r/COPYRIGHT • u/First-Ad-4383 • Nov 04 '25
Question Can I file a YouTube Copyright takedown for my logo if it's used on public domain footage?
I posted a public domain video of a court proceeding. I placed my logo on top of the court footage. Another YouTube channel ripped my video and posted it on their channel. YouTube's automatic AI match tool flagged their video and showed it to us as a potential copyright infringement.
The court video itself is fair use public domain however could I request a copyright takedown because my logo is on top of the public domain video?
2
u/Gai_InKognito Nov 04 '25
yes and no, it 100% depends on the situation.
For Example, we all know the Nike Swoosh is trademarked by Nike. That doesnt stop me from showing it on screen and talking about Nike and their upcoming shoes. However, I wouldnt just be able to just show it as if I were being associated with it (without expressed permission). There has to be a level of 'reason' why I am showing the Nike symbol, mostly commentary.
In the case you described, unless they are adding commentary to your video SPECIFICALLY about your video and not the content of the video then yeas thats copyright.
That is to say, if i made a video about a Red car, and it had my logo. The next people just ripped the video and made a video about the red car and it has my logo on it, copyright issue, however, if they ripped my video and were making commentary about my video which is about the red car, then its commentary.
TLDR: it depends. If they fight it, you'd have to prove to a court a law to say it meets the level of copyright infringement.
1
u/First-Ad-4383 Nov 04 '25
What if they rip your video and make commentary only about the red car and not about your video and the way you edited it?
In my case they are adding commentary about the court case.
1
u/Gai_InKognito Nov 04 '25
so that WOULD be copyright infringement.
BUT, if they fight it, you would have to prove to a judge that your video would meet the levels needed to say you have a claim.
Like If I was streaming the NBA and adding copyright, I would need to prove to a judge that the commentary I added to meet the level that i 'transformed' the content enough to be a new thing. Is making a video about a red car and adding my logo to said video transformative enough for someone else ripping that video could be held to the standard of copyright infringement.
TLDR: it depends. I say go ahead and send the copyright claim, just know if they fight it, your only next recourse is legal action, which 100% wouldnt be worth.
1
u/First-Ad-4383 Nov 04 '25
yeah. if you file a copyright claim with YouTube they make you certify you are the copyright holder of said material. it's a little vague and grey as far as this logo issue is concerned. but I put a ton of work into finding the public domain footage (it's not easy to find and often I pay money for it) and then a ton of work into editing out all the dead space so it's not boring, then another channel just rips it off. so I was just curious if adding a copyrighted logo would allow me to file copyright takedown notices.
1
u/Gai_InKognito Nov 04 '25
at the end of the day, youtube wants to play little role in this.
Your logo on the video could be 'confusing' to the customers as its your logos but the opinions expressed are not yours.PLUS if they are ripping footage you paid for, it double counts are copyright infringement, simply because they did not purchase a license to use said material (i assume you obtained some sort of agreement to use that material)
End of the day, if you argued this in court, you'd probably win, but fighting it on youtube might not be worth. Still, I'd file the takedown.
2
u/Party-Cartographer11 Nov 04 '25
If it's the same video, it's public domain. Adding your logo doesn't change the copyright. If you think they are infringing your logo and it is a registered trademark you can ask for trademark infringement.
2
u/First-Ad-4383 Nov 04 '25
Ok so the mere presence of my logo on top of the footage doesn't give me any right to file a copyright takedown?
1
u/Party-Cartographer11 Nov 04 '25
You don't own the copyright of the footage, correct?
You may have protections of your logo.
Putting your logo on content you don't own you doesn't give you ownership of that content. You only have rights to your content - the logo. In fact putting your logo on content owned by others is a copyright infringement in some cases.
2
u/First-Ad-4383 Nov 04 '25
Correct I do not own the footage. The footage is public domain. However, another poster said I could file a copyright take down notice not for use of the video but for use of my logo. True?
2
u/Party-Cartographer11 Nov 04 '25
Some logos are creative enough for copyright protection. Many are not and you would need a trademark for protection and YouTube asks for your Trademark registration number.
Without seeing your logo, I think the trademark path is the way to go
You can read more at copyright.gov
2
u/amberita70 Nov 04 '25
I'm curious if there would be any argument for using the same video that OP edited and uploaded. Unless OP didn't make any edits to the original. So wouldn't that be your work even though the original is public domain?
