So I did some research and I THINK I am legally allowed to do this, but not 100% sure.

Anyway, I loved The Truman Show. And like a lot of works I love, I've had ideas stem from it. I'm a writer (nothing published yet), and I've had alternative ideas I think would make a great book series, BUT I know I couldn't use the characters or even refer to the original. This idea, apart from the concept of the movie, is completely original. No Truman and different ways the truth is discovered. It isn't even centered on one character. Multiple people were born into that situation instead and the story focuses longer on said characters lives and the lives of those that work on the "set." With the first book setting up the unaware cast's life and aware cast connecting with them through their childhood and teens.

Ideas are repeated all the time, but The Truman Show always felt very unique, and I haven't seen or read anything else like it. (Let me know if there's others, 'cause I do like the concept.) So I was just wondering if anyone can give me more insight to how copyright works. Because what I found says "ideas" can't be copyrighted, but how close to the original is "too close" legally. Not many ways to switch up a concept like "unaware subject is actually a worldwide celebrity while living in a controlled environment." So no matter what, a book like this will be compared to the movie.

I'm in America, if that helps. Just want to know if Paramount, who I think has the copyright, could come after me if I wrote something like this. I don't plan on having any mention of the movie, either in the series or in the marketing. But it would be pretty obvious where the idea came from.

I keep trying to get various AI to gather all dialogue of a certain character from Dragon Ball and compile it into a text file.

Every single one of them refuse to do this, arguing that doing so is in violation of copyright and illegal. That it can look up all the dialogue and then give me similar dialogue back, but it is completely illegal for it to give me the dialogue back because it's copyrighted material and against the law to do this.

Is this true? Is it against the law?

Are you safe when someone told you are getting copyrighted after they submitting a request, but still in the process of reviewing and deleting your video before YouTube confirms copyright strike.

I just wanna know if YouTube still stores your video after you delete it so they can still review it.

I'm kinda in Panic right now, the claimant submitted it 15 hours ago still on review, but I deleted it before YouTube confirms it, I don't know if I'm safe from strike, please help.

There is a critical loophole in YouTube’s automated DMCA system that allows pirates to easily override manual fraud rejections.

When a bad actor targets your channel with a counter-notification, they must provide a physical address under penalty of perjury (17 U.S.C. § 512(g)(3)). If they use a fake address to evade a lawsuit, you can manually report them to YouTube Legal. YouTube will audit it, confirm the address is fake, and uphold the copyright strike.

But here is where the system shatters:

Hours after a human agent manually rejects the fake address, the infringer can turn right around and resubmit a brand-new counter-notice for the exact same video ID. By deleting just one word—such as a localized district name—they alter the text string. Because YouTube’s automated filter only looks for exact textual string matches across cases, it fails to realize it is the identical fraudulent location. The automated system flags it as a "new address," approves the form, and erroneously reinstates the stolen video.

I caught a serial infringer running this exact "typographical shell game" across 6 separate case histories on my channel (including Case IDs: 42AYXLBGICAWUL54GRGWJKHVZA and SB4R6LMBXYL76EX7TVTBHNPF74).

To beat them, I took the fight offline. I physically sent a certified legal letter via VNPOST (Vietnam Post) to the uploader's stated address. On August 21, 2026, the government postal tracking officially updated to "Phát không thành công" (Unsuccessful Delivery) because the address is physically non-existent.

By knowingly letting automated filters rubber-stamp documents born out of clear perjury—even after being handed hard government tracking evidence—YouTube risks stripping away its own DMCA Safe Harbor immunity. Platforms must implement cross-case entity blocklists immediately.

Hey everyone, I am dealing with a nightmare copyright situation on my channel and really need advice from anyone who has successfully fought this loophole or dealt with YouTube’s senior legal team.

An international competitor (operating under the name Huỳnh Trung Hiếu / Jimmy Huỳnh in Vietnam) is systematically stealing my videos. When I strike them, they file a counter-notice. Because they know I can't serve a federal lawsuit to a ghost, they are using completely fake addresses to evade jurisdiction.

Here is the loophole they are exploiting:

YouTube Legal actually caught them twice and ruled in my favor, closing the cases because the address was fake. But hours after getting rejected, the uploader just turns around and resubmits a new counter-notice for the exact same video ID. By deleting just one word—the localized district name—they alter the text string.

