I haven't seen much posted about this but essentially, YouTube used to offer a global license when purchasing tracks to use in videos via YouTube creator music. This allowed creators to purchase the music for a one time fee, and be eligible to use their music in the video copyright free (100% monetization).

They've now taken that option away, refunded creators (without them asking for refunds) and automatically changed all the videos with music that had the global license to 50/50 revenue split with the music artist, without the creators permission.

I feel like this is a lawsuit waiting to happen. It also seems like a good topic for Louis Rossmann to cover. If you can please email him here:

[youtube@rossmanngroup.com](mailto:youtube@rossmanngroup.com)

Hello!

I am a relatively big content creator, and I want to copyright strike people for uploading AI videos of my original content and reuploads on platforms like YouTube and TikTok. My problem however, is that these sites all ask me for my personal information. I am a female creator who deals with A LOT of online stalking, sexual harassment, etc, so you can see why I’d absolutely want no information pertaining to my real address, real phone number, and (preferably, if it’s possible) my full name on such a form, but still want to protect my image from these AI videos and reuploads.

Does anyone on here happen to know any ways of going about this without using my address and real phone number? I’m fully willing to buy an online mail service or PO Box, but I’m very inexperienced in copyright enforcement and have no idea where to start—any advice would be deeply appreciated.

Also: If anyone knows about any ways to solve the name issue (even if that means hiring a third party to represent me), I’d also love to hear it. I know this part may be more difficult than the address and phone number issue, but I’d like to know all possible options I have!

Thanks for any help, and my apologies if this isn’t the right sub for such a question

This is Just insane.

Edit : I mean the Reactor I should've worded out. My bad. Apparently from the thumbnail you can tell already what this is gonna be about. Full on ranting on Copyright. I am confused on one thing is the copyright working fair or not that is the reason I shared. Thank you to everyone in advance. 🙏

A regional Mexican label and publisher claims its catalog helped Suno "capture a significant share of the Spanish language AI user market." (Rachel Scharf)

The title is self explanatory but one thing I don't understand is that I'VE SEEN TONS OF VIDEOS USE THE EXACT SAME SONG THAT HAVEN'T BEEN TAKEN DOWN FOR IT

random examples I found: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/M97vGb5jAFQ https://www.youtube.com/shorts/orv7Q6Qg994 https://www.youtube.com/shorts/E24-PtIkOrE https://www.youtube.com/shorts/FBp9ol3bPFk

And as I said for some reason the original long form one wasn't taken down but the shorts one was (I REALLY want to repost it to shorts because my videos get like 5 views on long forms verses thousands on shorts). Also I tried reposting it multiple times yet it still gets taken down immediately.

In the same court as my case (Baylis v Valve - W.D. Wash.), and on an issue of estoppel (same issue Valve themselves aggressively used against me) Valve argue estoppel was unfair!

Oh the Irony Sky!

TLDR: It appears (to me) that Professor Edward Lee, just now supporting the AI company defendants in the Mosaic LLM AI copyright case, may have come into opposition of views and analytical position from Judge Chhabria's "market harm" analysis in the Kadrey AI copyright case.

On August 27th, Professor Edward Lee, who runs the "ChatGPT Is Eating the World" website (if you look him up, note that he is distinct from Professor Edward A. Lee), was one of two scholars who requested to file an amici curiae brief in the AI copyright infringement case of In re Mosaic LLM Litigation, No. 3:24-cv-01451 filed March 8, 2024 in the Northern District of California federal court. An amicus curiae or amici curiae brief is a brief filed in a court case by outsiders who are not parties or litigants in the case but who want to share their views on the law applicable to the case; it is not an uncommon thing. The brief can be found here.

Professor's Lee's brief (with Professor Rebecca Tushnet) is presented in support of the defendant AI companies Databricks and Mosaic. The plaintiffs in that case, who are copyright-holding book authors, have advanced a legal theory pertaining to market harm (which is one of the factors weighing against a defense of fair use) which they call market "dilution." Professor Lee's brief attacks their dilution notion and analysis, contending that AI output cannot be used to support the factor of market harm unless that AI output is "substantially similar," presumably textually, to the copyrighted source work(s). For example, page 2 of Professor Lee's brief says similarity of or harm based on literary genre is insufficient.