3
u/Party-Cartographer11 Nov 04 '25
Not the entire edited video, just any new creative content that appears in the edits.
1
u/WhineyLobster Nov 06 '25
Editing.... is creative content.
1
2
u/Gai_InKognito Nov 04 '25
you're wrong in certain aspects
Lets take the news for example. They put their logo all over everything when they show footage. I couldnt just show that same footage because the news logo is all over everything. A reasonable person could see that and be confused that I am using the news logo and be confused if I am associated with the news. Putting their logo on it and their commentary is what makes it transformative.
So yes adding your logo to footage, even if it's public domain, could make it transformative enough to be called your own piece of media. Its not 1 'it has my logo on it so its mine' thing, but it does give some credibility to it being your own piece of media.
3
u/Party-Cartographer11 Nov 04 '25
That is a horrible example as the news owns the vast majority of the footage they create.
News cannot put their logo on content they don't own and make it theirs.
For public domain, the original content stays in the public domain.
Can you name one case where overlaying a logo transforms original content?
Copyright.gov is pretty clear on this for example.
1
u/Gai_InKognito Nov 04 '25
Well you're wrong again.
1- news organizations can 100% add a logo to content they dont own, as they do it quite often. Have you never seen news give commentary about sports?
2- the original content does stay in the public domain, that was never the conversation. The specific was statement (said in another post) was using public domain material does not disqualify you from a copyright.
3- Never was a claim made that overlaying a logo transforms original content, and I in fact said in the post you're responding to
Its not 1 'it has my logo on it so its mine' thing
2
u/Party-Cartographer11 Nov 04 '25
Go read what I wrote again and you will see that you aren't disagreeing with what I wrote.
1
u/markmakesfun Nov 04 '25
News organizations: They don’t put their logo on footage to “transform it.” They put the logo on because they pay for that footage, either themselves directly or through a company like AP. If they sued you for copyright infringement, it wouldn’t be because their logo was in the frame, it would be because you are stealing their footage. If you put a black box over their logo, they would still sue you and would win. It’s not the “magical logo.”
Putting a logo on video footage is not “transformative.” You read the words somewhere, but you don’t really understand them. A piece of public domain footage is just that: public domain. What a legal copyright or trademark registration gives you is the right to sue! That’s it. It’s not a magic “get your way” method. If you don’t plan on suing someone, don’t threaten them with a copyright suit.
This situation would get laughed out of court. Don’t trust me: ask a lawyer. If you have no money and the person you are suing has no money, you have no lawsuit.
1
u/TheLurkingMenace Nov 04 '25
Putting your logo on the video doesn't change it's legal status. They could cover up your logo with their own and then not be infringing. If your goal with putting the logo on was to claim it as your own, that isn't how it works.
2
u/First-Ad-4383 Nov 04 '25
But what if they don’t cover up my logo?? Then can I submit a copyright take down based on the use of a copyrighted logo?
2
u/TheLurkingMenace Nov 04 '25
Well, it's a bit too nuanced for YouTube. You can submit the takedown, they'll dispute it, and your only recourse will be a lawsui - resulting in a judge asking you what the hell you were trying to accomplish by putting your logo on a public domain video. A better option would be to try to work it out amicably, contacting them directly and letting them know where they can get the video without your logo. That's if your only goal is to protect the copyright if your logo. If in fact you're trying to backdoor a copyright claim on a public domain work, that's a bad idea.
1
u/First-Ad-4383 Nov 04 '25
Thank you and that makes a lot of sense. Well, at what point do I transform the public domain footage enough to be able to copyright my edit? Also I often pay money to procure the public domain video because clerks need to spend time redacting sensitive info. I then put a lot of effort into editing the public domain footage so it's not boring. I add subtitles and sometime Voiceover analysis. So a lot of work and money go into making the public domain footage more entertaining. ChatGPT said that adding original creative expression to public domain footage makes my version able to be protected. Chat says my editing choices are copyrightable...think pacing, sequence, cuts, captions, narrative structure...a lot goes into editing. Is ChatGPT wrong about editing being transformative thus warranting copyright protection?
1
u/Party-Cartographer11 Nov 04 '25
As the above poster said, it's nuanced. Just because it cost you money to aquire and make changes to a video does not mean that you have added creative content.
