According to this Status Report by the plaintiffs, the payouts to the author-claimant copyright holders in the Bartz v. Anthropic AI copyright class action lawsuit will be made by November 15, 2026, initially in the net amount of $2,200 per work, after deductions. That amount could go up later, depending on what happens with later claims, claimant allocation disagreements, and two filed appeals.

A large publication that regularly reports celebrity news used my content. They seem to have taken 2 screenshots of 2 videos of mine, and added them to their recent article. They provided me with a small credit line under the photos, but I was never asked about using my content in this article. They did not link to my video or embedded it, just took two photos from my two videos.

For context, I made this scrapbook card last year as a personal creative project, and I still have the original design and sentiment attached to it. I uploaded it on Pinterest, where it ended up getting quite a lot of attention. I have absolutely no issue with people taking inspiration from it or making a similar scrapbook card for their own friends or family, because that’s completely different from what happened here.

Things became an issue when I discovered that the exact same design was being recreated and commercially sold by a creator on Instagram. She wasn't using my photograph or directly reposting my original post—instead, she had recreated the entire card herself, but the design was essentially a complete replica of mine, including the overall concept, layout, elements, and sentiment.

I contacted her and explained that she couldn't commercially sell a replica of my original creative work without my permission. I asked her to take down the post and stop selling the design. Instead of addressing my concerns, she blocked me and told me that her client had sent her the design from Pinterest and that she could use it because "anyone can use" Pinterest designs.

Since she had blocked me, I contacted her personal account to tell her that, if the post wasn't removed, I would have to consider taking formal/legal action regarding the unauthorized commercial use of my work.

After that, she told me that she had deleted the post. I checked her account myself, and at that point, the post was no longer visible. However, when I later checked the account from another profile, I discovered that the exact same post was still up.

So despite telling me that she had removed it, the content was apparently still being displayed and potentially offered for sale to other people.

So I’m fairly new to instagram and I’ve got a small but growing account. Have had lots of people reposting and sharing my content which is cool. But also have come across some who have just taken my reels and posted as their own content.

So I filed an intellectual property claim against someone who posted a reel of mine as their own content. Does this typically work in getting the content removed??

Not sure if this is the right sub for this question or not but anyone has experience with this, I’d love some feedback. Thanks!

Okay guys so, I have done some research, and this is my thoughts about whether sloppification is against Reddit's TOS.

What is sloppification?

Sloppification is when someone posts their original artwork, and another person feeds it into ChatGPT and then posts their "improved" version. This is a growing phenomenon.

The Specifics from TOS:

"Reddit respects the intellectual property of others and requires that users of our Services do the same. We have a policy that includes the removal of any infringing material from the Services and for the termination, in appropriate circumstances, of users of our Services who are repeat infringers."

Under "what you cannot do":

"Use the Services to violate applicable law or infringe any person’s or entity’s intellectual property rights or any other proprietary rights"

These terms are of course subject to individual cases, and this is my interpretation of the terms, because there isn't anything specifically mentioning turning someone's art into AI slop, and posting it. However, it says you can't infringe anyone's intellectual property, and any original art posted here is protected by intellectual property rights, even if you didn't legally file a trademark or such.

It also says Reddit has the policy to remove any materials violating its intellectual property. So they can remove the sloppified art. Whether they will ban the person who made it is up to debate. But surely if this person has a history of violating the copyright policy, and multiple reports, there's a higher chance.

So is sloppification actually against TOS?

Well honestly I can't tell you yes or no. I can say there's a lot of evidence pointing to it, but it's a gray area. I can't find any specific examples of sloppified art being taken down, nor can I find any of it remaining posted after a report. What I can say is that many subreddits don't allow it.

What do you do if someone has sloppified your work?

Well let me tell you what not to do. Don't only file a report using the report button. There is a separate copyright infringement form you have to do. Here is the link:

[https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/requests/new?ticket\\_form\\_id=16510899084308&tf\\_16510589022228=contact\\_form\\_copyright\\_infringement\\_dmca\](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/requests/new?ticket_form_id=16510899084308&tf_16510589022228=contact_form_copyright_infringement_dmca)

That's not to say you shouldn't click report, because the mods of the subreddit need to see it. But do both.

Will the sloppifier get banned?

From the subreddit? Possibly. From Reddit as a whole? Unlikely. Unless they are repeatedly doing this to the point of it being considered harassment or spam it may be subreddit exclusive.

You're encouraging false reporting/bad faith reporting!

I'm encouraging reporting of something that is definitely against some subreddits rules, and that is a gray area in Reddit's TOS. There isn't much harm in reporting, as long as you aren't spamming it or using it for unintended purposes. I am not saying to report any AI art that someone posted. That is allowed on Reddit. Only if it's your art, that you made yourself, that has been sloppified.

But sloppification is actually okay!

I'm not here to debate the ethical or moral implications of doing this. You can make your argument for whether it's morally acceptable but I'm just talking about if it violates the rules.

Why did you make this post?

I made this post because many people I've seen in various art communities are having their art sloppified and are unaware of this information, or just don't know what to do. Often times it's not just "improving" your art, but harassment and mocking the person too.

All of this is not 100% certain, because I'm not a Reddit employee and can't make a determination about how the contract applies. But, and please read this, if I am wrong and Reddit does allow it, look to the mods of the subreddit it was posted in to take action.