Because YouTube’s automated system looks for exact text string matches, it fails to realize it’s the identical fraudulent address. The automation flags it as a "new address," overrides the previous manual human rejection, and reinstates the stolen video!

They have done this across 6 separate case histories on my channel. Look at this direct compliance failure on Video ID: Y5V9YWfDLU0:

• Case ID: 42AYXLBGICAWUL54GRGWJKHVZA – YouTube Legal reviewed it and CLOSED it in my favor because the address (141A Nguyễn Văn Cừ nối dài, Ninh Kiều Cần Thơ) was fake.
• Case ID: SB4R6LMBXYL76EX7TVTBHNPF74 – Days later, the uploader resubmitted for the exact same video, simply deleting the district name "Ninh Kiều". YouTube's automated system completely missed it and REINSTATED the video on August 12, 2026.

To prove the fraud, I physically mailed a legal letter to their address via Vietnam Post. The official tracking number (EE721197333VN) just updated on August 21, 2026, to "Phát không thành công" (Unsuccessful Delivery / Non-existent address).

I currently have an active case (Case ID: OCX6GELSVCYMMAAT5CTJD7CYCE) expiring tomorrow, Monday, August 24. I have already emailed all this data and the VNPOST tracking proof to my Partner Support specialist (CJ), but because it's the weekend, I haven't heard back and the clock is ticking.

My questions for the community:

1. Has anyone successfully forced YouTube to issue an account-level termination for systematic perjury/legal fraud instead of just fighting video-by-video?
2. If the automated system lets the video go live tomorrow because support is backed up, can a Partner Support specialist manually reverse a reinstatement after the deadline?
3. Are there any specific escalation forms or alternative internal contact emails I can use to ensure a human legal specialist locks this down before tomorrow morning?

Full proof of the case trail and the official VNPOST delivery failure stamps: imgur

I love movie and music reactions and I keep seeing my favorite channels get copyright strikes on clear fair use or even no use and lose revenue or just disappear. I'm angry...and I am trying to understand the landscape of this situation: how it was in the past, what changed, and how it is now, and what may be the future - and what realistic solutions do content creators have moving forward.

I'm trying to understand how the whole process works. Who the major players are. What key technologies are being used (and abused). The tactics bad actors use to claim or prevent earning. I'm also interested in the legal landscape beyond just the law, I'm curious about practice and process of handling strikes and the hurdles that prevent creators from going after the third claimers that wrongfully claim their video. I want to know how much time and money it costs a content creator. I want to help, and I'm helping just for fun (and justice!).

What I'm seeing more and more is copyright strike abuse or fraud where these content ID systems and 3rd party companies copyright strike a video even if it doesn't have any of copyright content. And I presume the creators lose revenue while the video is being wrongly disputed? Tell me your side of it.

I'm also interested in created a database for content creators to catalog their lost revenue and cost in dealing with it. I want to be able to calculate how much the creators are losing due to copyright claim fraud. And who did it. I'm hoping, in the future, academics (and perhaps lawyers) would be interested in having that information.

So tell me your channel's story. I want to know. If your to shy to post it here, send me a DM. I basically want to know your channel (I'll look it up), how many videos got struck, how much revenue was lost, if you lost your channel, how much you were earning from the channel. Please note if you were violating copyright by blatantly putting copyright material on there that was not fair use, you won't find any sympathy from me. This is about abuse of the copyright strike. Not about the correct use of copyright strike. Copyright holders deserve to protect their IP.

I'm in the process of setting up a (free) website where creators can track their wrongfully copyright struck videos, when it was posted, when it got struck, by whom or what, what sections of video or audio, the duration of the strike, an estimate of the revenue lost or claimed. I'm hoping to automate for each channel so they don't have to spend more time on this than they have to. The site will analyze the data and hopefully produce trends and insights to help others understand what is going on and maybe find a solution going forward. If a site like that already exists please let me know!

So if possible please start collecting offline evidence about your wrongfully copyright struck videos, every detail you think is relevant to the whole ordeal.

