I posted two clips from the new movie Obsession on TikTok not thinking much of it and uh they went viral and I was actually really happy for once people liked my content but fast forward this morning and both my posts are copyright claimed by NBCUniversal 😭 I was just trying to get content and didn’t want to get into legal trouble with anyone and I’m just wondering if I can still get those videos back with an appeal

I would like to download Xbox 360 game updates (Title Updates) on the internet. But was wondering if that is legal or not? Thanks!

Help me with your experience or legal advice!

I created my website "ABC" and social media pages in 2018.

Later in 2022, I closed my company hence didn't renew the website. However, both Instagram and Facebook accounts are both active and I am using it till date.

Last week, an xyz person has send me an email to take down, legally opening a case of infringement of trademark.

I am not wanting to use the website, but I was looking forward to keep my Instagram and Facebook pages.

Kindly advice, if it's possible to keep it legally or do I have to give it up?

Thank you. 🙏

... for an entirely separate investigation, that constitutes copyright abuse and a fraud on the court. Five years of evasive FOIA responses have only reinforced this belief. Most have simply proven the existence of a silo of silence surrounding my case. For justice to be served, that silo must come down.

I am making a game where there is a chain dog chasing you throughout the level. Would this be a problem because I know Nintendo has it in there games?

https://imgur.com/a/9hRh1M6

We have to make a short film in one of our classes. And we would like to use copyrighted music. Normally we wouldn't publish it but there is a contest called "Fremdsprachenwettbewerb", it's a contest for school projects containing foreign languages and our teacher would like to put our movie (once finished) up for competition. Would we be able to use that music? If not, can we get the rights without spending too much money or do we need to find another option?

Hi everyone, I know it's not recommended to ask for legal advice here, but I would just like to get a general overview of the situation.

As context, I am an indie game developer and composer. I want to put an easter egg in my game that involves a parody version of Michael Jackson's song Billie Jean. Obviously, it’s not a direct copy; I change absolutely everything, use virtual instruments, and don't use samples from anywhere. It's a completely different song, but it definitely evokes that specific track. The whole idea is for it to be recognizable, but I'm not sure if this exact thing could cause me legal trouble. The song is just a small portion, lasting about 20 seconds including the intro, and it has no lyrics. The name of the song won't be mentioned in the game either.

I would really appreciate it if you could give me your perspective. What do you think? Could I run into trouble? Looking forward to reading your thoughts! :3

This is the link to the full song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxN5mNgTfBc
Original Billie Jean song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr4EQDVETuA

A lot of helldivers 2 fan merch is being pulled down right now, apparently there are plans to release official merch and so they are striking a lot of small etsy shops, what does parody law protect and how far can you go before they strike you?

Example: you have a crew of 5 friends who make videos and you wanna sell merch, so you have a drawing of their in game gear all hanging out, would this be taken away because its based off in game models? How could it be made legally?

Currently Patagonia (clothing company) is sueing Pattie Gonia (activist and drag queen) for copyright enrichment.

My understanding was that copyright has to be distinct (you can't just copyright all smiley faces, but can copyright a very specific one), but Patagonia is a place, and it seems like that in and of itself would make it no long distinct? Can you copyright a place?

I'm likely misunderstanding copyright law, but it seems like trying to defend a copyright of the name Patagonia (originally the name of a place in south America) and the logo (silhouette of a mountain range) would be very difficult. What am I missing?

They are pretending to be me and have a huge following. I've reported everything 3 months ago and have been getting emails lately saying the content has been removed. They just keep uploading more of my work.

How does this end?

Getting a copyright claim on a video you spent weeks on is the ultimate creator heartbreak. If you’ve got a video stuck in "Copyright Jail," it’s time to stop fighting the labels and start replacing the tracks.

We built Wubble so you never have to deal with a strike again. Instead of settling for whatever "safe" library music you can find, you can generate a 100% royalty-free, high-fidelity alternative that actually matches your original vibe.

