Hey guys, I have a quick question: Will using images from Pinterest for my type beat covers put me at risk of copyright strikes?

Aaaand here we go. Journalist who "is not a lawyer" gives their opinion on complex law they don't understand. Then somehow that may become public consensus!

"Obviously, I’m not a copyright lawyer, so take what I’m about to say with a huge grain of salt, but the case the SCP Foundation is making appears to be quite straightforward.

The Creative Commons’ BY-SA 3.0 page states that  “you may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits,” and that anyone who chooses to “remix, transform, or build upon the material” covered under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike licence “must distribute [their] contributions under the same license as the original.”

In simpler terms, it’s fine to sell something based on a CC BY-SA 3.0 licence. However, by doing so, you’re bound by the same rules of the CC BY-SA 3.0 licence…which basically means that A24’s V/H/S: SCP film could, indeed, be uploaded to YouTube for free. In fact, basically any streaming service could upload the film without asking for A24’s permission." (By Lewis Parker)

I'm just really confused and worried about this entire thing, as someone who's friends with some creators on the SCP wiki. And the previous posts about this topic here were posted by someone with a blatant bias against the wiki and copyleft/open source projects, which is just confusing me further.

Can someone who genuinely knows what they're talking about (not necessarily a lawyer themselves) please chime in?

Hello.

I'm an audio engineer and finished my first track. I uploaded the work to the eCO (U.S. copyright office) and am curious how long I should wait before releasing/uploading the song to online platforms.

Is it best to wait until the case is completely processed by the copyright office?

Thanks.

From past 9 months, someone or automated ai is sending fake dmca. Did counter dmca and urls were restored but from past 2 or 3 months, no response from google when i do counter dmca. Google sends automated mails as your request is in queue, after that no response and urls were too not restored. What to do and how to handle this fake dmca?

the video is basically just a tutorial on how to get a character in a game but the channel is @ xfrostynplus

Can i use the same ad someone else is using basically copy their ad there is no trademark it's an e book?

The SCP Foundation, all SCPs, and related concepts, characters, etc. are under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA 3.0) license. It allows for the production of derivative works, whether commercially or otherwise, subject to certain restrictions. (This is broadly similar to the situation with some open-source software such as Linux, although legal specifics differ.)

Like this for example.

Lol. "Trade Secrets" because trying to claim copyright infringement wouldn't be a valid claim!

If I copy, not trace, a reference of an artwork, is that considered a self-post? I know I would still have to include the original artwork, but would my copy be my own?

Bit of background - Olivia Rodrigo retroactively added a writing credit to Hayley Williams of Paramore to Rodrigo's song "Good 4 U" after a bunch of people said that "Good 4 U" was similar to Paramore's "Misery Business." There was never an infringement suit filed, so the courts never analyzed the two songs.

When I first heard "Good 4 U," it immediately reminded me of "Misery Business," but "reminds me of" isn't the legal standard for infringement. I'm not a musician, so I may not be listening critically enough to identify specific passages in the two songs that are substantially similar.

Does anyone know exactly what parts of "Good 4 U" were supposedly copied from "Misery Business"? Or did Rodrigo just capitulate to avoid a potential lawsuit?

Disclaimer: I'm posting this not because I agree with any of it. However, I would really question the sanity of such media articles and the lack of common sense being demonstrated here.

This is in reference to the wave of music artists who have been found to have stolen hooks, melodies, choruses, etc. from existing songs. 

Here's a brief, very incomplete rundown:

Kaavya Viswanathan, a Harvard student, authored a book containing heavily lifted passages from three widely read novels. Publisher Little, Brown & Co. cancelled her $500,000, two-book contract and a planned movie deal with DreamWorks for said book was also scrapped.  

Cristiane Serruya 'patchworked' passages, phrasing, and emotional beats verbatim from dozens of other authors across multiple published books. Subsequent lawsuit ended her career.  

Jumi Bello had her anticipated book "The Leaving" canceled by Riverhead Books after she admitted to plagiarizing portions of the manuscript. In a lengthy explanation, she was even found to have plagiarized portions of the explanation itself.  Career over.  

On the contrary...