As we all know, AI copyright cases segregate into "input side" claims concerning the scraping of the copyrighted works and the training of the AI, and "output side" claims concerning the use of the AI to produce new works that purportedly infringe the copyrighted works. Now, like the Bartz fair use ruling and settlement, the Mosaic case can be seen as more of an input side case; the plaintiffs there discuss what might be done with the AI model trained on their books, but they don't cite any actual examples of output works being produced that they consider to be infringing their books. I, personally, have started to make my peace with the Bartz fair use ruling, because it is effectively limited to the input side, and I can see that someone using books to train an AI model off in a corner somewhere that never gets used is pretty innocuous.

Professor Lee's brief, however, appears to take on market harm on the output side as well, imposing a requirement that the works output by the AI model must be substantially similar to presumably specific copyrighted source works before market harm (leading toward negation of fair use, and so toward infringement) for those copyrighted works can be found. This seems to me a major cramp in a market harm analysis, and this is why and where I bring up Judge Chhabria's June 25, 2025 fair use ruling in the Kadrey case. That ruling can be found here.

(Note: The Kadrey ruling has to be read carefully, because in outcome it favors the AI company defendant. While Judge Chhabria in that ruling is clearly laying out the case for negating fair use and finding copyright infringement, the dunderhead [Judge Chhabria doesn't actually use that word, but clearly he wants to] plaintiffs' attorneys [some of whom overlap between Kadrey and Mosaic LLM] failed to follow his roadmap and so he was forced to find fair use there.)

Judge Chhabria's fair use roadmap in his Kadrey ruling clearly concerns output-side claims (which the Judge calls "distribution claims") and focuses on market harm. His ruling on pages 26 and 31 says that similarity of subject matter or genre can be sufficient to undergird a market harm analysis avoiding fair use. He says, "indirect [market] substitution is still substitution." (Professor Lee's brief does mention Kadrey and Judge Chhabria's view on market harm, hinting that Judge Chhabria just didn't get it because the issue wasn't briefed but would have seen his view fall apart if it had been briefed.)

So, I think we have a direct opposition of views and analysis here between Professor Lee and Judge Chhabria.

Why do I care? In curating the Wombat Collection of AI court cases and rulings, and in commenting here on Reddit about AI copyright, I have come to believe that AI output is harming copyright holders, and that the copyright holders should be compensated for that harm. However, the way AI is causing the harm is so new and different that the court rulings so far are struggling for clarity. Too much borrowing from old analysis, and too much easy analogizing to AI models anthropomorphized almost into human authors, is getting in the way. I said I was making my peace with the Bartz fair use ruling by Judge Alsup, who was 80 years old when he wrote it and is now retired, but there's a lot wrong with that ruling. There are not enough voices on the side of copyright-holder compensation, but Judge Chhabria, who is 56 years old, is one of them, and his is a clear, thought-leader voice. No one gives a damn who I am, but I have found myself coming to root for Judge Chhabria and his views on fair use and market harm.

I guess I'm a little disappointed that Professor Lee has come down on the other side, since Professor Lee is younger (I think about 55) and I had hoped he would be a little more "hip" in his legal analytical outlook (although supporting AI companies and AI output might also be considered "hip"). He is on the scene and fairly prolific with his "ChatGPT Is Eating the World" website, and certainly relevant to the social media copyright discussions here on Reddit. So to me this philosophical conflict matters, but I think not for the better.

I'm all the way down the page, and I haven't even dug into the specific arguments of either Professor Lee or Judge Chhabria. And, I'm not going to. I have identified the analytical conflict, and if you have followed me down this far, I invite you to look at the two "opposing" items linked here and see what you think. Thanks for listening.

Hi! I'm currently developing a small indie visual novel that I’m planning to release on itch.io, and I'm trying to understand how careful I need to be about copyright before releasing it.

For some of my assets, especially background images, I originally found images on Pinterest or other websites and I don't always know who the original creator is or what license the image has.

I usually don't use the image completely untouched. I might extend it, edit parts of it, add or remove elements, change the lighting/colors, combine it with other elements, etc. However, the original image is still used as the base.

I have a similar concern with music and sound effects. Most of my music comes from royalty-free sources, but I have quite a lot of assets in the project now and I'm not 100% sure that I can trace the original source/license for every single one.

How risky is it to release a free indie game on itch.io using images or music whose original source/license I can’t verify, even if I’ve significantly edited the images? What usually happens if the copyright owner notices, and would you recommend replacing all assets with unclear licensing before release?

I'm not trying to intentionally use someone's work without permission, I'm mainly trying to figure out how indie developers deal with this when a project has accumulated a lot of assets from different places.