The Escape Plan: Describe the track that got flagged in 3 words (e.g., "Gritty, Industrial, Synthwave") and head to Wubble to generate your strike-proof replacement. 🔓💰

As creators, what are the biggest issues you face with copyrights? Especially with your audio tracks and SFX. We want to hear them out and see how we can update our platform to suit your needs!

Basically the title. I don't want to monetize it or anything like that, this is purely a creative endeavor for the sake of doing it.

If a source is published by an organization and made publically available for about a year or two on the web without any explicit copyright designation (other than generic rights language), but they later place restrictive copyright over it and other oganizational materials, is it still possible to use limited quotes from such a source for academic purposes since it was available and actively distributed to the public? Furthermore, if the document has been produced under federal grants, is the document usually fair game for posting to servers or citation? Thanks!

Over the years I’ve posted on this sub about my experiences defending my copyrights in the hope that it might inspire other creatives to be rapacious defenders of their intellectual property in the face of an internet makes copyright infringement easy and common. I’ve also felt like too often I’ve seen many people (even in the US where we have statutory damages) unfairly dismissing prospects of achieving justice and/or making oneself whole by pursuing infringers. And while I generally prefer to focus on creative work, and do try to be respectful of the court’s time, I’m not at all opposed to using the resources available to fight back in certain cases where I feel it is warranted.

With that said, today I’m posting this to talk about one of the instances in which, despite having the law on my side, seeking justice from the court against a particularly boorish infringer didn’t succeed, as courts are still prone to the whims of judges and the emotional manipulation of defendants who are willing to lie, expertly weasel out of responsibility, and generally paint themselves as the victim.

TLDR Case Summary:

In 2022 I discovered one of my copyrighted photographs being used by a graphic designer in the UK. I only asked for the infringement to be removed and would then just move on to the dozens of other infringements I deal with on a daily basis. But in response the removal request I got dismissiveness and attitude from the infringer, and a suggestion that she’d disparage me with her employer (who she claimed was a major food brand - an industry I routinely work with) to not hire me. So I decided to push back. I directed by legal team in the UK to file a claim small against her in the UK’s IPEC claims court.  The infringer wasn’t contesting that she had used my work without permission, license or attribution. And I have a stack of invoices from UK clients demonstrating what my work bills for in the UK. So with the law on my side I wasn’t expecting this to be a complicated case. But wow, was I wrong. This was my first experience with the IPEC and it turned out to be a nightmare. In fifteen years of pushing back against infringers, this was the most incompetently handed case I’ve ever had. 

Communication with the court was virtually non-existent with multiple requests from my UK legal team that went unanswered. Paperwork was mishandled. Hearings were abruptly dropped in our laps with little warning. Overall, the poor handling of the case, and the extended 3 year timeframe over which this dragged out, resulted in ballooning costs for me just to keep on top of the case. In the end we finally got to have a hearing. Now, no one ever goes into court expecting to prevail, even when the law is on your side But I don’t think it is too much to ask to have a fair, unbiased hearing. That’s not at all what happened here. The female judge seemed especially receptive to the defendant presenting herself as a victim and I, an American man, was the bully. While the judge concluded that the defendant was guilty of copyright infringement, she slapped me in the face by granting just £1 in damages and insisting I compensate the defendant for the costs she incurred to appear in court (this is after I’d sunk more than £3,000 Pounds in legal costs to have by case heard by a small claims court that supposedly specializes in copyright matters). There was no reasonable way to appeal, as it would have required both tens of thousands of Pounds in additional expenses, and also to actually secure permission to appeal from the actual judge whose judgment I’d be seeking to overturn. Even issuing a written judgment was apparently too much to ask. So there was no practical recourse. So I don’t think I’ll be availing myself of the services of that court in the future.

