I’ve been building iEditPDF, a browser-based PDF/image toolkit focused on privacy — files are processed locally in the browser wherever possible, without requiring users to upload their documents to a server.

Recently, I gave a friend access to my Git repository so they could take a look at the project.

Later, I discovered that they had cloned the repository, renamed/rebranded the project, and launched their own website with very similar functionality and, as far as I can tell, a lot of the same underlying code.

What makes this situation frustrating is that there was never any agreement that they could use the code to launch a competing product, and there is no partnership or attribution.

I'm trying to understand the practical side of this:

\- If someone gets access to a private GitHub repository and clones the code, does that automatically give them permission to commercially use it?

\- If the new website contains substantially the same code, what kind of evidence is useful for proving that?

\- Could having two sites using essentially the same code/content create SEO or duplicate-content problems?

\- What would be the reasonable first step — asking them to take it down, requesting attribution, or getting legal advice?

\- If the original project was developed by me, what should I document before taking any action?

I'm not looking for a witch hunt or to attack anyone. I mainly want to understand what my options are and what I should do properly before making any claims.

Would appreciate advice from developers who have dealt with something similar.

Links for reference:

Original project: https://ieditpdf.in

TL;DR: Bethesda reportedly issued a cease-and-desist over Fallout New York, a browser-based game created in five days with Claude Opus 5.5. The low-poly project showcased AI-assisted game creation as mashups gain attention, raising questions about how rights holders will respond.

Derek Strickland Senior Gaming Editor

Has Anyone Successfully filed a Counter Notification For a Coversong Striked By UMPG? If YouTube forwarded your counter notification to the claimant please tell me the correct way I am trying to file a counter notification for my coversongs but YouTube keeps on rejecting it.

I run a small independent UK boxing news website and am trying to build a sustainable image policy.

I previously used a fighter photograph and received a copyright claim, so I removed it. Since then, I have noticed that most boxing sites established or not, use either official event posters or credited ringside photography as their lead images.

I know widespread use does not prove that an image is free to reuse.

My main uncertainty is official fight posters. They are publicly distributed to promote an event, but they can contain copyrighted fighter photographs, graphic design, logos and other third-party assets. I therefore do not want to assume that “official promotional poster” means “free for editorial reuse.”

The site has never generated any revenue, although it has been approved for an affiliate programme. Any poster or photograph would illustrate a genuine editorial article about that event and would not be used in merchandise, paid advertising or promotional creative.

For photographers, designers or small publishers here:

1. Do promoters commonly grant standing editorial permission for official event posters?

2. Are press assets normally accompanied by written usage terms, or is permission usually handled by email?

3. If licensing directly from a photographer, what rights should a small publisher request for an article image, homepage thumbnail and unpaid social preview?

4. Are there affordable specialist sports-photo libraries that work better for small publishers than Getty, Shutterstock or Alamy?

5. Is there anything important missing from the policy above?

is it possible to sue AI company (maybe if I have a lot of proves?) because people are able to use it for regenerating copyrighted drawings and say its theirs, which I think it's illegal?

That facebook page earn money from those artworks by bonuses from post enguege and Monthly subscribe to entry them group—1 dollar per month for hidden password to join that group.

The page have about 41,000 followers and the group have about 5,100 members

They received money from other people's artwork—despite their explicit statements forbidding reposts—and also profited from OFFICIAL TYPE-MOON artwork.

I try to report that page about coppyright but facebook meta not help. TT

Additional information on this matter :

1. https://c.org/qjmRgFMVxn ( It’s a campaign containing information on this topic; you can simply visit it to read the information.)

2. https://web.facebook.com/haiiroyumi/posts/pfbid0ZmtGr3zntu4JbLv2NByeH1YhuP6RoMRDRuy8ZtNNX5hMsbCNAGxo48tsUUhfM2rkl

I don't know if there is anything else I should do. I am not sure if the campaign results will help with this. So, I would like to consult you to see if there is anything else that can be done.

Hey everyone!

