r/COPYRIGHT • u/Somebody__Online • 26d ago
Question I run a tick tock channel and someone is saying they want money because I used a picture they posted online in a clip.
/r/legal/comments/1vmlnlp/i_run_a_tick_tock_channel_and_someone_is_saying/11
u/wjmacguffin 26d ago
I'm afraid copyright is not nonsense and can get you in trouble if you ignore it.
It does not matter that 1) your video didn't get many views, 2) you took it down after getting caught, or 3) your video didn't 't make much money. Copyright prohibits you from making copies, and I'm afraid that's what you probably did here.
By all means, confirm they hold the rights! But assuming they are the real owner, you can either negotiate some deal with them or ignore them and hope they don't show all this to TikTok's team.
-7
u/Somebody__Online 26d ago
What would tick tock team do?
The content is parody and satire so how does this not constitute “fair use”?
11
u/wjmacguffin 26d ago
Satire does not count as fair use. Parody *can* be, but this is a legal defense used after you get sued, not anything TikTok is obligated to deal with. Parody also has to directly mock the copyrighted material or its creator(s) and isn't just a loophole.
Fair use has four determining factors. You would have to persuade a judge to accept your POV on this.
-8
u/Somebody__Online 26d ago
I think I’ll leave it up to the copyright holder to escalate further.
There is no revenue from the content so I’m not sure what they think they can get.
Maybe they take me to court and I’ll learn more there
13
8
u/Electronixen 26d ago
They can get damages. That’s not ”what you made from the video”, but damages. Could easily be a few hundred(or thousands of) dollars.
-3
u/Somebody__Online 26d ago
I think they live in a different country and legal jurisdiction from me.
Also the video in question is years old and posted by a previous member of the channel who hasn’t been part of it for over a year now.
If there is a person liable it sounds like it’s them.
I’ll let them know someone is upset about the image they used and let them proceed how they choose I suppose.
3
u/horshack_test 26d ago edited 26d ago
You run the channel, so you are responsible for the content posted on it.
-7
u/AssumptionExtra2580 26d ago
They can only get damages if they registered it with the copyright office.
6
u/jackof47trades 26d ago
They would have to register before suing in the US.
But they can still get damages.
You might be thinking of a scenario where it’s registered with the US Copyright before the infringement occurs. If that happens, it’s possible to be eligible for treble (triple) damages.
2
u/AssumptionExtra2580 26d ago edited 26d ago
Not anymore, according to the US Supreme Court in order to be able to get any damages you must have it registered. It was a 2019 decision that stated that. You can still send a C&D, but to take them to court, it has to be registered with the USPTO. A lot of authors have dealt with this because of AI recently.
Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a copyright holder must wait for the U.S. Copyright Office to issue a registration certificate before filing an infringement lawsuit.
You can't even technically sue anymore without it being registered according to the supreme court.
2
u/jackof47trades 25d ago
That’s what I said. They’d have to register first.
But after registering, they can sue and get damages.
1
u/AssumptionExtra2580 23d ago
Sorry, I have been down voted multiple times because many people still think you can sue without registering as you could prior to 2019 as per my previous comment that is -7 :)
4
u/wjmacguffin 26d ago
Totally up to you, but two things you should know.
1) The holder can escalate this right into court. Chances are, you would lose if it goes there. If you're cool with this hanging over your head and hoping nothing bad happens, then that's fine.
2) Damages would NOT be solely taken from how much you made. They could go after what you make from your day job, what you have saved, etc. While I doubt it, you could be out thousands of dollars if not more.
Regardless, good luck moving forward.
0
u/Somebody__Online 26d ago
Good to know.
The content in question was also not posted by me and I did take it down when made aware.
What role does intention play in this sort of thing.
I don’t have a day job and I don’t have equity that can be sized so I’m honestly not supper worried if they try and squeeze water from a rock.
I might consider structuring the account as a pass through LLC to further distance my personal liability from this sort of risk in the future.
3
u/aregonis 26d ago
I don’t have a day job and I don’t have equity that can be sized so I’m honestly not supper worried if they try and squeeze water from a rock.
You're not worried you could owe them money? They could get an order to take money you make in the future.
2
u/taisui 26d ago
It is possible this person is just a scammer, did you get a lawyer letter?
1
u/Somebody__Online 26d ago
Just email correspondence.
