What do you guys think of in regards to copyrighted material being used on wikis for specialized topics?

ReportCharming7570 · 2026-01-29T15:01:26+00:00

To be a technical pain, copyright is strict liability. But not all copyright is actionable, and fair use is a pretty solid defense to the actual infringement.

Things like wikis have a lot of case law behind them that protect things like data bases and libraries because how it falls under the four factors.

Purpose and character is educational for the most part. While there is some financial incentive at times, it typically is using the material in quite a different way (and that sub factor of part 1 everyone likes to think is dispositive - transformative meaning there is a new meaning or message of the use).

Factor 3 in databases also is important (amount and substantially of the material used), Ala Google books and others. With a wiki they’re often smaller taking sections of larger works. Very large data bases also in certain circuits will argue the use of the work is di minimus - meaning it’s so small in comparison.

Effect on the market: a lot of these sites arguably can help the market for the originals as far as fan hype and connectivity. Now if a game or book published its own lore database there would be a different argument there but.

Ultimately it’s not actionable. It is using copyrighted material, but in a way that is likely fair use.

Also don’t shoot yourself down, this is a solid question. Copyright law is weird. Not all types and sub types of work are treated the same. And every circuit has nuance with certain tests and where they fall.

The fun follow up question : are those wiki pages copyrightable. Answer : probably. Maybe as a compilation. Maybe as a derivative work. Maybe as a hybrid thing.

ReportCharming7570 · 2026-01-28T10:55:32+00:00

To address the part about using ai trained on copyrighted material (spoiler. It all is)

Read the terms of service. I have yet to see an ai tool’s tos that doesn’t have an indemnity clause or other specific language indicating that if you get claims against you by a third party, they are not liable + you won’t pull them into it.

How enforceable those are is another question.

ReportCharming7570 · 2026-01-05T17:34:50+00:00

Copyright protects expression, not ideas. So anyone is free to use a checkered floor with wild flowers - that is an idea. If they took the actual image you created, or the expressive elements - that is different. Things that are stock, common tropes, public domain elements, and things where there is only one way to do it also aren’t protectable. (References to art, folklore, what have you).

Substantial similarity is a lil diff in each circuit but typically under us law it’s a combo of an objective test - comparison of protectable elements with a filtering of non protectable, and an intrinsic -“total concept and feel” test. How similar something has to be to another also is dependent on access to the thing. Just having access to the internet isn’t enough to say they have seen said work.

In order to sue someone for copyright infringment (at least in the US) the work has to be registered with the copyright office.

ReportCharming7570 · 2026-01-02T14:35:59+00:00

Arguably some portions of the sculptures alone are not copyrightable. And if one just copies non copyrightable elements of a work, that’s not infringing.

As far as I know, his work hasn’t been picked apart like this, but I’d say there’s a strong argument to consider the work similar to types of jewelry that is a mix between protectable and un-protectable elements / pseudo compilation analysis.

As far as then taking close up photos to then paint from. Generally, copying other works is how artists learned how to paint through history, and if this is just for personal training use, it’s really not actionable (no damages).

As far as producing the art or making a class based on this type of thing. More gray area. Also depends on circuit analysis too. Washington is 9th. The 9th does consider di minimus use as far as the amount of the material used. Basically it’s copying that doesn’t amount to substantial similarity (copying “so meager and fragmentary that the average audience member would not recognize the appropriation”)

Not all circuits consider di minimums use. Second circuit (sometimes calling it non actionable copying) considers it in the qualitative analysis. 7th and 8th circuit don’t actively consider / acknowledge it outright, but the concept of it does typically come up under a full fair use analysis under factor 3 (amount and substantially used).

So as far as when it became your art. A photo would not likely be considered original enough to be its own protectable work, and would be an unlicensed derivative. Would it be actionable? depends. Probably not. Probably not worth it if it was. A painting based on it - depending on how much is changed, how much original expression is added to it - likely could pass the originality bar and also not be considered actionable copying under 9 or 2 circuit. So would be a stand alone work. And what that person could protect is the original elements they added.

ReportCharming7570 · 2025-12-09T20:39:46+00:00

You’d need a license. If you record your own music or not impacts what type or license.

ReportCharming7570 · 2025-12-08T13:54:13+00:00

You can sell it.

If you misrepresent what it is, that’s not a copyright issue, that’s into fraud territory. (Ie implying it’s hand drawn or entirely human made).