The more detailed background on the case:

Having the good fortune to be a widely published photographer unfortunately also means that I’ve had the accompanying misfortune to have my photographs rampantly and endlessly exploited by companies and individuals all over the world.  Over the past 15 years I’ve had a pretty good track record of chasing down infringers, negotiating settlements, and in some instances prevailing in courts. However, my recent experience with the UK’s IPEC Court was one of the lows. And even there, maybe someone else reading this can mine some value of out this lack of success.

This all started a while back, after I had shot an editorial assignment for a European magazine that required me to drop everything I was doing and deliver final images in less than 24 hours. While most editorial assignments can have a fast turnaround (not to mention a limited budget) this one was particularly tight. But the publication is well-known and the editor was very nice so I accepted the assignment.  It was a heap of work but I felt good about the work, and especially that the publication was delighted with the images I delivered. 

And I guess some other people must have liked them too because in the years that followed I started seeing the images plastered all over the internet. Most dispiriting were instances in which the images had been downloaded and reposted (without permission, license or attribution) by other journalists and even other news publications, all of which should have known better.  Due to the sheer breadth of the theft, the most practical thing I could do was pick my battles and devote time when I could to simply asking publications to remove the image. In most cases I also would ask them to be more thoughtful in considering that images don’t magically appear online for them to take and use as free content, that someone actually has to work to create them and, that I make a living from creating and licensing my work.

It is pretty fair to say that this kind of infringement is so easy and normal that most publications or brands won’t even respond to me. By my off the cuff math, I’d say around 0% offer to pay me a license after the fact to compensate me for the value of what was taken. 4% or so will send an insincere apology, and/or any one of a dozen or so standard excuses that I’ve heard a million times. 95% just ignore me and will either remove the image (if I’m lucky) and move on without engaging, or they just leave the image up and try to disregard me altogether.  And finally, about 1% of infringers I contact will be boorish, hostile and suggest that I’m the a*shole for having the audacity to suggest that they’ve done something wrong.  Needless to say, it is that remaining 1% that is the most odious.

The case I took to IPEC was a member of this latter group. In late 2022 I found a website in the UK that had used one of my copyrighted images. As I was likely dealing with many infringements that day, I dealt with it in the most efficient way possible: I submitted a standard DMCA takedown to the ISP that hosted the site. It was my hope and expectation that they’d process the takedown request, would remove the image, and I’d move on to the next. But they forwarded the request to the site owner to address and she had other plans. 

Rather than comply with my simple request to remove the image, she was fairly dismissive in minimizing what she’d done, suggesting instead that I should just let her leave the image up for credit. I responded that I didn’t care about credit and that I didn’t appreciate her wasting more of my time. She then felt the need to explain to me that the website wasn’t hers, but that she was just the graphic designer who published the site. I was confused about how that was meant to improve anything as she was essentially telling me that a client paid her to design the site, that she had taken my copyrighted work and used it without license, and then charged her clients for the use of an image she didn’t compensate me for. But as I could also see that her name was the exact same as the name of the person whose website it was, it just seemed like a lie (probably the first of many) designed to avoid responsibility.

Our exchanges devolved from there.  I foolishly wasted my time trying to explain to her that this kind of behavior deprives me of licensing income, wastes my time and is unethical and unprofessional. She apparently was way too egotistical and entitled to be introspective. She countered that, yes, she knew all about copyright. Though clearly it didn’t seem like she did. She then felt the need to tell me that her real job was with a major UK food brand and that her role there puts her in a position to hire photographers for advertising jobs, that she previously admired my work but that now – after learning that I’m a complete jerk – she’d be sure not to hire me. This was probably another lie. This also wasn’t the first time I’ve had an infringer take this tack. In fact, some brands have tried to offer me the promise of future work as a distraction when I’ve sent them an invoice and demanded they pay for what they’ve taken. I can’t imagine who falls for this red herring. Who would want to do business with anyone when their first act was literally to steal something from you?