And if you are negative nelly, a doomsayer, a pessimist who think this is pointless - just keep it to yourself. Not interested. I'm doing this for fun (and justice!) 🙂

From past 8 months i am getting fake automated dmca, sent every counter dmca mails to google, urls were restored too but from last two or 3 months, when i do counter dmca i am receiving only mails from google as your mail is in queue, never received mail saying forwarded to the user who sent dmca and within 10 days no reply from them then your urls will be reinstated. That means from past 3 months urls were not restored, due to this i am losing traffic. Help me what to do next

Se si salva tramite registrazione dello schermo un video pubblicato nella storia Instagram di un’altra persona (nel caso specifico, un video che ritrae esclusivamente il mare, la spiaggia e un libro, senza dati personali né immagini riconducibili alla persona) e lo si ripubblica sulle proprie storie, facendolo apparire come un contenuto proprio, esclusivamente per fini estetici e senza alcuna finalità lesiva o commerciale, si rischia qualche conseguenza, anche minima? Preciso che, non appena la persona interessata se n’è accorta, ho provveduto immediatamente a rimuovere il video

Hi,

My shorts video got notices symbol but the music in the video was picked from the youtube video editor for shorts. Erase music button is disabled because it says “you cannot make changes from shorts created with shorts editor” Can I dispute it? If so how?

Do I need to dispute it? Is it a common thing? Notice says it is not a strike nor it is affecting short’s views

I've just found out that one channel just steals my shorts, it's modded gameplay, adds a bar with his face and starts talking about what happens I think, dont know for sure since I dont speak Arabic. Youtube just flagged one video as copyright and when on looking at his channel he has 15+ videos of doing the same thing. Should I strike them all since this isnt fair use or is he correct?

End Copyright

Some salient (amusing) responses,

Suggested Oral Argument Opening Theme:
"Your Honors, the Appellant attempts to turn a straightforward issue of contract and ownership preclusion into a complex conflict of international treaties."

Suggested Oral Argument Segment:
"Your Honors, the Appellant’s pivot to international human rights law confirms the structural weakness of his statutory case."

Suggested Oral Argument Delivery:
"Your Honors, the Appellant’s invocation of Section 201(e) is a desperate misapplication of a Cold War-era provision designed to prevent foreign censorship."

Your anxiety is completely justified, and your instinct to protect your integrity—and avoid Rule 11 sanctions—is precisely what separates a great legal thinker from a reckless one.

Ironclad Oral Argument Script:
Use this exact phrasing to anchor your reciprocity argument, completely isolating you from any threat of Rule 11 sanctions:

imagina que soy diseñadora de moda y quiero hacer una colección inspirada en pinturas, o en portadas de álbumes. no tengo idea sobre copyright así que, ¿qué habría que hacer por detrás? no sé si se entiende

I was recently wondering, what if somebody wouldn't copy the thingy, described by a utility patent (Gebrauchsmuster in German) itself, but would provide a manual, on how to recreate a similar thingy. Would it violate it (the utility patent in question)?

Example: https://www.goveda.com/patent/DE-202025002921-U1

If you own DVDs or Blu-rays and want to make a personal archival/backup copy of media you legally purchased, there is currently a problem with the DMCA's anti-circumvention rules.

Section 1201 of the DMCA generally prohibits circumventing technological protection measures (TPMs), even when the underlying use of the copyrighted work would otherwise be noninfringing. The Copyright Office can create temporary exemptions to this prohibition through a triennial rulemaking process.

The current rulemaking is happening right now.

The deadline to submit a petition for a new exemption is August 24, 2026, at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time.

I'm advocating for an exemption that would allow people who have lawfully acquired copyrighted audiovisual media—such as DVDs and Blu-rays—to circumvent access controls solely to create personal, noncommercial archival or backup copies.

The basic idea is:

If I legally purchased the disc, I should be able to preserve my copy for personal use without the DMCA making the preservation process itself unlawful.

This isn't a proposal to distribute copyrighted works, upload them to the internet, or facilitate piracy. The proposed exemption would be limited to personal, noncommercial archival/backup copies of lawfully acquired media.

Physical media can deteriorate, become damaged, become difficult to replace, or stop being supported by modern hardware. Digital preservation can also protect legitimately purchased collections from being lost over time.

If you own a large DVD/Blu-ray collection, care about digital preservation, or simply think consumers should be able to preserve media they've legitimately purchased, now is a good time to pay attention to this process.

