The Authors Guild’s Post

3 weeks ago I received an email from a Germany-based company, Copytrack, with an invoice for $1800 stating that I had used a copyright image on my website 10 years ago and I owed the copyright owner. I knew what this was - it happened to me over 10 years ago with Masterfile. It's called copyright extortion and I have written about it extensively because it is a barely legal use of copyright law. Images are posted online with no copyright indicators, and after they are used, companies scour the internet looking for them and claim copyright infringement. Copytrack did not provide any proof of claim, just an invoice with a link to an image on my website. I have that image download history - it was from a royalty and license free website. After my run-in with Masterfile, who demanded $5K for use of an image, I keep records on my images. I did not pay Masterfile anything and they stopped contacting me after 4 law firms tried to get me to pay. I know something you may not know - that US courts have established an 'innocent infringer' protection that limits claims to $200. If you did use an image from google or another online source, your payment is limited to $200 in most cases. If you are unsure of your level of legal exposure, you should contact an attorney. Yesterday Copytrack dropped its claim against me. Not because they were being nice, but because I advised them that I reported them to the FBI Internet Crimes Division for fraud, false claims, international wire fraud, and extortion. You should too, if you received one of these emails. Organizations, like Masterfile and Getty, set traps like this - display images with no copyright indicators, and then try to get people to pay thousands in copyright extortion schemes. A word of caution, do not download images from any site unless you know it is license and royalty free, or take your own images. If you have received an email from Copytrack demanding payment for a 'copyright' image, file a report with the FBI. This needs to be stopped and only if we keep the pressure on them will they stop taking advantage of people like this. I hate stuff like this and it makes me angry. I have the legal background and training to know what to do and I take action, you should too.

A Watermark Is NOT Copyright Protection. Day 15 of the 21 day Visibility Challenge with Coachli The last time I posted about Intellectual Property Infringement, someone mentioned watermarking as a way to protect content. So, what's does IP say? A watermark is an Intellectual Property technique that embeds a visible or invisible identifier into a copyrightable work. Remember; copyright exists the moment an original work is created and fixed. A watermark does not create copyright it provides an additional layer of evidence that helps identify you as the owner of the work. Think of it as a digital signature commonly used on: 🌹Photographs, Videos, Graphic designs, Digital content etc It also helps track how your content is used, shared, or distributed across digital platforms. However, A watermark does NOT stop theft. Someone determined enough can remove, crop, or edit it out. What it does do is strengthen your claim of ownership when disputes arise. That is why watermarking is not a legal requirement under Intellectual Property Law, but it is widely recognized and strongly encouraged within the creative industry. For creators; Your name, logo, signature, or brand mark on your content may not prevent infringement, but it can make proving ownership much easier. Watermarking isn't compulsory. But in today's digital world, it's a necessity. Repost if this helps Questions will be answered in the comment section #CoachliLinkedinVisibilityChallenge

Following my post this week about copyright claims and image enforcement issues, several people shared their own experiences with demand letters, settlements, and legal costs. I learned about this the hard way - from my first run-in with Masterfile over 10 years ago, over an image of a revolving door that I had used on a blog post. They made escalating demands starting at $3K to over $5800. I paid nothing, citing the 'innocent infringer' defense which they refused to accept. After 4 law firms contacted me demanding payment, and I offered only $200 under the innocent infringer defense, they stopped writing. But I had to endure over 3 months of ominous letters with escalating threats of legal action. I have been a paralegal so I knew this was performative but it was bothersome, nonetheless. My recent demand letter from Copytrack, who had also contacted many other people, prompted me to share my experience here again. I have written about this issue before. I was surprised to see the responses and I want to suggest some proactive measures you can take today to avoid this problem in the future. One of the best proactive steps you can take is to conduct a media audit on your websites and digital content. You can do this more easily via the media library on your website. Look at every image in the media library and make sure it is your own image or it is from a royalty and license free source. If you are not sure, remove it. But first, save the page or post it is used on as a .pdf file in a secure, labeled folder. You can print a website page as a .pdf by clicking the 3 dots in the upper right corner, and choose the Print option from the options menu. In the Print dialogue box, choose 'save as pdf' from the dropdown menu. Save the .pdf to a folder. Now you have a date/time stamped record of the page or post. If you remove the image from the media library, it will also be removed from every page and post it appears on because they reference that file name. Maintain organized folders with licensing information and receipts for purchased images. Be sure your website or graphic designers also know that they should not upload random images to your website. Use reputable royalty-free or license-free image sources such as Pixabay, or use original photography whenever possible. Businesses are often exposed through third-party uploads or old pages. My website has been online for over 23 years and I have thousands of posts and hundreds of images. You probably do too. Many founders and small businesses do not realize how exposed they may be until they receive a demand letter. An image audit is a relatively simple process that can significantly reduce risk and improve content governance. Moving forward, ensure that your images are risk-free by never downloading an image from a search or anything you find on the internet. This is not legal advice. It is practical operational housekeeping for businesses to avoid future problems.