I'd especially appreciate answers from developers who have actually released games on itch.io and dealt with asset licensing/copyright.

Hi all,

I have noticed many poetry accounts are doing readings of other poets (giving credit and all) and I was wondering if it is legal or what sircumstances make it legal. I want to also read poetry on my profile but don't want to step out if what is allowed. Yet cannot find anywhere what rules exist. I am in Europe, and laws might also be different. I am intereted in various languages, poets from various countries, and also translations of poems from/to english. Any advice is deeply appreciated!

Not sure this is the right subreddit for this, will also post in r/UKLegalAdvice. But figured someone might know? Burner account.

A few years ago we approached a company about a substantial detached outbuilding on our property in the North of England. They design these buildings and also supply the structural building package.

We chose one of their existing designs and signed an agreement allowing it to be released and used for planning purposes, including by the other professionals producing things like site/elevation drawings, drainage and landscaping. The agreement states that they retain copyright and that, if the design is built, we must purchase the structural package from them.

After signing, we paid them to make some relatively minor revisions for our site. We subsequently went through planning and permission was granted last year.

We weren't financially ready to build then, but are now. The problem is that their structural package has increased significantly in price since we started, well beyond inflation. We'd therefore like to consider different suppliers, materials or construction methods.

We've never signed an order for the actual building, so we're free to walk away and aren't obliged to buy anything further from them. However, if we walk away, we don't own the design we've now got planning permission for.

So we're trying to understand what we can actually do if we leave them but still want to build substantially the same building.

It's a fairly conventional building, nothing particularly architecturally distinctive, and our site is constrained enough that its position, dimensions, height, orientation and general form are largely dictated by what will fit and what we could get through planning.

The planning drawings are also publicly available on the council's planning portal.

My questions are:

• Could we point another manufacturer/architect at the public planning permission and ask them to independently design and engineer a building with the same external form and dimensions, perhaps changing the internal layout and using completely different materials/structural methods? They wouldn't receive any of the original company's technical or manufacturing drawings.
• How far does copyright over a relatively conventional building design actually extend? Is it the drawings themselves, the physical design/shape of the building, or both?
• If another company independently engineered essentially the same building, what claim could the original company realistically bring against us, and what would they need to show had actually been copied? Would the site/planning constraints, different internal layout, materials and structural design provide any meaningful defence?
• If we instead had another architect design something from scratch, how different would it actually need to be? There are only so many sensible designs for this particular site.
• Is there a legal difference between handing another manufacturer their drawings and saying "copy this", versus pointing them to the public planning permission and asking them to independently design and engineer something which achieves the approved building?

We've also considered offering the original company a reasonable amount for a one-off licence/release allowing us to construct this one building, without asking for any of their technical or manufacturing drawings. If they refused, does that have any relevance, or are they simply entitled to do so?

We accept that we signed the agreement and should have understood the copyright restriction better. We're just trying to understand whether walking away means effectively abandoning the building we've already spent several years getting planning permission for, or whether there's a legitimate route to having somebody else independently design and build it.

"Defendants Anthropic and its founders Dario Amodei and Benjamin Mann have conducted a brazen campaign of illegally torrenting, scraping, and downloading copyrighted works on a massive scale..." (Page 2)

"...Among the innumerable copyrighted works Defendants illegally harvested to fuel Claude are thousands upon thousands of Music Publishers’ copyrighted musical compositions, including such beloved songs as ... “Eye of the Tiger,” (Page 2)

https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/files/2026/08/COMPLAINT-in-Sony_Music_Publishing_US_LLC_e.pdf

Sony and Warner Music have sued Anthropic in California federal court for allegedly misusing their copyrighted song compositions to train its Claude AI models.

It's the second case against Anthropic. And I can't help but wonder - why only Anthropic? How about OpenAI, Google, Microsoft?

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/sony-warner-music-sue-anthropic-over-songs-used-ai-training-2026-08-31/

Hi I’ve been playing around with the idea of screen printing my own graphic tees as a hobby. So far I’ve just been making designs in ps and most of what I want to make involves movie characters and bands. Say for example I use an instagram post, still from a movie, or an image from a comic book as the base for my design, then print 1-2 shirts with that design at home on my own press. How deep into infringement am I? No sale or distribution of these items would be involved.

In the U.S., Universal and Sony’s suits remain active, seeking statutory damages that could run into the billions. Every one of those cases will now cite the Munich reasoning on jurisdiction and on what counts as an admission, which is what makes this ruling bigger than the six songs it was actually about. (Virginie Berger)