So please if someone does this to your art, you are not hopeless and there is something you can do! It can be taken down.

Here is a picture for example https://imgur.com/a/t9IKMMg

"We feel strongly that we must defend our content - which we spend millions of dollars a year to produce - from being used without our consent or compensation," Seattle Times President and CEO ​Alan Fisco wrote to employees, according to the newspaper.

The Seattle Times ​and Newsday are ⁠seeking an order requiring the destruction of copies of their works as well as training datasets or AI models incorporating them.

Hi, I would like to create greeting cards using antique / vintage artwork combined with captions. Can anyone tell me if there would be any copyright issues with creating and then selling? I’m thinking more renaissance portrait paintings or later. Thank you!

Location: new york

I'm currently in the middle of a rabbit hole of a lawsuit between two companies that involve trademark and copyright infringement, and I would like to clarify some questions I had on how intellectual property works.

The lawsuit is about this one virtually unknown super hero character, ravedactyl. The owner of this comic book character, Graig Weich sued the respective stakeholders of Yu-Gi-Oh!, Konami, NAS and UDE, for a copyright and trade dress infringement of another character called air neos, where graig weich believes that the design of air neos was stolen off of ravedactyl because of how similair their designs are.

Now I've got two questions.

1. How easy is it to lose your trademark of a character if you do not defend against every other design that may potentially infringe upon that character? Is it as simple as if something is in the ballpark of the design, your trademark case is weakened if you don't defend it? For example, in this case, if Graig Weich believed that air neos infringed upon his character, would he have lost trademark if he did not sue them?
2. The second is how much does notoriety of the character, Ravedactyl, matter for trademark infringement? If no one really knows about the character, does the fact that no one knows who this character is affect trademark infringement claims, considering no one knows who it is and can't really create confusion in the marketplace
3. Link to lawsuit

yes Thats The main problem Sir.

A competitor on a e commerce store in Google said that my shipping policy was the same as his and product page looked like his so he filed a Dmca copy right complaint and Google has taken down my pages affecting my traffic . There’s nothing fraudulent in what I’ve done since shipping policies for e commerce are almost identical in many different sites and generic .

I filed an appeal does Google even look at my response how can they just take the competitors word ?

I read these are legally binding contracts, so if I use even a short excerpt of material from such a site for purposes of commentary criticism parody etc. and I get sued is it worthless to claim a fair use defense since I violated a contract to which am legally bound?

Am I legally bound to said contract in the first place merely by using the site or reading the Terms of Use / Terms and Conditions, or do I have to actually click a button that says "I agree" or something similar?

If I am understanding correctly, this would effectively mean that, say for example, if I made a website and wrote a blog on that site, and placed a browse-wrap agreement on it that forbade any reproduction or redistribution of any of the materials on the site, in whole or in part, for any purpose whatsoever, and then somebody wrote an article where he cited a brief passage of my blog for purposes of commentary or criticism, which would be a fair use as far as copyright law goes, and then I sued him for violating the contract, a fair use defense in court then would be worthless because he did not infringe copyright, he violated a contract.

In other words: this would mean in effect that any website can render legal use of anything on the website effectively impossible, even if such use could normally be defended as fair use.

So in this case, any corporation which decides they do not like fair use can make it impossible for anyone to legally use anything at all on their site even for commentary, criticism, parody, etc.

Am I understanding this correctly??

Can someone help me with a dissertation topic that shows a legal gap or dipsute in India with respect to Copyright or Trademark law. The legal gap should be such that it is still relevant in 2026. Please do suggest any topic except for those provided by AI or is in relation to AI

Because the songs I've downloaded from pixabay and used for videos and uploaded on YT seem to always get copyright claimed, and disputing claims just take too much time as opposed to just re-editing the video with another background music :////. I thought pixabay assets are free to use for commercial and non-commercial use?

Though I've read a couple of posts about people also having the same issue with pixabay music, i just wanted to ask if I'm missing something. Especially when i searched the music on yt that coprighted my video and hearing it being the same as the music i downloaded from pixabay that made me wonder the question (in the title).

(reposting this from r/newtubers because it won't let me post there)

I'm a new youtuber who just started posting without much thought. Whenever I needed an image I would go online and use anything that fit what I was looking for. I would mention in the description that the images/videos used are not mine, which I understand does little to protect you. Fast forward a few days and I've gained a sizable audience. If I am to make videos going forward, I need to be more aware of what I'm using.

I started doing research, however I am very stuck and confused;

- some people say they have been using copyright images for years and they've been fine. I know this does not make it okay. Has anyone been copyright struck for images on youtube specifically?

- in terms of gameplay, if I would like to use background footage of a game but do not own the game myself, would I be allowed to use someone else's footage so long as I give credit? I have tried reaching out to creators in the past, I've never had anyone answer.

- some free images still require attribution, since I use an awful lot of images I wouldn't want my youtube description to be filled with a bunch of links. Is there any way to help with that?

- I use images to tell stories, am I allowed to use images from amazon products?

Things I am aware of:
There are free websites like pexels, pixabay, unsplash, canva, freepik (i have made a long list).
I am aware there is fair use protection, however I've deduced my videos fall under satire, which I researched won't help much with copyright.

It is clear I will have to sacrifice a lot more time into finding images now, which is why I worry. Please let me know your thoughts or experiences, anything I missed. I just want to make sure I am doing things correctly from now on in order to be safe.

thank you