First Circuit: No Discovery, No Summary Judgment—A Rule 56(d) Reversal in the Ricky Martin "Vida" Copyright Saga (PRECEDENTIAL) Cortés-Ramos v. Martin-Morales, No. 24-1805 (1st Cir. June 12, 2026) (Thompson, J.; Barron, C.J., dissenting in part). Published; 2026 U.S.P.Q.2d 534. In the latest chapter of a twelve-year, five-appeal copyright fight over Ricky Martin's "Vida," the First Circuit vacated summary judgment for Martin because the district court resolved the case on a record built entirely without discovery. The plaintiff, Cortés-Ramos, alleged "Vida" copied the song and video he submitted to a Sony-cosponsored contest. After years tied up in motion-to-dismiss practice, the district court fast-tracked the case straight to summary judgment "to avoid discovery," then held that Cortés had assigned his rights to Sony via the Contest Rules—and invalidated his copyright registration. The court reversed on Rule 56(d). Key takeaways: Spirit over letter. Cortés never filed a formal Rule 56(d) affidavit or named the rule, but the court construed his repeated discovery pleas generously, consistent with circuit precedent holding parties to the rule's "spirit rather than its letter." No discovery at all is different. The prototypical Rule 56(d) case involves some discovery before a premature motion. Here there was none. The court collected sister-circuit authority (3d, 5th, 6th, 9th) holding that granting summary judgment with zero discovery is "likely to be an abuse of discretion." Evidence-control matters. Where the dispositive documents sat with the defendant (and third-party Sony), the plaintiff was entitled to "trust, but verify" through formal discovery rather than the movant's say-so. Issue-preclusion ripple. The panel flagged that a no-discovery loss here could bind Cortés in any future Sony arbitration—raising the stakes of the truncated record. Chief Judge Barron dissented in part, arguing Cortés failed to engage on appeal with the district court's specific Rule 56(d) reasoning, leaving an independent clickwrap-consent ground for affirmance undisturbed. Practice point: Compressing a case to summary judgment "to avoid discovery" is high-risk. When all the evidence sits with the other side and the nonmovant has diligently asked for discovery, the spirit of Rule 56(d) can carry the day even without the formal affidavit. #CopyrightLaw #IPLaw #CivilProcedure #Rule56 #FirstCircuit

Does the Court take the imbalance of power between the parties into account while adjudicating an IP litigation? In Anamika Sood v. Google LLC & Saregama India Pvt Ltd. (2026), the Plaintiff's song "Ferraree" was struck down from YouTube, following a copyright strike sent by the Defendant, alleging that the song was similar to its own song "Reshmi Salwar Kurti Jali Ka". The plaintiff argued that the song was an original work- it was inspired by a Punjabi folk song "Sadke Sadke Jandiya" and had applied substantial skill and labour to create her song. She had also obtained a copyright registration under S. 45 Copyright Act from the Registrar of Copyrights, making her the exclusive copyright owner of her work. Saregama argued that the Plaintiff had copied a substantial and integral part of their song's hook, which amounts to an actionable infringement. It is integral to mention that Saregama's claim on the copyright ended in 2017 vide S. 27 of the Copyright Act, which states that copyright protection lasts for 60 years, beginning from the start of the calendar year following the year the sound recording was first published. They also failed to establish exactly how the two songs were similar. After a lengthy battle, the Court applied the settled legal principles of IPR and rejected the Defendant's claim. However, the Court rejected the Plaintiff's claim for damages of 88 Lakhs as she could not document the alleged losses and did not impose any costs on the Defendant, but awarded nominal damages of 5 lakhs to Sood. Moreover, the Court asked the parties to bear their own costs. The judgment had me thinking whether the Hon'ble Court had taken the power dynamic into account while deciding the quantum of damages. An artist like Sood's career depends on brand visibility. By taking down her song on YouTube (although it was restored), the Defendant's actions indirectly contributed to the loss of viewership and watchtime, which impacts the placement of the video via YouTube's algorithm, revenue generated, visibility of the artist, and subsequent brand/performance deals. Under S. 35 read w/ Order XVI Rule 1 CPC 1908, the Courts have the power to impose litigation costs- but in this case, asked the parties to bear their own costs. This has a significant financial impact on only one of the parties. By treating the Defendant's actions as a mere unsuccessful claim and not questioning whether the strike was made in bad faith, combined with a lack of preliminary human verification of any copyright infringement allegation by YouTube, gives major corporate players the ability to weaponise YouTube's policy to issue mass copyright strikes and stifle small creators. They may issue mass strikes first and then litigate later. Do share your thoughts! #IntellectualProperty #Copyright #IndianIPR #IPRInsights #IPLitigation #IntellectualPropertyLaw #CommercialCourt #CopyrightClaim #Litigation