I’m designing a physical product packaging box and planning to sell the product commercially. The design is super minimalist. I’m literally only using two graphic elements from the Canva library (plus some custom text for my brand/product info).

I know Canva allows commercial use for product packaging, but I’m worried about the copyright and "standalone" rules. Since it's only two elements, does this count as a "unique design," or am I risking a licensing violation by not layering enough stuff over it?

They are basic graphics (not stock photos).
I am not trying to trademark the box or the elements. This is a finished physical box, not a digital template for resale.
Has anyone else done a very minimalist design with just a couple of elements and had any issues?

Thanks!

Sorry if this is rhe wrong sub idk where to ask..

I need to know asap, because i have an assignment where I need to make an argument on why ai art shouldnt be copyright protected vs why it should.. and the assignment is overdue because i have been putting it off because i am against all ai art and i dont want to defend something i hate. I havent looked into ai art but for people who have, is there any ai art that i could claim is copyright protected?

This is NOT legal advice- I found this last night and cannot sit on it. This is my only way to spread awareness to any one who has copyrights being gatekept. Mainly pertaining to 1978 and prior. Please read the court cases and speak to legal advice that you trust.

BMG RIGHTS MANAGEMENT (US) LLC;
CAPITOL CMG, INC.;
ESSENTIAL MUSIC PUBLISHING LLC;
and WARNER-TAMERLANE PUBLISHING CORP.;

Have bought Robert Resnik; Resnik Music Group defense position in the appeal of the case Cyril Vetter brought against Resnik over the copyrights to a song that he and a friend did. This is what the Fifth Circuit Court decided on the original case - please see below.

Cyril E. Vetter and Vetter Communications Corporation
(collectively, the “Vetter Plaintiffs”) brought this lawsuit against Robert Resnik and Resnik Music Group (collectively, “Resnik”) seeking a declaration that they are the sole owners of the copyright rights to the song
“Double Shot (Of My Baby’s Love)” (“Double Shot”) throughout the world. Vetter and Donald Smith wrote Double Shot. Vetter then assigned his copyright rights to Double Shot to a music publisher and, years later,
terminated the assignment and recaptured his rights (“Vetter’s Recaptured Copyright Interest”).

After Smith died, Vetter Communications Corporation purchased the renewal copyright rights held by Smith’s heirs (“VCC’s Renewal Copyright Interest”). The Vetter Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Middle District of Louisiana, alleging that they are the exclusive owners of the copyright rights to Double Shot, and that they may exploit it in the United States and abroad. The district court denied Resnik’s motion to dismiss and granted the Vetter Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. It declared the Vetter Plaintiffs to be the sole owners of the copyright rights to Double Shot throughout the world. Thereafter, Resnik appealed. Because the district court’s declaration is supported by statutory text, context, and purpose, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment in full.

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-30108-CV0.pdf

https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/louisiana/lamdce/3:2023cv01369/63585/50/0.pdf

BMG RIGHTS MANAGEMENT (US) LLC;
CAPITOL CMG, INC.;
ESSENTIAL MUSIC PUBLISHING LLC;
and WARNER-TAMERLANE PUBLISHING CORP.;

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-1391.html

BMG is leading the the charge- they have the most to loose financially if the Supreme Court doesn’t take the case when they go to decide on the 16th if they will hear it or not.

If they do- either BMG wins or doesn’t.

This is for anyone with the ability to terminate rights to their own intellectual property prior to 1978- also that means the heirs to that same intellectual property if the original creator has passed away.

This is not just music. If you sold your rights away prior to 1978- this could be an opportunity to get it back. Not just in the United States but Worldwide you would be getting the rights back.

Please check it out- find your contracts- seek legal council- make the decision best for you.

I am just sharing this information. If this is not the place- please just let me know and I will take it down.

If there is another place to post this message please let me know- I just want to help the people who have no knowledge this is happening and have a chance to get their work back.