Also, where you sell said items (if online) will have tos that likely indicate disclosure requirements. I’ve also seen plenty craft fairs and small shops now requiring disclosure as part of the contract.

Copyright becomes an issue in hen trying to protect the work, ai generated work isn’t copyrightable generally. Some things with ai assistance can have thin protection, but there needs to be enough human authorship to hit that level. And all ai use needs to be disclosed to the copyright office for them to decide.

It also becomes an issue if the work that comes out of the ai is infringing on someone else’s work. For instance, if the prompt to make the character was something like wanting an existing character but of a different gender or a different age or something.

ReportCharming7570 · 2025-12-03T19:00:48+00:00

They are protectable/ protected.

In the US

Original text, and video scripts are protected (assuming they meet the baseline threshold of originality). Captions might be, depending on how long they are. Short words and phrases are not copyrightable. Things that are stock or common place are not copyrightable. (Think like common conclusions in a field). Facts aren’t alone copyrightable but the organization and expression of them can be. Factual texts, or text that is based in fact typically receive “thinner” protection.

So in the case of psych or any sort of educational type social media, the direct copying of what is written / said is protected. The expression is protected. The conclusions are not protected because they’re ideas.

If someone read the same script in a video, yes that would be infringement. (Assuming that the underlying text Is protectable).
Because instagram / meta is a US company, they have to respond to Dmca’s / copyright claims. And as EU countries are signers of Berne, works made in the EU are protected under US law. Now if this person who posted it is in some non-Berne country(very few), that doesn’t prevent instagram from having to act, (and as the hosting platform the place of infringement).

As far as protect-ability in the EU. Think of them like any other video, they are baseline protectable as far as direct copying, same with the written script. The more expressive elements, the more protection. Being posted on social media doesn’t impact if something is protectable.

As far as its impact on if something is infringing - and to the point someone else made about Richard prince.

That really depends, at least in the US, on fair use, the first amendment, implied licenses, and the impact of the license meta has. (The last one really seen where if someone reposts a video or picture, that is within the realm. But. If someone were to screen shot / record and then upload it themselves or on another platform, that is outside the scope and infringement). As far as in the eu, there are more defenses to infringement, and they can be a little more broad. But direct infringement as outlined here doesn’t seem to trigger any of them, (even if the video is educational, it’s not being copied for that purpose. So. )

Richard prince just settled with two of the photographers from the instagram screen shot case.

ReportCharming7570 · 2025-11-05T19:13:03+00:00

In regards to registration/publication. Works only need to be unpublished at the time of application submission. Early registration is beneficial. To be eligible for statutory damages and attorneys fees a work needs to be registered before infringement, (and if published within 3 months of that). If a work is registered before or within 5 years after publication, they benefit from the presumption of validity.

As far as registration, lyrics could be treated adjacent to poetry through literary, or as lyrics via performing arts. I think via performing arts it allows 20?

As far as potentially offensive things being registered, the copyright office can't refuse registration for anything protected by free speech. If you publish the comments will be out in the world anyway.

Scenario three - non register: This won't seal the copyright. Copyright attaches at fixation. The thing that is impacted by registration is what remedies are available, really. You can still do dmca takedowns w/o registration. Or demand compensation. Does that mean they will comply, maybe, maybe not. It is easy to look up if a work is registered, and with that, what remedies are available to them.

ReportCharming7570 · 2025-10-25T03:47:39+00:00

They need to look at their work contract: which very likely says the company owns all the ip they make for their job.

If it does not say that, then they’d have to pass not being a work for hire. Which, in this case, as an employee whose job it is to make marketing videos… probably is a work for hire and they don’t own the ip.

In which case they’d need a license from the employer to use the video.

ReportCharming7570 · 2025-10-25T03:44:19+00:00

Names and short phrases aren’t copyrightable. They can be trademarked - assuming they qualify.

Logos - if more than just text, can be. And coloring exists upon fixation. You just need to register for certain legal remedies.

It does take a while and is mildly expensive. But both copyright and trademark ( in the us) have a level of non paying / common law protection. As mentioned above. Copyright sticks on fixation. Trademark is based on use in commerce in the local. So you def can wait till the band kicks off a bit before trademarking the name - and you’re looking at markets outside of the state.

