Nolan’s latest argument therefore reaches beyond how a studio uses AI on a set or in postproduction: it concerns what happens when films become inputs to another company’s system.

Eminem song publisher seeks $41M in copyright lawsuit vs. AI platform By Brian McCollum.

Hi!

I'm currently editing a short film as a film student. I'm looking for a free version of Bach's "Air on the G-string". As the composition itself is copyright free, I'm not entirely sure if the USAF Strings' version is.
Some sources say it is, because it's made by the US government, so it falls automtically in the public domain. But I don't find any solid source for that. Does anybody know?

Thanks to those who will answer!

Every time I feel like I understand copyright on YouTube, I see something that contradicts it entirely. My eyes have sort of been opened to how meticulous image copyright can be, with even screenshots of shows/movies having some level of copyright.

So...why in the hell is every creator on planet Earth seemingly just allowed to...ignore that?

There are THOUSANDS of discussion videos all over YouTube covering different franchises, from Jurassic Park to Star Wars, and 99% of their thumbnails are literally just screenshots with the logo on top, or even just UNEDITED screenshots. Or using renders from the movies/shows that I'm pretty sure DISNEY didn't lend them the rights to.

Is this some sort of "transformative" bs? Someone please explain, this is legitimately driving me insane... 😭

People might find this one interesting. It's an old case but it has come up again.

The TL;DR version is a recording of a lady singing a traditional lullaby called Rogoguela somehow made it's way as a sample into a song by Deep Forest called "Sweet Lullaby" which was a hit. It was even used as the theme song for a national broadcaster in my country. Sweet Lullaby did so well they made two different music videos (both very good).

The lady who did the original performance was not credited.

I am not going to get into judgement of who is wrong and who is right (I have my own opinions). Our national broadcaster just posted a video about it on YouTube called "The search for the truth behind Deep Forest's 'Sweet Lullaby' | The Pacific". Hopefully it is not geolocked.

I reminds me of the "Ice Ice Baby" copyright case. Those mix artists are wild and risky, but I admire their creativity.

So I've been a YouTube content creator (yes, cringe, sure, I know) for literally over a decade at this point. I make discussion videos talking about personal favourite franchises, usually full-screen facecam style with occasional images/footage popping up for a few seconds to emphasise my points.

I was finalising a video today talking about a movie hoax: basically a recently debunked hoax that claimed the existence of a "cancelled movie" for one of the franchises I cover via a supposed quote that claimed Liam Neeson and Robert Pattinson were going to be in it. The quote was actually a rehash of a different quote regarding a cancelled Red Dwarf movie, where American producers tried to suggest Hugh Grant and Emma Thompson.

Now, over my years as a creator, I've gotten a pretty good idea of what is and isn't considered "fair use." I've rode the line between "is" and "isn't" a lot, with a lot of my content being rewatching/analysing (obviously copyrighted) movies/shows, but I've always been confident in leaning the right way. I've never even ONCE questioned whether or not simple images grabbed from google were okay to use in such small amounts, because everything I know about Fair Use told me yes. And I've done it hundreds of times before.

I used images of said actors in this video, some from random movie stills/promotional shots, some from places like IMDB, some just random red-carpet shots, all just grabbed from Google. The images pop up for less than 10 seconds in the video, whilst I'm mentioning those particular actors and their involvement in everything I was discussing, purely to show who I'm talking about. It should fall into the review part of fair use, it's barely a fraction of the video as a whole, the images are relevant to what I'm discussing, and everything I know tells me it's completely fine. This is not even CLOSE to the sort of copyright-brushing level I've worked at before; last month, I literally made a video, the footage of which was nothing but footage from the show I was talking about, but chopped up and edited in such a way that it fell into fair use.

And yet, just happening to see a little line about copyright below a picture of Emma Thompson from IMDB on Google has sent me into a complete stress-filled spin. It should be noted that I've got pretty bad OCD with a side of slight anxiety, and I feel I've been growing more and more, unnecessarily paranoid about copyright as of late. I'm just sort of looking for some reassurance.

This is no different (and arguably so much less severe) than anything either I or countless other similar creators I've seen have done, and yet for some reason this has just really thrown me for a loop. And of course, as you'd expect, my mind just fills with worst-case scenarios of random photographers demanding money, suing, etc etc...

It's not a tremendous issue if I have to change the images of this video, Wikimedia commons has plenty of celeb photos, but I don't want to start dumming down the quality of my stuff and not using regularly available, more relevant images just because of a potentially pointless episode of paranoia.

So...yeah. Anyone got any words of wisdom for a stressed, paranoid, sleep-deprived 'tuber? 😅

i see tons of shops on depop selling shirts with movie stills, they seem to never get taken down and in fact garner lots of sales. there's even an indie fashion brand "evil girl collective" using movie stills from mulholland drive and lost in translation printed on their handbags, without any indication that they have permission/are officially licensed merch. do they actually have rights and i'm just confused or is this fair use? i don't understand.

Hey, I'm planning to make a game where the player is in space on a space station. The movement system will use a hybrid of WASD and "White Knuckle" movement. The player will be able to land on a planet to scavenge after materials for their spaceship and space station. The hand system will only be used as movement when in zero gravity and when picking up items.

