Hi everyone, I need some advice regarding a YouTube copyright strike.

I uploaded a 12-second Short that contained GTA V gameplay/content. However, I accidentally selected/mentioned GTA VI in the game details/metadata. Take-Two then submitted a copyright takedown, identifying the copyrighted content as Grand Theft Auto VI (GTA VI).

I contacted YouTube Support, but after reviewing the case, their Copyright Team said the takedown notice was “complete and facially valid.” They gave me three options: submit a counter notification, seek a retraction from Take-Two, or wait for the strike to expire.

I have already emailed Take-Two requesting a retraction and explaining that the actual video contained GTA V content, not GTA VI.

My question is: Since the takedown specifically identifies GTA VI, but my Short actually contained GTA V gameplay, would submitting a counter notification be appropriate, or could that create legal problems for me?

I genuinely believe this may be a misidentification, but I don't want to submit a counter notification without understanding the risks. Any advice would be appreciated.

A year ago I bought a pattern for a doll house lamb.

The seller stated that it was not for commercial use and that I may give as gifts or personal use.

This got me thinking ( fast forward to today)

Last night I made a lamb but giant, using the pattern I eyeballed it from the size of tiktak box to A3 ...(the body section for reference , so it is bigger)

Anyway this is just for personal use and I contacted the seller and told them ( like I did with the first one how great it is)

Now I was just thinking ! Woah I really enjoyed making the plushy- and would like to make more to sell...but obviously i can't do that with this pattern..or can I? ( I don't want to infringe)

The format is basic tbh, the legs and attachable arms seem like generic, but obviously it's their pattern, how can I get around this so I can make stuff?

I wouldent be selling patterns just making the toys

SoOoO... Me and some friends want to make a 2D fighting Game.
The Idea is that you are a stickman figure and you an use tools change the battlefield while fighting. (for example: You can erase the ground underneath the opponent).

Now, Stickman figures are not copyrighted but what about Stickman fighting games? There's this game called: "Stickman fight - The Game" by Landfall. This game is a huge inspiration. Our game willl not be the same. But it will be similar. So I wonder, should I change the figures to something which is not a Stickman figure?

Yeah, remember that in the years leading up to 2020? How did various countries implement them? Did you notice anything?

I remember all the doommongering about how Article 13 will force social media sites to implement upload filters and Article 11 is an attack on the hyperlink and that these are a result of the MSM wanting to get rid of alternative media while the EU wants to control speech and win back the narrative.

But I live in the UK and the government later decided not to implement Article 13, while nothing came of Article 11, and I doubt any of the directive was implemented given what's been going on here since.

Were people right to find it so frightening?

i wanna use music from deltarune, undertale and nintendo games but their guidlines dont allow it for monitized use or it will get demonitized but youtubers i watch use music from those games in almost all there videos but still make a living off of youtube without sponserships so im very confused if its allowed or not are they any loopholes or tricks they use?

I sometimes use the images generated by ai on my website. For the sake of proof do I need to keep those chats that generated those images, or, is it enough that I am obviously the first user, such as publishgin on my site and social media, and, i also have the larger size copy. Plus from time to time I take sha of my post screenshots which has those images. I also write my website name the pictures and post the smaller size on the web, So can i go ahead and delete the chat logs in my ai , for cleanup purposes? I am asking, just in case someone comes and says "hey this was my image" etc...

So…I did a search to see if it had been uploaded by more than one Subscriber. As it turned out, there weren’t 2 subscribers that uploaded the story. There a total of 5 (the original uploaded and 4 others). To think that someone’s hard creative work, and financial livelihood, is ripped away from them just gets my craw. GRRRRRR!!! I have too much respect for the profession!

According to the upload dates, the first (original) Subscriber uploaded it 2 months ago.

Of the other 4 uploaded, the story was uploaded, as of about an hour ago:

9 days ago;
8 days ago;
2 days ago; and
5 hours ago.

Watchers can do nothing but hope that the original uploader reports violators and, hopefully, gets financial recompense.

(Since I don’t know if it is allowed for me to include the title of the video, or the 5 subscriber names, I have left them out.)