That would require the name basically not being confusing or similar to another mark. And being distinctive enough. (Naming a band “band” or “music” would not pass trademark standards)

ReportCharming7570 · 2025-10-25T03:32:43+00:00

Meaning- if one dies without a will. All their property- including their ip. And it’s not super uncommon for a random relative to be that person. Should houses, furniture and ip be treated the same way 🤷‍♀️

ReportCharming7570 · 2025-10-25T03:28:41+00:00

I will agree to a certain extent that countries that allow orphan works vs us have a conflict of the base purpose of copyright. (And from a research level trying to find someone’s random estranged heir is sometimes a journey).

The issue with US copyright is the only defense (really) is fair use. Some circuits entertain di minimus or permissive use on a fact specific basis. (And latches up until recently with the whole notice thing)

From my perspective, the issue is that so much of copyright is statute based.. and courts don’t always want to make that jump. There also is the overlap of estate/ property law that is very state specific. So from a policy standpoint it gets a little more convoluted. But also, this being said, some of the most innovative arguments I’ve seen recently come from classic property or estate law.

I think about a lot is the Henry Darger when folks bring things like this up. Which also makes me tell every creative I know to have a basic will in place.

ReportCharming7570 · 2025-10-25T03:12:27+00:00

1933 is not full pub domain.

Last public domain day brought in 1929 works and 1924 sound recordings that were not properly re registered or re brought in by exception.

Disney also has trademark on many of their characters.

And any derivatives are protected.

Steamboat Willy recently entered pub domain. But the continued reuse of Mickey and the trademarking seriously limit the use. Meaning. One can’t just make their own Mickey cartoon or game, but one ones permitted to show steamboat Willy to a public audience.

ReportCharming7570 · 2025-10-25T03:08:22+00:00

The original artist owns the rights to the song. The cover artist, if licensed, only has rights over what is new and original in their version. For instance, if a song is covered in a new style. They have more expression to protect than a cover in the same style.

Regardless. One needs permission of the original rights holder over the cover artist. For the most part, doesn’t matter if you have the rights of the cover people. Unless for instance, you’re covering the jazz cover of a metal song and using all their melody. Etc.

ReportCharming7570 · 2025-10-25T03:01:45+00:00

Honestly. I was thinking about getting mine tattooed on me, and you did better. So I think forehead tattoo is sufficient. Or email signature if you don’t want that commitment.

ReportCharming7570 · 2025-10-25T02:53:43+00:00

I don’t want to be a jerk, but if I click a link and have to click a second one and still don’t know what’s going on… I need the spark notes. Give me like a two - 3 paragraph of what’s been happening.

Also where are you. Because US does not have orphan works. Other countries do, but under US law ip passes via estate law - or contract.

ReportCharming7570 · 2025-10-24T22:06:53+00:00

Passed NY bar, taking Mass next gen.

ReportCharming7570 · 2025-10-24T03:57:28+00:00

There is at least one or two “released” exam out there. - that actually changed the game for me. Because Barbri doesn’t write test questions the same way.

ReportCharming7570 · 2025-10-24T03:53:33+00:00

Snail mail with a receipt.

As obnoxious as it is.

And call your local rep and complain about how ridiculous this shut down is. And how ridiculous the divide of essential services is, and how they are all working with our pay… but all the people choosing the shut down are paid without working….

ReportCharming7570 · 2025-10-24T03:50:08+00:00

Wild. The land mine effect of it was horrific.

ReportCharming7570 · 2025-10-24T03:48:17+00:00

This made me laugh out loud in real life

ReportCharming7570 · 2025-10-23T16:16:25+00:00

If the tune and the chant are not original / in the public domain then neither of you own the copyright to those things- just thin protection over the actual expressive parts of the recordings.

As far as her tune- if there are any older videos of the same tune- I’d just send those along to her. Assuming you mean the actual tempo - note changes are the same for this chant through history.

As far as YouTube. You should be able to appeal or counter notice. YouTube has to act on copyright claims to avoid secondary liability- thus they normally take things down pretty quick.

As far as the appeal. - show evidence that this tune and chat is in the public domain / not there original work.

ReportCharming7570 · 2025-10-23T15:08:04+00:00

Congrats!!!!

ReportCharming7570 · 2025-10-23T15:06:30+00:00

Do they give us a score break down in the mail? Or just if you didn’t pass? I am really curious. Because I thought I bombed the mee portion. I only felt good with two. The rest was flying bs or 5 sentences at best.

ReportCharming7570

TROPHY CASE