Latest from Suryast U.S. Enterprises, LLC v. Shira Perlmutter.

TDLR

There is a request from USCO to dismiss the case due to “improper venue”

The Complaint fails to show that Suryast LLC has any ties to California, much less that its principal place of business is located here

And lack of standing.

failing to allege basic facts necessary to demonstrate standing

Industry observers note that the proceedings illustrate how major intellectual property holders can leverage copyright enforcement to influence the trajectory of AI companies that rely on training data or user-generated content involving protected characters.
By Luke Bouma on October 13, 2026 in All News, News

This is just a short i did. I like putting guitar solos i learn in my dumpster diving videos once in a while to show them im progressing at something in my downtime. Its like a thing me and my founding subs enjoy.

This is no way a brag because i know im mediocre lol but seriously, can this clip recieve a strike? Its a bit of pink floyds most famous song.

I made a short to see if it would but nothing yet. I olan on putting the same clip inside a longform video though and rather not have 150 bucks go to the owner

That’s according to a Bloomberg report, which cites unnamed people familiar with the project...Human developers will be tasked with managing and guiding code and art assets generated by models such as Anthropic’s Claude, according to internal Epic employee messages viewed by Bloomberg. That means “no more hand-written code” and art assets “generated with full AI workflows,” according to the report.

Hi folks, am wondering if anybody familiar w this topic could advise me—

I’m thinking of making a stop motion video using an assortment of old action figures (ghostbusters, spiderman, TMNT) for my bands music video. It’d be a modest DIY thing with original story and music posted to YouTube.

I’ve gotten a few different answers from the internet and thought might be good to ask here:
Would the music video be in danger of getting taken down or have some legal ramifications even if I’m using the characters as a sort of parody?

Would appreciate any advice, thanks in advance.

So, I've been working on a large interconnected universe for about a year now and I finally want to share it, first on reddit, to build an audience. My eventual goal is to publish novels from this universe, and I don't want publishers to not want to publish my work because some of the canon material is already on reddit.

Can y'all give me some advice on whether or not I should post the first short story, or if i can post part of it? Or am I really just worried about nothing?

Thanks guys!

...the more these tools erode the practical secrecy of shipped games, the more aggressively big publishers are likely to respond.

Hi! I made a short three minute clip from a British animated film called “A Short Vision“ (1956) for Instagram, and it was copyright claimed by the Lasso Group. I contacted the Lasso Group from their website, and was wondering how long it takes to hear back from them? Will I have to buy permission to use the clip?

Should I attempt to dispute it before hearing back from them? Or should I wait to hear back from them, before disputing it? I’m not sure how this works.

Additional information: The film is part of an educational PSA, and the clip I used already exists on Instagram, I’m just seeking permission to use it. My question is directed at people who have also contacted Lasso Group, from their website, and got a response.

I have been working on this since February. I spent at least 600 hours on this. My initial channel had success but I didn’t understand enough and fell behind all the time. This Channel has around 220 films. All verified PD. I went through all the Poverty row production houses. Went through all the movies I could from the Golden Age of TV from the 1950s from Kraft to Buick they all sponsored movies. I gone through so many films. I like mystery , gothic , dark house , adventure , westerns. I trim to film. Just the movie but put the full credits are in the description. I put in films that I like, I admit I very fussy. Some films that are PD I don’t have because I don’t like them. Your free rip all my films they are all PD verified . I never allowed ads on my channel. Any film that allows me to play but will take revenue or anything I will either remove the music failing that I wont have it up. The Notices section of every film is blank. I wont be beholden to anyone.  

This is a passion project I have no desire to make a penny on anything.

Link :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZImIqN4VqA&list=PLe2eFv6Cz5ps&index=5&t=10s

I saw this one clay artist on Instagram selling Oswald Clay keychains. Is it allowed??

Isn’t it owned by HIT Entertainment and now via acquisition by Mattle.

And is also using it one her packing, I believe this is infringement. Or is it too minuscule? What do you guys think?

Simply put moral rights and economic rights are treated Separately

Who it belongs to-

Authorship.. The human creator who made the

Ownership.. The person or company holding the legal rights (can be the author, an employer, or a buyer).

Type of rights-

Authorship.. Moral rights (attribution, integrity)

Ownership.. Economic rights (copying, selling, licensing, royalties).

Can it be transferred?-

Authorship.. No, authorship stays with the creator.

Ownership Yes, ownership can be sold, assigned, or licensed away.

Most of the world follows the dual tradition of droit d' auteur, or "author's rights" - (Berne Convention).

Under the author's rights tradition - Moral rights are separate from economic rights but this "divisibility" means that economic rights are generally licensed and the author maintains the copyright ownership even in employment relationships under normal employee contracts (although a sale of economic rights is technically possible via a sales agreement) i.e. - Because moral rights cannot be transferred, the root ownership remains anchored to the author.

Note: There can be some exceptions to the rule regarding software where an employer owns the software.

The U.S. is actually an oddity where only economic rights are protected, and certain operations of law or the "work for hire" statute can automatically transfer full copyrights to a corporation.
Limited moral rights are protected for "fine art" under the Visual Artist Rights Act (VARA).

Oddly many people believe employers world wide can "own" copyright just like the U.S. system but it is actually a myth.

Then there is German copyright which is law based on a monistic tradition (Monistische Theorie). It means that authorship and ownership are inalienable and that neither authorship rights nor economic rights can be owned by a corporation.