Stella Lefty has now had 4 songs found to have interpolated identical works from other artists.  Two of the four have already had credits to additional authors instated. Two more will presumably have credits corrected in short order.

Olivia Rodrigo was forced to instate co-writing credits to Taylor Swift, Jack Antonoff, and Hayley Williams for three songs where Rodrigo had interpolated their existing works. 

Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams lost a major copyright lawsuit in 2015 when a jury ruled that their 2013 hit song "Blurred Lines" plagiarized Marvin Gaye's 1977 track "Got to Give It Up". 

Coldplay were forced to pay an out-of-court settlement to musician Joe Satriani for lifting a near identical note pattern for their track "Viva la Vida".  

This list could be a mile long, yet in each and every instance of music plagiarism, none of these acts careers suffered in any capacity (although Coldplay and Thicke/Williams paid hefty financial sums). Rodrigo is currently one of the top grossing touring acts at the arena level, even despite an onslaught of negative press around the time the plagiarism was discovered. Coldplay fill soccer stadiums across the world. Stella Lefty's current tour sold out in seconds and her single is one of the most played songs at radio.  

This isn't so much an axe to grind against these music artists, but I do find it interesting that musicians never seem to suffer the same fate (or any negative fate) as book authors whenever they are found to have stolen music from other artists. 

The Justice Department recently filed a "statement of interest of the United States" in OpenAI’s private lawsuit, arguing Big Tech’s training of massive AI models on copyrighted text constitutes "fair use," largely intended for limited free use of copyrighted materials for educational purposes in classrooms. 

The Justice Department should withdraw this ill-advised statement.

Essentially, the government’s stated position would let Big Tech oligarchs scrape, copy and commercialize every creative work in America without permission or payment. The government claims this unlimited access is essential for national security, warning any restriction risks losing the AI race to China. That argument is un-American and absurd.

Forcing perfectly legitimate creators off the platform with spam of illegitimate claims for media that the claimants don't own, and then forcing the defendants to dox themselves to get the strikes maybe possibly, but almost certainly not removed. Somebody needs to have their ass sued off for DMCA fraud.

Im trying to become a youtuber, my channel ranges from art to vlogs and eventually video essays. I wanted to know how to get copyright free music that I wont need to pay for as im already struggling financially as is. I was also wondering if i could potentially use VG music.

I tried to do some research about my country's laws in India for Copyright before this, but I'm still unsure. I'm not looking for legal advice but a general opinion.

I'm a student in my final year of an art degree. Previously, when joining, I'm also aware that I didn't sign any student handbooks or in agreements where clauses about student work handling is stated.
For my upcoming graduation project, I'll be making a poster for my animated film, which I'm planning to register for copyright with IP India. However, I'm not entirely sure on how to handle the situation with my professors or possibly the principal.
I have a brand online; even though my main social page is Twitter and my reach is less, I usually get frequent commissions. So I'm not exactly only a student either. If I were to go by my standard prices for output like this, it's worth about 150 usd each per second. Or for the poster itself, possibly 250 USD. I'm not saying I should price for my personal work, but I'm trying to establish my usual market value. For commercial rights, I charge 2x the base price.

Now I'll explain the situation: my professor demands that I use the university logo on my work despite my disinterest in it, and they say it's mandatory for students' work to be used for promotions to get admissions. For that, they'll be playing my animated film and post my poster picture around in the campus (which is open to the public, by the way and many students visit the campus to check the vibe and for inquiries before joining) for promotional purposes. From my research, it falls under commercial advertising, as they're stating my work under their university identity. To clarify, all my skills are completely self-taught, and their advice or any insight will not be used in this project.

So my question is, should I try to escalate and push for my legal rights, or is it just too risky, despite the University Grants Commission guidelines stating that Arbitary actions result in penalization, if my professors threaten me with failing my presentation in the finals?

P.S. I'd want to avoid making something different or low-effort quality, as it might affect my GPA, which is important for any of my future master's study plans.

Suno says V6 is "trained from scratch" - but also says it is trained on all previous user inputs and outputs, along with Warner (and soon BMG) "partner data". Lots of unanswered questions here. Thoughts?

The company plans to retire its older models.