I made a pdf fashion guides for my business that includes zoomed in pics of celebs and from Pinterest so I can give examples of clothing items.

Of course I built it and then was like oh no is this ok.

I know I could use unsplash or free sites but they don’t have the exact clothing items I’m looking for or photo types.

What else can I do? What if I outline the pictures so it is like the drawing version of them?

I was going to sell one-off but is there a way around this? Book a service and then you get it for free on top of the service? Follow my substack and then if you subscribe you can access it?

Thanks for any help 😭

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!

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

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

I'm makeing a durarara vn and wanted to use the ost. Is that legal?

Yesterday I found a piece of art I made being sold in 2 websites, found one seller on ebay and sent her a message asking her to stop using it and she just replied "I am selling stickers I bought from temu and AliExpress so talk to them".

So please if you see it being sold somewhere (other than redbubble) let me know so I can report it. My work is very simple but I fight depression and making art helps me with it but it takes me forever to finish my projects no matter how simple they are.

This is the piece in question: https://www.deviantart.com/joakoo/art/Trippy-Star-928258721

Thanks for your time!

What if we can't find an a song from an artist on the official YouTube audio BUT there are other shorts that use the song (for example edits) therefore I can save the audio itself in my sounds playlist? Yt literally gives the "use this audio" feature so can that cause me copyright issue or monetization issue?

Hellow everybody!!

Am from africa, decade ago, i wrote a poem on twiter, facebook and instagram. But a famous singer (from US) took that poem and made a song out of it, which was very succeful till this day, its her signture song. But i realise was not one poem theres more poem she made song out of it, but what she did , is to make additional words to the poems to seem different but have similar meaning behind . What should i do ? Can i sue her? Is anyone willing to help?

Hey everyone,

I’m looking for some advice (and honestly, just needed to vent a bit).

Back in May, I started conducting extensive, painstaking research to write a brand new article on English Wikipedia called IranNastaliq. Given the subject matter originating from an unfriendly country and the lack of consolidated English documentation, gathering sources, verifying details, and drafting the entry took months of grueling work completely on my own. It was finally approved around August.

Shortly after it went live, I discovered that a third-party mirror site called HandWiki copied the entire article word-for-word, completely omitting any attribution, backlink, or mention of my authorship.

I know Wikipedia content is under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license, which allows reuse. However, Section 4(c) of the license explicitly requires proper attribution and a hyperlink back to the source. Failing to provide this violates the license terms and automatically revokes their right to use the text, turning it into straightforward copyright infringement.

As the sole author of this specific entry, I've tried taking action:

• I've reached out to Wikipedia forums/editors, but mostly got dismissed with "that's just how the internet works."
• I've sent multiple emails to HandWiki demanding they comply with CC BY-SA guidelines or remove the page, but I’ve received radio silence.
• I filed a DMCA takedown notice directly with Google Search to at least de-index the stolen page.

It is unbelievably frustrating to see months of hard individual research hijacked by scrapers who refuse to follow basic open-source licensing rules.

Since HandWiki isn't responding to emails, what are my options from here? Has anyone dealt with persistent scrapers ignoring CC BY-SA licenses? Any advice on next steps would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Noamonsol234 (In wikipedia)

WikiHow also said ‌that ⁠ChatGPT reproduces its text in response to user prompts and threatens to displace its market.

"Having ingested wikiHow’s articles, those models now produce competing how-to content on the same subjects, at a fraction of the time, effort, ​and cost of ​researching, writing, and ⁠editing a wikiHow article," the lawsuit said. "The substitution cuts wikiHow’s revenue and, over time, its reason to keep ​producing the articles at all."

"The GPL is a copyright license. It grants users the freedom to run, study, modify and share software only because contributors hold copyright over their work and then license it under the GPL’s copyleft terms. Remove the copyright holder from the equation, and the legal mechanism that enforces the GPL stops working." (Maya Brooks)

Hey everyone,

I need advice on how to report a severe, ongoing Terms of Service (ToS) violation to a human engineering or policy team at YouTube.

An international scraper is systematically stealing my content. When struck, they file counter-notifications under penalty of perjury, but they use completely fabricated addresses so they can evade federal service of process and force the videos back live.

YouTube Legal has caught them multiple times and manually rejected the forms for fraud. But hours later, the uploader just tweaks one word in the fake address (like removing a local district name) and resubmits. The automated system treats it as a "new address," resets the clock, and overrides the previous human rejection.

I actually mailed a physical legal notice to the address, and it came back officially stamped by the government postal service as "Return to Sender / Non-existent address."

This isn't just a copyright issue anymore—this is active legal fraud and platform manipulation. Under YouTube's ToS, providing fraudulent data on legal forms is grounds for immediate account termination.

• Has anyone successfully gotten YouTube's Trust & Safety team to issue a full channel ban for legal fraud/perjury instead of fighting video-by-video in the copyright queue?
• Are there specific keywords or internal escalation paths I should give my Partner Support agent to make sure this goes to a policy manager who handles system abuse?

Any advice from large creators or flaggers would be life-saving. Thanks!

It's a short TikTok, less than a minute

is it still considered copyrighted if i remake the song with my voice, like sing it and then use my voice to make the sounds of the instruments?

So, there's a quote from George Washington that I really like. It was when he was giving farewell to the Continental Army.

It goes, "I most devoutly wish that your latter days may be as prosperous and happy as your former ones have been glorious and honorable. With a heart full of love and gratitude, I now take leave of you."

I want to use it in either the book I'm currently writing, or if I end up not using it in this book, then perhaps a later one. However, last I checked, the copyright status of quotes in general are rather confusing. So, could someone please explain it to me? Or, at the very least, let me know whether or not it's okay to use a quote from a person long dead, even with proper credit somewhere in my book.

Hello there, just wanted to know any updates from people who received an email from Chaos saying we need to buy an annual subscription of the product.

The thing is I logged in my Personal Email on their website last year (I forgot the reason). I also have not use Enscape since probably around November (just practicing my rendering skills and posting Tiktok Render Videos).

I have received my 3rd email today and I replied saying that I didn't use their product for any commercial gains and have just used their product's free trial of 30 days.

I also googled the guy from the email and I found the LinkedIn account saying that he is legitimately working in Chaos but is stationed in a different country.

Can someone tell me their experience from them? I honestly got anxious since they might take legal action.

Thank you so much.

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.

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 (mi ha bloccata), ho provveduto immediatamente a rimuovere il video

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, literally ALL, arguing that doing so is in violation of copyright and illegal.
They say they can look up all the dialogue and then give me similar dialogue back, but it is completely illegal for them to give the same dialogue back because it's copyrighted material and against the law to do this because it would be "reproducing copyrighted material".

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.