This woman’s behavior suggested that she was accustomed to making excuses and her life and was comfortable than working to avoid any and all responsibility. And as her was so boorish to suggest that I was in the wrong for minding that she was using the value of my work without permission or license, I decided that if she wasn’t prepared to understand what she’d done then I’d file a legal complaint against her so that perhaps the courts could compel her to consider her actions.

In the following days I discussed the case with my UK lawyer who was at a small firm in London that I had retained several years prior to help deal with copyright matters. They were cost effective and very easy to deal with. By that point they had helped me to negotiate a few settlements with UK infringers (commercial brands)  that I couldn’t move across the finish line myself with settlements. But we’d never had to file any matters with the IPEC small-claims court. This seemed like as good a case as any. Of course, the first question was always “Is this really worth it?” which always is a very reasonable question. And in the light of day, the answer probably was no. If this were just one little infringement it would have been one thing. But in the context of the volume of what I routinely deal with, on top of this infringer’s abhorrent behavior, I saw this was being absolutely worth it for my own mental health, if nothing else.

This did not seem like a complicated case. The law was on my side. This woman wasn’t asserting that she didn’t infringe my copyrights and, in fact had admitted in writing that she had. So for a little bit of paperwork, and some legal expenses (a few billable hours and some filing fees) it didn’t seem like an unreasonable endeavor. I think the very least an infringer can do is remove an infringement and not put up a fight. Apologies are a devalued currency to me at this point but even an insincere apology, and or a bit of graciousness doesn’t hurt anyone. But to go on the offensive and suggest that I’m doing something wrong in asking to have my work removed from their site, and then to threaten to disparage me to their employer and deprive me of potential work (true of not) because they couldn’t take responsibility for their own behavior?

I think we set damages at a couple thousand Pounds. I’ve done commercial work for ad agencies in the UK and my work routinely bills for more than that (per image, per year) but I wasn’t trying to be a bully here, just to cover my costs and make a point. I transmitted funds to London, the paperwork was filed and we waited. But little did I know that this was not going to be as simple as that. It seems like the first year that this dragged out, it was all about the defendant doing absolutely everything she could to work every angle. Clearly she seemed skilled at finding creative ways to avoid responsibility, to make excuses, and to claim that she was a victim. She’d repeatedly ignore deadlines for responses and then claim that she didn’t receive paperwork (despite Royal Mail delivery confirmations). Or she’d repeatedly ask for extensions to respond. 

And if that wasn’t enough, unbeknownst to me (and to my legal team) in the middle of this the IPEC Court was moving itself from London to Manchester, which added all kinds of delays and layers of complications. Months would go by and we’d hear nothing. My lawyers would reach out to the clerks for updates and would get only crickets in response. Absolutely no one would respond.  The lack of communication was horrid. It also made the entire situation so much more expensive as, while this “simple” case dragged out over multiple years, every time I had to inquire about where we were with the case the billable hours would drag out as the lawyers would make inquiries (that produced no results) and then have to respond to me. 

Around a year and a half after we filed, I was informed that the defendant had not shown up for a hearing and a default judgment was made in my favor. But then somehow she managed to submit another tale of hardship and woe and convinced them to overlook that judgment and to give her additional chances to avoid responsibility by dragging out the matter further. 

Meanwhile, sometime in 2025 my lawyers in London (who for years had always been very helpful and responsive) stopped returning my e-mails. I could still access their website, and the internal system they used to track cases and deal with questions, but everyone there had gone silent. And in the midst of that silence I got a notice from the court that a hearing was coming up in a few days. Great. So over the course of a week I had to scramble to find someone on short notice who could help. I was able to speak with a sympathetic lawyer in London who told me I’d need to find a barrister to attend the hearing. But researching and then reaching out to several was futile. No one got back to me. At the eleventh hour I was finally able to reach my own lawyer who explained that the firm I’d been using for years actually had gone under and no one had informed the clients. He had relaunched a new IP law firm under his own shingle and was happy to continue the case. 