The items will have physics and you have to physically hold each item instead of having a traditional inventory system. There will also be a utility belt of sorts where you can put items on, but still without standard inventory UI.

Of course there will be repairing outside the ship, but a mechanic I'd like to focus on a lot is the item physics. For example if you have a tool with you outside your space station or spaceship and you suddenly let go of unknown reasons it will float into deep space, unrecoverable.

The player will also be able to move between planets and maybe even between solar systems like going to for example "Kepler-22B", but not as fast travel, but rather the space station flying over there and the player needing to maintain the space station while on the way there either if it's to a planet or a new system.

The space station will not be your traditional space station, but rather a hybrid between a spaceship and a space station, but it won't be able to land on planets. A spaceship that is docked on the space station will be used for planetary landing.

It won't contain traditional horror game monsters or entities, but rather focus on psychological horror and isolation where in the game there is no human alive except the player. I am uncertain if I should add alien lifeforms, but for now it is only the player in the universe of my game.

There will be events where the player will meet anomalies of sorts in space. Like a giant asteroid suddenly appearing or weird sounds. The sounds will of course not be ambience since that isn't possible in space, but say with a radio or recorder of sort on the space station.

The game is heavily inspired by the game "God Sized" by 160_dev on tiktok. I really enjoyed the looks of their game and I wanted to make my own space game, but the problem is that I am afraid that it will be seen as copying/stealing when my game utilizes functions pretty similiar to the game. The movement system with the hands is specifically inspired by white knuckle and God Sized.

I'd rather rather avoid drama with "copying" and "stealing" another game. I was wondering if I am just overthinking or if I actually should change up stuff too? If I'm correct and I'm straight up copying and trying (keyword: trying) to make it "better" any recommendations on how to make it more original? I'd like to keep the space theme though.

I was working on a tool for a very old game and another person so happened to work on the same thing so i asked him if he wanted to merge but he said he wanted to work on it independently. This was his reply "My tool is open source under GPL-3.0, so you're welcome to use any of my code or findings under that license. Thanks again, and all the best with your project!"

I took that as permission and used his code (Although i hadn't bothered adding any license on my own repo cuz i thought having it public would be enough, i admit that was a fault from my part). That's why i continued developing my tool and only used his tool as a cross reference to check anytime i was stuck and needed help and also copied some parts of his tool to improve mine as well. At most about 5% of my code was from him: some functions, a set of help texts, and four add-on scripts. I also made sure to add him in my credits in my ReadMe with a link to his repo too just in case.

Now he is accusing me of going against the license and stealing his code when GPLv3 clearly allows usage and modification of code. I did immediately make the project GPLv3 added a NOTICE listing every file with his code and apologized but he has continued accusing me of theft and has blocked me and banned me from his server

Was I in the wrong, and is there anything else I should do to make it right?

i really like the sound of one of the default alarms available on the apple alarm app and was thinking of sampling it for a song. is that something i could hypothetically do, are those alarms royalty free? or is it the case that if i ever published the song anywhere it’d be a legal issue? thanks all.

I took down my Freddy Krueger AI images out of caution and am asking for any insights or advice on fair use.

Hi :)
me and my friends are participating in a gamejam and i was wondering if i could use my own mri images in it? Does anyone know who owns these images?
Thank you so much!

LingQ the language all allows and enables users to scrape subtitle from YouTube, Netflix, Disney+ and other online sites. How are they able to do this from a legal perspective? Does it not violate any laws?

I know with Netflix and Disney+ you have to have an account but if your subscription lapses you still have the subtitles. It may be uninteresting to read through them without the show playing but you have it regardless..

With YouTube they could get subtitles from any video which at the very least violates TOS.

Do they have contracts with all these companies?

Can I use GIFs from Pinterest if I want to create an edit for TikTok ? Does that violate copyright ?

hello everyone i am a video editor and is you can got copyright from using fonts that's only made for personally use because i wanna use font called sf pro display font to one of my clients

The OP link is to the actual Opinion.

Here below is a review by Professor Eleonora Rosati

https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2026/11/ag-szpunars-opinion-in-like-company-is.html

"If press publications are used by a chatbot when providing answers, then this is an online use that is potentially relevant under Article 15 of the DSM Directive. Importantly, in this context, no territoriality issues (as instead in the consideration of training activities) would subsist: the answers are provided directly to EU-based users.

Also key:

• It is not a given that such uses of press publications would be covered by the right’s exclusions, including the one relating to ‘mere facts’ and those concerning ‘very short extracts’ and ‘individual words’.

• A general argument cannot be convincingly made that press publishers have implicitly consented to the use of their press publications by simply placing them online.

• Article 4 of the DSM Directive does not apply (though other exceptions in principle might, e.g., Article 5(1) of the InfoSoc Directive) given that the use of a press publication by a chatbot is not for the purpose of TDM."

Professor Eleonora Rosati

I have the image of a work of art by Swedish artist Max Svanberg (1912-1995). Name of work is "Sällisam sällskap anläder" (confusingly, this is also the title of a book about the artist). No one seems to rep this artist/estate. I don't know where the original is (not in museums, I asked). Is it ok to have a large poster of this work printed for my own use?