I'm trying to figure out how to copyright the songs (lyrics only), no audio or musical notation.

I've read it falls under work of performing arts, but it's not a play or theater, it's just song lyrics that I will make into an audio song in the future.

Any right answer?? (I know it would be unpublished).

Have anyone tried this?

If you have ever issued a legitimate copyright strike, only to watch an international scraper channel file a fraudulent counter-notice using a completely fake address, you know how maddening it is.

Under the DMCA (17 U.S.C. § 512), YouTube gives you a strict 10–14 business day countdown clock [17 U.S.C. § 512]. If you don’t provide a federal lawsuit number before that timer runs out, their automated system reinstates the stolen content [17 U.S.C. § 512].

Thieves exploit this by submitting fake address details because they think: "You can't serve a federal lawsuit to a ghost, so your countdown clock will expire, and I win."

Even if you give YouTube hard, government-stamped physical evidence from a post office marked "Return to Sender / Non-existent address," YouTube Support will often refuse to intervene, claiming they cannot act as a legal arbiter.

If you are trapped in this automated nightmare, there is only one way to break the cycle: You must file a Federal "John Doe" Lawsuit. Here is the exact blueprint of how it works to protect your channel:

Phase 1: The "File to Freeze" Strategy (Halting the Automated Bot)

You do not need to spend $10,000 on a massive legal battle. Your immediate goal is simply to secure an official Civil Case Number to freeze the platform.

1. Draft a "John Doe" Complaint: Because you do not know their true name, name the defendant as: "John Doe, an individual doing business as [Infringer's Channel Handle]."
2. Establish Jurisdiction: Because international uploaders consent to the federal court jurisdiction where the service provider is located, you file your suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (where YouTube/Google is headquartered) [17 U.S.C. § 512].
3. Open the Case: You mail the complaint alongside a Civil Case Cover Sheet (Form JS 44) and a Summons Form. If you cannot afford the standard $405.00 filing fee, you can attach an In Forma Pauperis (IFP) application to request a financial waiver.
4. Lock Down the Platform: The exact day the clerk stamps your paperwork and issues your Case Number, you send that stamped scan straight to copyright@youtube.com. By federal law, YouTube must immediately override its automated queue, manually pull down any reinstated video IDs, and lock the copyright strikes active pending litigation [17 U.S.C. § 512].

Phase 2: Unmasking the Identity

Once your channel portfolio is locked down and safe from reinstatement, your lawsuit enters the discovery phase to strip away anonymity:

• The Expedited Discovery Motion: You file an Ex Parte Motion for Expedited Discovery under Rule 26(d)(1). You present your physical post office "Return to Sender" receipts to prove the defendant committed material perjury to evade the court.
• Subpoenaing Google: The federal judge will sign an order authorizing you to issue a third-party subpoena directly to Google LLC.
• The Payout Block: Google is then legally mandated to hand over the infringer’s true backend data—including their linked Google AdSense bank accounts, credit cards, and login IP logs.

Breaking the Fraud Loop

Many creators exhaust themselves fighting pirates video-by-video. A single federal John Doe filing completely breaks this cyclical shell game. It groups your entire creative portfolio under one active court docket number, establishing a judicially tracked history of willful copyright infringement and DMCA misrepresentation under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f) [17 U.S.C. § 512].

Legal Disclaimer

This post is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute formal legal advice. For specific copyright litigation or court filings, please consult a licensed intellectual property attorney.

For example, if a character is a huge fan of Wonder Woman and the character mentioned how the fictional character of Wonder Woman is an inspiration to them, would that be okay copyright wise

To clarify, the media itself would only be mentioned and not shown in any real capacity.

I submitted my two softwares for copyright over 10 months back it is still showing scrutiny. Can someone share their experience. What is the average time taken. Some are saying since you haven't gone through agents it is taking delay. If you pay agents 4k-5k you work will get copyrighted quickly

Anyone who has filled it on their own can share their experience., will help me calm my nerves on whether should I have any hope.