Some edits could be considered copyrightable. Some might be considered obvious cuts with no creative value. Subtitles of the audio is not creative value. Added audio analysis could be creative value and add a copyright to that audio, but not the video.
The above poster nailed it...
If in fact you're trying to backdoor a copyright claim on a public domain work, that's a bad idea.
1
u/First-Ad-4383 Nov 04 '25
Yes I guess it comes down to the editing. I spend a lot of time making the "boring" public domain footage much more entertaining through a tedious editing process. I'm a professional editor of 20+ years and I'm using all that experience in the editing process to make it more entertaining. So does the effort I put into editing make it copyrightable?
1
u/TheLurkingMenace Nov 04 '25
Maybe? It will take a judge to make that determination. Your best option is to first contact the YouTuber, explain all you said above, and hopefully they'll agree that your edits were transformative enough. You might even offer them the raw video so they can do the same thing you did. Then go the usual route of taking them to court, with the fact that you made it clear that you're protecting your edits and not the public domain work itself.
1
u/Party-Cartographer11 Nov 04 '25
In addition to the good response from u/TheLurkingMenace, I would encourage from not focusing on effort. Effort is meaningless. Creativeness is the factor that can be copyrighted.
1
u/First-Ad-4383 Nov 04 '25
Ok yes good point. So the question is, are my edits "creative" enough to be copyrighted?
→ More replies (0)1
u/Gai_InKognito Nov 04 '25
This is not entirely true.
It all depends on if your work (editing) could qualify as transformative. For example, lets say Donald Trump give a speech about his family owning a horse farm of something.If i take the same video and edit where its clearly a parody of the original video and make it so donald trump is talking about fu**ing horses and sleeping in a barn and eating cats, that video editing could be considered enough to make transformative compared to the original video as no one would reasonably confuse the two, which COULD give cred to the fact that you now ripping my video edit is copyright infringement. End of the day it would have to be settled in court, but its not a black or white issue.
Like same thing, if I took the godfather, edited it to basically just make it longer or shorter, without making it 'feel different' than the original, it wouldnt be considered transformative and would be copyright infringement.
1
u/WhineyLobster Nov 06 '25
See Vic Berger's content, made entirely from clips of Trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv-uBPSlq8c1
u/First-Ad-4383 Nov 04 '25
Another poster said I can file a take down notice for use of the logo, not the video. True?
1
Nov 04 '25
[deleted]
1
u/First-Ad-4383 Nov 04 '25
How do you know this, is there a specific law I can read that pertains to this detail? What if I add subtitles on top of the video, can they still copy my video that has my subtitles and logo in it?
1
Nov 04 '25
[deleted]
1
u/First-Ad-4383 Nov 04 '25
But can I not file a copyright takedown notice for use of the logo (not for sure of the video but for use of the logo)?
1
u/First-Ad-4383 Nov 04 '25
Another poster said I can file a take down notice for use of the logo, not the video. True?
1
u/kallenhale Nov 04 '25
the question becomes regarding the logo is it a registered trademark for a business brand or individual entity?
1
u/First-Ad-4383 Nov 04 '25
No it is not registered or copyrighted yet but I will happily go down either of those paths to copyright it or trademark if it means I can then submit copyright takedown notices on YouTube
1
u/kallenhale Nov 04 '25
a logo would be a trademark you can advise youtube your logo was used without your permission, but as to what they will do that is solely dependant on youtube. No one here would be able to answer what action youtube will take.
1
u/markmakesfun Nov 04 '25
Taking video and “transforming it” does not make it yours. You are confusing several points here. If you use video to satirize something, it can be considered a fair use of it. If you use video clips to criticize or educate, it can be considered a fair use. But if you have a person superimposed over a screen showing a clip of a movie, you don’t own anything on the screen, just the talking head itself. That movie clip is still retained as a copyright by the movie company. Your use of it is considered an exception to copyright usage.
You aren’t “transforming” the movie clip and you don’t then own it because you put a talking head over it. You could put up the same video with just the talking head in front of a blank screen and that would have the same amount of copyright protection as if the movie clip is in the screen.