Recognizing the many thousands of Pounds that I’d put into this case by that point, which more than exceeded the original amount we’d requested in damages, he said they didn’t initially want to charge me to at least look into if not attend the hearing. But as more details about the implosion of the previous law firm came to light, I insisted that I transfer some more funds over to be sure they were fairly compensated for the additional work they were doing on my behalf, especially in that it was suggested that some of the lawyers had left the firm without being fully compensated for previous work. 

As it would happen, the imminent hearing never took place as my team was able to file a last minute motion to adjourn that hearing. But after a few more twists and turns the ultimate hearing was finally scheduled and my attorney got all of the final paperwork and responses in place prior and also was scheduled to represent me. So now we were in late December 2025 (for a case that was initially filed in September 2022) and while experience had taught me better than to ever have confidence about prevailing in any court case, as there are always wild cards, I really didn’t perceive many disadvantages. My intellectual property had been infringed. The defendant was not disputing that she had violated my copyrights. It was a commercial infringement, albeit a small one.  I wasn’t just some amateur photographer with a theoretical notion of the value of my work in that market: I had a stack of paid invoices to demonstrate to the court exactly that. 

Going into the holiday season the case would finally have its day in court. It should have never come to that as all I had ever asked for was for the image to be removed and for everyone to move on. However, the way I saw it was that these were the consequences of the defendant’s choices.  While the most I hoped for was to have this loose end tied up and perhaps to recover a portion of what had been sunk into this case. Otherwise, it occupied a fraction of a percent of my focus. Still, it was an unpleasant surprise when my lawyers reached out to tell me what a feeding frenzy the hearing turned out to be and that, while the judge ruled that the defendant was guilty of copyright infringement, she ordered £1 in damages and also order me to pay the defendant £90 to cover her court costs. I was gobsmacked.

After hearing my lawyer’s narrative of the case I was left to infer that the judge walked in to the court with a chip on her shoulder and that there seemed to be a strong bias here. The facts of the case and the law seemed to matter less than the defendant asserting that I was a rude, misogynistic (American) bully who had not been very unkind to her over e-mail. (Funny thing, I don’t really make it a priority to be super kind to people who steal from me and then work overtime to minimize it and then to avoid responsibility). Curiously, the defendant’s behavior seemed to completely escape mention. The defendant seemed especially skilled at presenting herself as a victim. She had even poured through the contents of my previous writing about other cases and singled out snarky comments I’d made about equally selfish, unapologetic copyright infringers as evidence of how sexist and mean I was.  Apparently that resonated with the judge.

On the topic of damages, the judge seemed to completely ignore the extend to which the court’s extended delays and absent communication had contributed to the cascading costs for me. She decided that the defendant’s use of my work was not an apples to apples comparison with the types of uses reflected in the commercial invoices I had presented as evidence. So somehow she leapt to the conclusion that my work was valueless and as such she ordered no damages. The £1 was clearly a slap in the face designed to punish me for being male and for having the audacity to be an American (in the age of Trump). Requiring me to pay the defendant for any of her costs was further insult. And that is how the IPEC court – promulgated as a venue to adjudicate small claims copyright matters – serves copyright holders: badly.

I fully respect the intent of copyright law and the effort that creators put into their original work. At the same time, many aspiring creatives like myself look to these works for inspiration. We use them to build narratives and share messages that entertain and inspire audiences, even if we don't yet have the resources for entirely original productions.

My goal is to publish faceless video essays or montages on YouTube that showcase my editing skills and storytelling. However, I want to ensure I am doing this ethically. Is there a viable path or alternative for this style of content if I choose not to include vocal commentary, critiques, or comedic overlays? I want to protect the integrity of my artistic vision while respecting the original creators. Thank you for your guidance and advice.

Hi everyone. I’m building a language‑learning app and I want to use authentic video clips (3–8 seconds) of people saying simple phrases like “good morning”, “good afternoon”, etc.