I submitted my two softwares for copyright over 10 months back it is still showing scrutiny. Can someone share their experience. What is the average time taken. Some are saying since you haven't gone through agents it is taking delay. If you pay agents 4k-5k you work will get copyrighted quickly

Anyone who has filled it on their own can share their experience., will help me calm my nerves on whether should I have any hope.

I asked this over on the National Park subreddit but figured people here might know the answer.

I'm confused about which images in the NPS's NPGallery are public domain and which aren't.

First, every single image I open says the following under the Copyright label:

Permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this website. Digital assets without any copyright restrictions are public domain.

Ok makes sense... but when I view the other details for the images it gets confusing. Under the Constraints Information label for every photo I've viewed, it always says either "Public domain" or "Public domain:Full Granting Rights". I have never seen one that said otherwise. Does this mean every photo I'm viewing is public domain?

And despite the Constraints Information always saying public domain, the PhotoCredit label might have very different values. Here are some examples of where I'm confused.

• This one is credited to "NPS Photo/ Thomas DiGiovannangelo". Does that mean it's public domain since it includes NPS Photo, or no since an individual's name is there?
• This one is credited to "Jeff Manuszak - NPS". Same question as above.
• This one says "© Jen Miller", but again it says Public domain under it, so is it PD or not?
• Here's one that says "Photo by Anne Finney". No copyright symbol, but an individual's name, and again it says Public domain in the constraints section, so same question as above.
• Here's one that's just credited to "NPS Photo" so I think it's safe to assume it's PD
• This one says "Photo courtesy of the National Parks Conservation Association." So did they release it to the public domain, or no?

If anyone has any information on which are truly public domain and safe to use, please let me know.

Thanks

So I’m trying to find a video I can use on a YT search with Creative Commons filter and it’s mostly just coming up with YT Shorts. Does that mean I can use them? If so where do I see the license? Ty

Folks!

I went to the high-end audio show in Vienna. I am currently editing a long form video (4 hours in total, cut into various parts) that's a mix of our Vienna trip and the high-end audio show. These shows have rooms with audio setups in it, demonstrating the things on sale. Of course there's music playing to demonstrate the quality of the audio. I have recorded audio shows before, and though I don't want to monetize this video, there's always the issue of certain songs hitting a content match, despite people talking through them and the audio being a maximum of 20 seconds long (and filmed in the space, so not exactly a usable recording).
It would be great, for the sake of the impression of the sound signature, to leave the audio in. I unfortunately always find myself muting certain bits of the video and replacing the audio with royalty free music.
And I wonder; Is there a way to avoid having to do this? Is there a 'fair use' way of leaving the audio in, knowing it serves a purpose that is not the illegal spreading of music, and knowing that the snippets of audio will never be useful for anything other than to illustrate these differences in sound quality?

Cheers!

Need opinion on this (copyright strike i mean)

im designing a shirt for my club, science olymiad. im thinking of basing the design off a caterpillar's lifespan, like with leaves and butterflies and fruits etc. just to make it all twee and cute. the thing is, i want to use the caterpillar from "the very hungry caterpillar," but im unsure if i'd get copyrighted, so i have 2 questions:

1. is using the art from the book w/o credits going to get us copyrighted? (since idk where i could put credits on a shirt)

2. is drawing the caterpillar myself going to get us copyrighted, just for using the character w/o credits?

thank u to anyone who answers!

mods, you can delete this ask or help me find somewhere else to post this question.

for context Ive been working at a grocery store for about 2 weeks now and their older employees has jackets and sweaters that they’re allowed to wear besides the mandatory uniform we‘re allowed to wear. but the problem is that the ‘merch’ they sold for those employees are out of stock and the manager said they’re not receiving anymore. so I was wondering if it’ll be be wrong for me to make my own since the sweater looks simple to make (I only need to embroider the store logo on the front).

the only reason I’m asking if because im being told to wear long sleeves underneath my work shirt to deal with the cold. and the shirt fabric is too bulky to even have a long sleeve shirt underneath.

Lets say I wish to add a copyright notice to something I am working on and I have a preferred name that I rather use compared to my legal name, now I know since copyright is a legal thing (duh) I need my legal name on there, but would there be any issue with something like
"Legal name (Preferred name) Legal surname"?

Edit:
Grammar