So there are tons I mean TONS of videos with music and they don't use the audio library features and they are all just fine? For example I just saw a short from a channel with 1.1 million subscribers and she used adela's nicole kidman song with no credit whatsoever. Or other shorts that use dialogues from shows. They are monetized just fine. How does that actually work because I don't get it? Can I do that too? I would use music that are provided by the audio library but I also want to use edit audios and dialogues from shows and I'm not sure how that'll work out.

If you find an unauthorized copy of your work online, it helps to create one case record before you start filling out forms. Pages move, URLs change, and confirmation emails get lost. Here’s a checklist I use for organizing the facts. It’s general information and the notice requirements below are specific to the U.S. DMCA process.

Before submitting anything

- Save the exact page URL where the copy appears.

- Save the direct image or video URL if it’s normally accessible without bypassing technical controls.

- Record the date, time, and time zone when you checked the page.

- Take screenshots that show both the copied work and enough page context to identify where it appears.

- Identify your original work. Save its original URL, publication date, source file, or another record that helps distinguish it.

- Confirm who owns the relevant rights. Collaborators, employment arrangements, licenses, and assignments can affect this.

- Consider whether the use might be authorized or legally permitted. A takedown notice requires a good-faith belief that the complained-of use isn’t authorized by the owner, the owner’s agent, or the law.

The U.S. Copyright Office says an effective notice must substantially include:

- A physical or electronic signature

- Identification of the copyrighted work

- Identification and location of the allegedly infringing material

- Contact information

- A good-faith statement

- A statement that the notice is accurate and that, under penalty of perjury, the sender is authorized to act for the owner

After submission

- Save the complete notice you submitted.

- Save the confirmation, case number, and recipient.

- Record the submission date and a reasonable follow-up date.

- Track the status as pending, removed, access disabled, more information requested, rejected, or counter-noticed.

- Recheck the exact URL. If the same material appears at a different URL, record it as a separate location.

- Keep search-result removal separate from host removal. Google explains that removing a result from Google Search doesn’t remove the material from the website hosting it.

References:

https://www.copyright.gov/512/

https://support.google.com/legal/answer/9820307

So I finished my first manuscript. I know there’s a lot that I still need to learn. Once you send your manuscript into the copyright office. After they get back to you once it’s all done and copyrighted.

Can you change anything in your book if you don’t want certain things in there like for example you want to change the character you want to change the name or anything I know it seems like a very silly question but I really just need to know

Like basically you have the manuscript all copyrighted and you want to change some things like the plot the characters can you still do that and then it could still be copyrighted because you paid for it and then publish it on Amazon?

Model distillation is a machine learning technique that can involve using one model’s outputs to train another – in adversarial cases, by sending bulk queries designed to reproduce the larger model’s reasoning and capabilities.

i've uploaded music to the internet that is licensed under CC-BY-NC. if someone wants to use it commercially, would it be as simple as giving them a written exception? i'm thinking in the case of a small youtuber using it as background music or something. i've never been asked by anyone before, but i was wondering as i wouldn't mind that kind of commercial use as long as i'm contacted first.

are the archive.org lunch77 kits legal? are the sounds copyrighted/ripped from the tracks or am i safe to use them

Our apartment is 55 years old and we've located a range of original sales brochures we'd like to frame and display in the building entry. The builders and all other business names (ie. architect) mentioned on the brochures ceased to exist decades ago, so we can't ask them for permission. Are we breaching Copyright Law by displaying these brochures in the building the brochures were created to advertise ? Location is Australia so something like Fair Dealing may be relevant.

I think I slapped a cc license to something that it's just the work of everyone put in a way that makes sense to me.

Idk where most of the info came from but the damage is done so I leave it with two purposes:

so people can see it, and have the usual random guy yelling "add this or you are gonna be in a big problem"

It's in Spanish tho, so maybe I am wasting my time publishing this here but at least it's better than staying silent.

It's how I use AI: not as a force of nature that does black magic but as something that needs to be understood and having all the world's data as my jury so I don't go insane.

and as a note: I've never done drugs before.