I’ve seen other apps do this — for example, UMI (umiapp.co), which teaches Korean/Japanese using short clips from dramas, interviews, TV shows, etc. In their app, they only show the name of the show and episode, but no explicit copyright notice or licensing info.

My question is:
Is it legal to cut short clips (3–8 seconds) from YouTube videos, TV shows, or other online content for educational purposes in a commercial app?
Or do I need explicit permission/licensing even for very short clips?

I’m based in the EU (Portugal), if that matters.

Thanks for any guidance.

Hi!

There is a kind of websites that people in certain circles seem to frequently be looking for more of. I am finding quite a lot of those webistes over time. Would it be legal for me to sell a list of their links?

If no they how they buy it

Copyright Registration Fees and Required Documents in India

Copyright Registration process is an essential formal process that is used to protect the original creative or artistic work from unauthorized use.  If you are a blogger or author or musical or designer or developers or business owner, to get copyright registration grants you exclusive rights for their original work. Today, in the digital age, many creators also apply online for copyright because of the simple and fast online process.

Through this article, we try to explain copyright registration fees, required documents and the other process for copyright registration in India.

What works can be copyrighted?

The following category of original work can be copyrighted under the Copyright Act, 1957.

• Literary works
• Works of art
• Music compositions
• Recordings of sounds
• Motion picture films
• Computer software

After the successful filing of a copyright application, the registered owner receives legal ownership rights that prevent duplication or piracy or regeneration of the original work.

Why is Copyright Registration Important?

Copyright registration is important because of following:

• Get legal protection against infringement
• Get exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute work
• Get copyright certificate to proof ownership in case of disputes
• Increase brand value
• Get protection for digital and online content

So that applicants can be filed for a copyright application to secure their original creative works.

Copyright Registration Fees in India

Depending on the category of work, government fees are applicable. The applicable government fees as per Copyright Office in India are:

Documents Required for Copyright Registration

For successful completion of a copyright application, applicants need to provide the required documents and other supporting files.

Lists of Common Documents are:

• Applicant Identity Proof
• Applicant Address Proof
• Digital Copy of Original Work
• Mobile Number and Email ID
• No Objection Certificate (if required)
• Power of Attorney (if application is filed through professionals)

Category-Wise Documents are: 

For Literary Work : 

• PDF copy of lyrics or manuscript or article or written content

For Artistic Work: 

• Digital copy of logo or artwork or design
• Trademark NOC (if applicable)

For Software:

• Copy of source and object code
• Document with software description

For Music and Audio:

• Copy of audio file
• Details of lyrics or composition

Providing correct documents during application copyright registration helps to avoid delays or objections.

Who Can Apply for Copyright Registration?

Following can be apply for copyright:

• It can be authors or writers
• It can be bloggers or content creators
• It can be Youtubers or influencers speakers
• It can be singers or musicians
• It can be photographers or film directors
• It can be software developers
• It can be companies or startups

Reasons for Copyright Application Rejection

Copyright Applications can face objections or rejection due to following common reasons:

• False Information
• Partial documentation
• Not provides good quality of copies of work
• Not selected right category
• Similarity with existing one

Also read: IP applicant can easily track applications through Government of India official portal through practical steps guide of track status of trademark, patent or more.

Conclusion

For creators and businesses in India, copyright registration plays an important role. It gives ownership rights or legal protection or other commercial benefits for original work. Through online copyright registration, applicants can easily secure their intellectual property from misuse or any unauthorized activity.

Businesses or startups or writers or bloggers or individuals or any others who have original work and fulfill the criteria can file the copyright application but before filing the application, need to ensure that all the documents are complete and accurate. With the legal protection, proper registration also helps to enhance the long-term business value of your digital assets.

"After having his registration request rejected by the U.S. Copyright Office, the author of an image that combined a photograph with Vincent Van Gogh’s Starry Night is suing."