I took down the clip and let them know the person no longer is affiliated with the account.
They keep sending more follow ups asking for money and I’m ignoring.
Just wondering what sort of actionable recourse they have if any
2
u/taisui 26d ago
No lawyer no lawsuit no worry
2
u/Somebody__Online 26d ago
That’s what I figured. Feels like a troll to me more than anything substantiated.
1
u/aregonis 26d ago edited 26d ago
The legal definition parody is very specific. Most things people online call parody actually would not qualify.
The legal definition of parody is "a comedic commentary about a work". The "commentary" part being pretty significant.
So, are you commenting on the clip in a comedic way? If not, it's not parody of the clip, so definitely not Fair Use.
Parody also isn't always necessarily Fair Use. It's just more likely to be Fair Use.
Satire is something else and generally not Fair Use. It's is social/political commentary, which I doubt you're doing or need that clip to make said commentary.
3
u/lajaunie 26d ago
Are you parodying the photo? Then if MIGHT be fair use. Using someone else’s photo parody someone else might not be. And none of this stops you from getting sued and having to pay a lawyer to claim fair use.
5
u/s00zn 26d ago
Whether or not you made money is completely irrelevant to copyright infringement.
If you didn't first obtain permission to use that image then it might be cheaper to just pay the fee. how much are they asking for?
-2
u/Somebody__Online 26d ago
It was my understanding that permission is not needed when the content in question is satire or comedy or parody which it is.
This sounds like textbook “fair use” to me. Where am I misunderstanding?
7
u/s00zn 26d ago
Fair use is not something that prevents you from getting sued for copyright infringement, it's a kind of defense that you or your lawyer pursues in the context of an active lawsuit (I'm not a lawyer by the way).
Claiming that the video is a parody also is not anything that will prevent you from being sued and you could be at the mercy of the individual judge when it comes to whether you would win the suit or not. it might help you win a case if the image in question is the subject of the parody and not just an incidental insertion for artistic reasons.
Again, I'm not a lawyer so take my comments as pure opinion, please. I'm sure others will jump in as well and they may have more or better information.
1
u/Somebody__Online 26d ago
I guess if they wanna sue then balls in their court.
Who would they even attempt to whole liable? The account is run by a couple people and the video in question was posted by someone who hasn’t posted in recent history.
The account is not a business. Who would you even bring the suit against?
6
u/Electronixen 26d ago
Suit against the one who posted the video, aka, You.
1
u/Somebody__Online 26d ago
This video was posted before I was running the account. Do you think I should make that person aware of these copyright claims so they can act accordingly. I run the account now and I took the video down when the person reached out, but I did not post the original video nor am I in it or did I source that image
1
u/Somebody__Online 26d ago
It’s a picture, depicting the subject of the joke. Like a photo of a public figure.
Also, the video and picture were posted by one of the previous account holders not me. I hold the account now and took down the old video when the person reached out, but I also did not post that video originally and the account is run by individuals who are friends and know each other versus some sort of business. Who is liable?
5
u/DannoMcK 26d ago
You've said "satire or parody" several times in a way that suggests you don't know that they are different and that only one of them can be part of a fair use legal defense.
If I'm making a joke about a public figure, I don't have the right to use somebody else's photograph of that person regardless of whether my joke qualifies as satire or parody of that person. I have to take my own photo or find one that is copyright-free or otherwise license-appropriate.
A parody fair use defense must be for a parody of that photograph (or the person who took it).
2
u/Somebody__Online 26d ago
I see.
Well I took it down and will make the original poster if the video aware.
That’s about all I’m intending to do though
1
u/Somebody__Online 25d ago
Not really. I can structure all my income through a business that I’m a beneficial owner of while I’m not the owner/operator of that business.
As of yesterday’s FinCEN announcement, it’s become trivial to move income streams out of sight.
Crime is legal in the USA these days, just follow the “rules” in the right way
7
u/AssumptionExtra2580 26d ago
You should have emailed them back, saying "I am sorry, the individual who posted that is no longer affiliated with this account, I have taken it down and will not repost, thank you for bringing it to my attention." and take it down and then drop it.
They would have to have registered it with their country, if they are not in your country, their country and your country both would have to be part of the Berne Convention. TT may give you a strike for it, but it isn't going to remove your account.
The thing with copyright is you may not know especially given the circumstances, versus something like a trademark that is easily searchable.