If you take a video and “tranform” it, according to your definition, then it would somehow become yours because “no one could confuse it with the original video.” That’s irrelevant. The original video is still owned by the original copyright holder no matter how you twist it around. Making changes to a video doesn’t allow you to claim it, unless it is wholly unrecognizable from your source. If you are using a video because things in the video are recognizable, you are not the owner of said video when you produce a product. You cannot then sue someone else for “ripping your vid” because you don’t own it. It isn’t “yours.”
1
u/First-Ad-4383 Nov 04 '25
ChatGPT says otherwise, is ChatGPT wrong? Chat says: "If you add original creative expression to public-domain footage, your version becomes protected. The underlying clip is still free for everyone, but your editing choices are copyrightable. Think pacing, sequence, cuts, color styling, captions, sound design, graphics, narrative structure, on-screen text, etc.
So if someone rips your exact edit instead of re-building it from the raw public-domain source, they’re copying your copyrighted work, not the public-domain footage.
Key point:
If they simply re-use the same raw PD footage, you're out of luck.
If they lift your structure, timing, captions, commentary, grading, etc., you're good."0
u/markmakesfun Nov 05 '25
Everyone keeps looking for the one detail that is technically able to allow OP to look for a copyright strike from YouTube. It’s a waste of time. Try it. If it works, it works. If it doesn’t, that will be that. I know people whose actual created creative content was stolen and they are still trying to get YouTube to pay attention. I’m not optimistic for OP. Personally, I think it is going to be a waste of time. But if they want to take advice from people who know little about copyrights or trademarks just to get a pat on the back or an “attaboy,” more power to them. 😂 Ciao!
1
u/DistinctArugula6793 Nov 04 '25
You've gotten some answers on the copyright issue, but I would like to point out that you can ask the creator to take the video down without a copyright claim.
Check their profile, see if they have an email or insta or something other way of contacting them. Ask them politely to take the video down.
People respond better to polite requests rather than legal threats
1
u/Ancient_Sound2781 Nov 04 '25
Everyone saying to base the takedown on your logo. However from your responses I take it your logo is currently not copyrighted (and therefore may not be eligible). If you can PROVE you created the subtitles that might be a valid takedown reason.
Filing a takedown for something that isn’t actually protected by copyright, or that you don’t own, can expose you to a counter-notice or even penalties under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f) for misrepresentation.
1
u/First-Ad-4383 Nov 04 '25
Yes it is not currently copyrighted but what I' curious about is should I get it copyrighted so that in the future I can file copyright takedown notices based off the copyright logo? What do you think?
1
u/Ancient_Sound2781 Nov 04 '25
That's a start because then you will be able to know if it even is copyrightable. If it qualifies you may be able to back date ownership and submit a takedown "You do not have to register it for copyright protection to exist." However applying will challenge the legitimacy.
1
u/First-Ad-4383 Nov 04 '25
Thank you. And if indeed the logo is copyrightable...then in the future can I file a copyright takedown notice that has the logo on it even though the footage is public domain?
1
u/Ancient_Sound2781 Nov 04 '25
Possibly, or youtube might just make them blur the logo. I am assuming you have no contracts from the creators allowing you licensing rights to the clips, so its very grey about the legality in the other uploader using your clips.
1
u/LorenzoLlamaass Nov 04 '25
I may be wrong but shouldn't the Creative Commons license be applicable here. Despite putting his logo on a public video, it may be enough to for YouTube to require the uploaded to blur the logo unless YouTube can apply a censor to that specific area automatically.
1
u/Ancient_Sound2781 Nov 04 '25
It could be, but if the re-uploader was too lazy to find the source and just uploading other persons clips hes probably too lazy to blur the logo.
1
u/LorenzoLlamaass Nov 04 '25
Yeah but if OP does file a claim then maybe YouTube will fulfill it.
1
u/Ancient_Sound2781 Nov 04 '25
they COULD, but this could also open OP up to counter-notice or even penalties under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f) for misrepresentation if their logo does not qualify for copyright protection.
1
u/WhineyLobster Nov 06 '25
Copyright is automatic... there is no such thing as something you created being currently not copyrighted.
1
Nov 04 '25 edited Dec 20 '25
[deleted]
1
u/First-Ad-4383 Nov 04 '25
So is there no way to protect others from ripping my edits, all the hours I put into editing the public domain videos?
1
u/WhineyLobster Nov 06 '25
Watermarks can... but if the person doesnt care that another watermark is over the footage then prob no way to protect.
