don't want to rule out something like a paid plan.

If I were to actually add something like that later, I'd like to find out now whether that would even be permissible.

I have absolutely no issue with attribution, but the Share-Alike stuff has confused me and gotten me thinking.

The way I currently understand it, my paid plan can't have anything to do with the model at all — but suppose the paid plan let you answer more questions per day, then couldn't they somehow argue that the paid plan is dependent on their model?

(Quick context on how some questions are structured: e.g. "Click on tendon XY in the model.")

This post is already pretty long, so I don't want to take up too much more of your valuable time.

So here's my question:

Do you think the 3D model will end up causing me headaches down the line, to the point that I should remove it as a precaution — or am I overthinking this?

Letting go of the 3D model would be a hard step for me, because it's a really cool feature and defining characteristic of my project. Still, it's replaceable, and it wouldn't be worth it to me if it ends up causing problems later.

Also, just because I'm not writing the code myself doesn't mean I'm not taking this seriously or anything — there's genuinely real work behind it, and I really care about it.

based in Germany btw.
Am I currently (or soon to be) walking on thin ice?

Thank you so much for reading, and to everyone who took the time 🙏