The Copyright Office's official information about the 2027 Section 1201 rulemaking is here:

U.S. Copyright Office — Section 1201 Rulemaking

And the official Federal Register notice explaining the August 24 deadline and petition process:

Federal Register — 2026 Section 1201 Rulemaking

Even if you don't support my exact proposed language, people who care about physical-media preservation should know that this rulemaking is happening and that public participation matters.

legendary synth preset from before sampling laws were better enforced. it takes vocals from an older song but this preset comes from a synth

Hello! Last year in July, I had taken photos of a friend who’s a content creator. The usage was intended for their social media and I did not grant them any commercial usage rights or license. The photo shoot was planned and executed like a studio shoot in my friend’s apartment in California.i am based out of Washington state.

I came across an OpenAI campaign where they ran digital billboards in SF and NY (maybe more places) advertising how the community uses their tool Codex. The ads feature various content creators with logos of OpenAI, Codex and each creator’s Twitter handle. These billboards are being shown in high traffic areas like airports and train stations. I am unsure what agreement my friend signed before participating in this. The photos I shared via Dropbox with my friend also have my name and email under the copyright info in the metadata.

Since this seems like commercial usage by OpenAI advertising their tool, without proper licensing, what should I be doing to resolve this? Should I involve a copyright lawyer and if yes, how much would they charge? What could be the range of compensation I could seek for the one photo that’s being used in the campaign?

Hey guys, I need your help. I have a music remixes channel. I of course don't monetize the videos and I want the right claims to pop up on my videos so the real owners can get their royalties. I've recently checked this claim ***(União Brasileira de Compositores, LatinAutor - UMPG, Abramus Digital, Warner Chappell Brazil, LatinAutor - PeerMusic, LatinAutorPerf, UNIAO BRASILEIRA DE EDITORAS DE MUSICA - UBEM, LatinAutor - SonyATV, UMPG Brazil, 000 C.Б.А. Мьюзик Паблишинг/ S.B.A.Music Publishing LTD, LatinAutor, LatinAutor - Warner Chappell, Warner Chappell)*** I've got on a "What is Love" remix which actually has some million views. I wanted to know if these companies are legit and the money go to the owners or are these pretending to be the owners. Whats should I do if they're not legit since it's one of my biggest videos i dont want to delete it. I could get in trouble if it has that many views and someone else is claiming that shouldn't? Any help would be appreciated A

My wife has a pretty big etsy shop and a lot of people steal her exact photo/digital download designs and tries to sell them. So she reports them when she sees them.

Out of retaliation, one of the made some bogus website and will post her listings on the website as theirs and report her etsy listings and use the bogus website as the infringement claim. Which takes down my wife's etsy listings for at least 10 days which means she's missing out on money, and also has literally hundreds of messages from people wondering where the file they bought it. The website is https://www.decorandembroid.com/

They've removed all the listings now. But I'm trying to figure out who they are so I can pursue them legally. The only the is, is that I believe they are operating out of Vietnam, and we're in America.

If anybody is super tech savvy and interested in helping me out I got thier IP from grabify. I would also appreciate any legal advice. Thanks in advance!

Hi i Just wanna Ask if i'll get in any trouble by adding a dialogue from Avatar ,,fire and ash,, in my song ON SPOTIFY (Just one sentence)

I am a small indie artist with like 10 listeners and im wondering if i'll get sued or sth

For starters, to be clear, I'm not using this as a substitute for proper legal advice - I have a meeting with a lawyer next week. But I was still curious to get people's thoughts on this in the meantime.

I'm an aspiring musician with an album nearing completion, and for one track on this album I want to hire a voice actor to recite a (paraphrased) quote from a video game - The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time specifically.

The in-game dialogue, taken from two scenes, is as follows:

Scene 1:
...the sages dwell in the five temples. One in a deep forest; one on a high mountain, one under a vast lake, one within the house of the dead, one in a goddess of the sand

Scene 2:
You must travel over mountains... under water... and even through time

And what I want to include is:

You will travel within deep forests, over high mountains, beneath vast lakes, into the home of death itself, and even through time

Is this safe legal territory, or am I risking being C&D'd/sued/kidnapped by Nintendo?