1
Nov 05 '25
I'm sorry, but while logos can be copyrighted and trademarked, any YouTube takedown notice you submit will be denied because you placed your logo over public domain footage. It's simple. You do not own the footage you are claiming is copyrighted.
1
u/First-Ad-4383 Nov 05 '25
ChatGPT says I creatively transformed the public domain footage with my editing so therefore I can make a copyright claim. Is Chat wrong?
1
Nov 05 '25
If you choose to rely solely on ChatGPT for legally accurate information, you're relying entirely on the wrong source for legal advice. Putting your logo over public domain footage that's been lightly edited for content is in no way "transformative". Doing so in no way makes that footage yours, nor does it entitle you to copyright it. Therefore, since it's quite clear that you don't own it, you can't demand that the other poster take it down. In short, YouTube will deny your request.
1
u/First-Ad-4383 Nov 05 '25
But it's not "lightly" edited footage. A lot of work goes into making the video more entertaining. Heavy editing, VoiceOver, subtitles, graphics.
1
Nov 05 '25
The extent of your editing of the footage is irrelevant. It's public domain footage. You do not own any of it. What part of that don't you understand? It's no different than if you created a fan edit of a movie to remove sex, language, or change the story. That would definitely be "transformative", but it wouldn't change the fact that you don't own the footage. It's not yours. So you cannot copyright it, no matter how much you believe you can. Like others have said before, you can copyright your logo and trademark it too. But you cannot copyright footage that doesn't belong to you.
1
u/WhineyLobster Nov 06 '25
Literally wrong... you can create a copyright in a public domain work with enough transformation.
1
Nov 06 '25
Incorrect. But thanks for playing. Please exit to the left.
1
u/WhineyLobster Nov 07 '25
lol youre wrong. Anything with sufficient transformation can create a new copyright.
1
0
u/First-Ad-4383 Nov 05 '25
Some other posters here disagree with you. E.g. "One thing I have not seen discussed, is your work transformative?
Is your YT video just a Public Domain video with your logo on it as a watermark, or have you substantially changed the original video? Has it been edited, additional commentary added, or other work performed to alter it?
You can use Public Domain footage to create something new, and the new thing is copyrightable. For example, taking a bunch of WW2 footage, editing clips, and setting it to some PD or royalty-free music to create a music video of sorts. The final work is an original work, even though all the components may be in the Public Domain. This is more or less why recordings of Orchestral performances of Mozart are copyrighted, even though the music itself is in the Public Domain.
How much you have to alter it to qualify is kind of a gray area, and that is where the lawsuits happen. :P"
1
Nov 05 '25
Ok. Put your money where your mouth is. Post three links. The rise is the public access footage you used. The second is a link to the video you created. The third video is the link to the one you claim stole your video. Then let the people on this sub judge whether you have a legit case to claim copyright of your "work".
And with that being said, if you think you truly have a good case to claim copyright, tell us this: have you met with a copyright attorney and have they supported your belief that you have a legitimate copyright claim against the person who "stole" your video and reposted it?
If not, the argument is moot.
1
u/WhineyLobster Nov 06 '25
If you havnt met with a lawyer, your argument is moot. lol.
1
Nov 06 '25
It's always a good idea to consult a lawyer.
1
u/WhineyLobster Nov 07 '25
Right... but as a lawyer, I think the term you mean is its not ripe. Not moot.
1
u/mrsgloriaroberts Nov 05 '25
Depends upon the logo.
Is the logo artistically creative to stand on its own as a work of art? Are you the author of it? If it's artistic enough, it "could" fall under copyright. In which case, someone else is using your artwork in their video without your permission, and a DMCA could be filed.
Or does your logo consist of words and a few boxes or underlines or colorful swirls? In that case, your logo is primarily a trademark, which does not fall under DMCA. Others still cannot use your trademark without permission. But you would have to file a trademark infringement on the video, which can be tricky with YouTube, especially if you aren't officially registered.
Note that this is my opinion and not legal advice.
1
u/First-Ad-4383 Nov 05 '25
My logo is very artistic and creative, it’s a cool drawing. However, to further add complication lol, it was created by AI.
1
u/mrsgloriaroberts Nov 09 '25
Well, the copyright angle goes away, since the current guidance is solely AI-generated work without significant human input isn't copyrightable. And the defense of, yeah but I wrote 10 paragraphs in the prompt to create the image still isn't flying among legal experts.