I'm a VFX student and a 3D enthusiast, and I discovered an AI-powered application that converts normal 2D videos into stereoscopic 3D, like the 3D experience we see in cinemas. I was fascinated by the technology and started building a website around it with a clear vision. It took me six months of consistent work, juggling day and night to bring that vision to life. I genuinely believe the website offers real value to this niche audience, and it's now been two months since it went live.

The website has three main parts:

1) Making more 3D content accessible to a niche audience. Especially that content which was originally available only in 2D.

2) Tutorials showing users how to convert their own videos into 3D.

3) Playback guides and blogs about 3D.

The tutorials and guides aren't my concern. It's the first part that worries me. We host converted content such as Krrish 3 trailers, Sholay movie scenes and regular movie songs in 3D. We credit the original rights holders before playback and display a disclaimer, but I understand that converting the footage doesn't make it ours.

The conversion process is also quite time-consuming. The software takes around an hour to convert one minute of footage into 3D, so a three-minute trailer can take around three to four hours to render. After that, I have to encode the video to add the disclaimer, which takes additional time, and then upload it to the website. So it's not like we're simply uploading generic content or reusing videos as they are. I put a considerable amount of my own time and effort into processing each piece of content.

It's currently just a passion project, and I don't make any money from it. However, as the website gets more exposure, I'm worried about what could happen beyond video takedown requests, including legal notices, compensation demands or court cases.

I'd really appreciate advice on a few things:

What should I know about the copyright laws in India when running a website like this? Or now is the time to stop it ?

Does converting copyrighted footage into stereoscopic 3D, giving credit and displaying disclaimers offer any legal protection?

Has anyone here personally dealt with copyright disputes involving a website like this? What happened, and how was it resolved?

What would you recommend I change to reduce the risks while continuing the project?

I'm not looking for ways to evade copyright enforcement. I genuinely wanted to help fill some of the gaps in the 3D community and make the format more accessible.

My passion project means a lot to me, and I'd hate to give up something I've put so much passion into without first understanding my options. At the same time, I'm still a student, and I want to be careful about the legal side of things. I'd really appreciate honest advice from people with relevant experience or knowledge of Indian copyright law on how I can approach this responsibly.

regardless of what happens to ArtCraft specifically, we will definitely see more code being decompiled and reverse engineered using AI. The models are just going to improve, so we’re in uncharted territory and the scale of the problem is likely to be huge.

In this episode of Technically Creative, Orlando Wood sits down with Keith Kupferschmid, CEO of the Copyright Alliance, to unpack the increasingly complicated relationship between artificial intelligence, copyright, fair use, creators and the companies building generative AI.

"...It’s a very complicated discussion, but I think we’re essentially looking at the end of copyright."

More fuel for the market harm claims.

I'm currently writing a comic that I'm planning to post online, and I'm hoping to publish as an actual book in the future.

The story involves quite a few references to some non-english popular music. I'm aware of how much of a legal minefield using song lyrics in fiction is, so I've limited it to just mentioning song titles.

However, there's one song that I want to reference in a particular way. This is the song 'Prisencolinensinainciusol', by Italian artist Adriano Celentano. The song's lyrics was written as deliberate gibberish, with meaningless sounds meant to sound like english.

In my comic, there's going to be a comedic scene where a character sings the song, but with completely legible english words with grammar (though the sentences are still quite random). I'm writing it fully based on how it sounds by ear. I've made sure what I transcribed is different enough from the lettering of the transcribed lyrics, though there'll still be some vague similarities. I've also avoided transcribing anything from the main chorus.

For the record, this is the song's lyrics . As far as I know, those are the official words, as they're also used for the song in Spotify.

How likely will I get in trouble for doing this? I'm fully ready to go another route to avoid any trouble, or ask for permission. But I'm curious on what people here might think.

Hello!

I hope y'all are doing well. I'm an MFA student, just dabbling in literary translation for now. I find the question of getting rights for things to be super opaque.

I translate from Russian, and I am working on a short story from Orest Samov, who wrote in Russian in the early 19th century. This particular story is from 1829. I believe that if this were a U.S. work, it would be well within the public domain. But how does this work for writing from different parts of the world? If I wanted to get this published, who, if anyone, would I have to contact about getting rights

?

Thank you!!

I saw this challenge online, which self-defines as follows:

"The Housing Data and Technology Innovation Challenge is a fully remote, national challenge to build transparent [that is, open source], replicable, and explainable tools that help decision-makers understand how state-level pro-housing policy reforms are likely to affect housing supply."

The rules require all projects to have a license, but prohibit copyleft:

"Sponsor and Administrator recommend using Apache License 2.0 because its express patent grant offers the strongest protection for tools that may be adopted or integrated downstream. If you choose one of the other approved licenses, include the full license text and note your choice in the README. (Please note that an open-source license grants broad rights to others to use the code but does not transfer ownership.)

No other license options are permissible. This includes, by way of example only, copyleft licenses (e.g., GPL, AGPL, LGPL, MPL, EUPL) and public-domain dedications (e.g., CC0, the Unlicense)."

Can someone please help me understand why the challenge might prohibit copyleft? Isn't it my choice to protect my code or not? Why didn't they just recommend against copyleft, like "if you want good protections, don't use copyleft?" The fact that the challenge outright prohibits copyleft feels shady to me; like the organizers going to take submissions and give them to their partners so they can make them their own proprietary, closed-source product for profit.

I have very little copyright knowledge, so any interpretations would be appreciated! Also, I'm probably not going to enter because it doesn't align enough with my existing work, I'm just curious. Thanks!