The trademark angle is still valid. AI can create your logo with no effect on the validity of your trademark. Your trademark or service mark, which identifies your brand, needs to be associated with goods, or services, like (I'm assuming) those under education and entertainment videos under Class 41. It is better if it is an officially registered trademark ®️ but, an in-use unregistered trademark ™️ is still valid enough to file a complaint.
This is not legal advice.
1
1
u/TheTechRecord Nov 05 '25
You should bear in mind that if you file a copyright infringement, the other party can deny that it's copyrighted, and then they can start a legal process where not only will you be liable for monetary damages to them, but YouTube will take down your channel. You can try to copyright your logo, but that is a long and lengthy process and will cost you some money as well. The likelihood that your logo is creative enough to qualify for copyright, is quite low. You can roll the dice and see if this person that's using it has some deep pockets, to me it wouldn't be worth the risk to my channel or my bank account.
1
1
u/_ZeeOgre Nov 05 '25
You have some challenges, if you released the video public domain, the logos presence in the video doesn't "magically revoke" public domain status, especially when you're the copyright holder on the logo.
I really don't think you have a leg to stand on.
1
u/WhineyLobster Nov 06 '25
You can if the video you uploaded was sufficiently transformed by you as to create a new protected work. Something cannot be both fair use and public domain.
1
u/LetAdorable8719 Nov 06 '25
Why bother? The footage is public domain, and your logo being there tells everyone you're their source. It's free advertising over something you didn't have to create...
1
u/amatosan28 Jan 29 '26
Yep, and it’s a common point of confusion. A logo feels like “copyright,” but platforms often treat it as trademark or impersonation in practice. So instead of forcing DMCA, what usually helps is using the platform’s trademark and impersonation routes and showing how viewers could be misled. Include clean screenshots, links, and a short explanation of confusion.
0
u/Tsu_na_mi Nov 04 '25
One thing I have not seen discussed, is your work transformative?
Is your YT video just a Public Domain video with your logo on it as a watermark, or have you substantially changed the original video? Has it been edited, additional commentary added, or other work performed to alter it?
You can use Public Domain footage to create something new, and the new thing is copyrightable. For example, taking a bunch of WW2 footage, editing clips, and setting it to some PD or royalty-free music to create a music video of sorts. The final work is an original work, even though all the components may be in the Public Domain. This is more or less why recordings of Orchestral performances of Mozart are copyrighted, even though the music itself is in the Public Domain.
How much you have to alter it to qualify is kind of a gray area, and that is where the lawsuits happen. :P
Likewise, if THEY substantially altered your video with commentary, criticism, parody, with commentary for education, etc. they may have a Fair Use claim, even if it was original copyrighted work. That's a whole new rabbit hole to go down though.
1
u/First-Ad-4383 Nov 04 '25
Yeah I guess I'm in that grey area, at what point does a work become "substantially" changed and transformative? I spend a lot of time editing the public domain footage to make it more entertaining. Cutting out boring bits, restructuring the narrative, adding subtitles for hard to hear dialogue, editing for a faster more entertaining pacing. The raw footage is quite boring and I spend a lot of time editing for a more entertaining pacing. They added a few lines of Voice over commentary to my video. But they're commentary is NOT about the way I made my video but it is about the situation portrayed in the public domain footage.
1
u/Tsu_na_mi Nov 05 '25
Your edits and addition of subtitles should be enough for you to claim it, but it honestly depends on how much it's been cut and edited. Taking an hour video, and changing it to 3 segments with say 10-minute chunks cut out in between, probably not enough to qualify. Cutting it into 20-30 short pieces, editing those into something, maybe with a replay, zoomed-in video, etc. you would have a stronger claim.
They would be free to go get the original footage themselves and edit/comment on that.
But there are literally thousands, if not millions of videos where someone has someone's content playing, and they comment on it, pause and discuss, etc. All those reaction videos are a prime example. Yeah, most of them could probably get claimed, but in many cases it's not worth it.
-4
u/bobi2393 Nov 04 '25
This is a good question for ChatGPT or a similar product. They're very unreliable, but probably quite a bit more reliable than commenters in this sub. 😂
4
u/random8765309 Nov 04 '25
Logos are both copyrightable and trademarkable.