Your Book Is Protected— But What About the Title ? Seble Asefa Legal Eagles Law Firm LLP / Ethiopian Corporate & Investment Lawyers Copyright is a form of legal protection granted to authors and creators of original works. It protects the expression of ideas rather than the ideas themselves, giving creators exclusive rights to reproduce, publish, distribute, translate, adapt, and otherwise control the use of their works. Under Ethiopian law, copyright protection extends to a wide range of original literary and artistic works, including books, articles, poems, artistic creations, musical works, and other intellectual creations. For the purposes of this discussion, however, we will focus specifically on books and the scope of copyright protection afforded to them. For a book author, copyright protection generally covers the original content of the book, including the text, structure, arrangement, and other creative elements that reflect the author's intellectual effort. Copyright grants the author exclusive rights to reproduce, publish, distribute, translate, adapt, and otherwise authorize the use of the work. These rights enable authors to control how their books are used and to benefit from their creative contributions. A common misconception is that every aspect of a book is automatically protected by copyright. In reality, copyright protection has limits. While copyright protects the author's original expression contained in a book, it does not necessarily protect every element associated with the book. One question that frequently arises is whether a book title itself is protected by copyright. Generally, book titles are not protected by copyright. While the contents of a book are protected, a title is ordinarily not regarded as a copyrightable work. Copyright law protects original literary and artistic expression, whereas titles are generally considered identifiers used to distinguish a work rather than creative works in themselves. Does this mean that a book title can never be protected? Not necessarily. Although copyright protection is generally unavailable for book titles, a title may receive protection under trademark law if it functions as a distinctive source identifier. This may occur where a title identifies a series of books, a publishing brand, or has become closely associated with a particular author, publisher, or source in the minds of the public. The distinction is important:- ✓ Copyright protects the original content of the book. ✓ Trademark law may, in appropriate circumstances, protect the title of the book. Understanding this distinction helps authors, publishers, and content creators appreciate the scope and limits of intellectual property protection in Ethiopia. #law #lawyers #lawyersoffacebook #lawfirmethiopia #ethiopianlawyers #ጠበቃ #ethiopianlawyer #የሕግምክር #legal

One of the most frequently cited and most legally inaccurate justifications for copyright infringement is the assertion that non-commercial use is automatically permissible. It is not. Not under Indian law. The Copyright Act, 1957 contains a "fair dealing" provision under Section 52, not a "fair use" provision. This is a critical distinction. The US fair use doctrine is a flexible, four-factor balancing test applied on a case-by-case basis. India's fair dealing provision, by contrast, is a closed, exhaustive list of specific permitted acts. What Section 52 permits: private or personal use including research; criticism or review of a work (with due acknowledgment); reporting of current events; educational use within specified institutional contexts; judicial, legislative, and administrative proceedings; and making backup copies of lawfully obtained computer programs. That is the list. If the use is not on it, the commercial or non-commercial nature of the use is not determinative. What this means in practice: using a photographer's image in a blog post without a licence is infringement under Section 51 of the Act, regardless of whether the blog generates revenue. Sharing a musician's composition in a social media post "for fun" is infringement. Reproducing an illustrator's work "to spread awareness" without permission is infringement. The statute does not provide a non-commercial carve-out for these uses. The remedies available to a copyright holder under Indian law are meaningful. Section 55 provides civil remedies including injunction, damages, accounts of profit, and delivery up of infringing copies. Section 63 creates criminal liability: imprisonment between six months and three years, and fines between ₹50,000 and ₹2,00,000. The legitimate alternatives are straightforward. Request a licence from the rights holder, most creators are willing to grant non-commercial use with acknowledgment if simply asked. Use content licensed under Creative Commons, which explicitly grants specified permissions to the public. Use public domain content, including government works and works whose copyright term has expired under the Act. The law does not penalise ignorance differently from deliberate infringement. The test is whether infringement occurred not whether the infringer knew it was infringement. #FairDealing #CopyrightIndia #CopyrightAct1957 #Section52 #IPLaw #ContentCreators #MythBusted #IndianCreators #IPIndia #LegalTips #Advisource #DigitalCreators #SocialMediaLaw #IPProtection #IndianBusiness

We're taking on Trolling©️ Image matching tools are being used to fire off automated copyright infringement notices. Threatened with legal action, people are being coerced into paying up. But there are legitimate defences that this tech fails to check and completely fail to mention. PicRights has threatened ORG with legal action over a screenshot of an online ad in our targeted advertising report. We've published our letter denying the allegation of copyright infringement. The reproduction of the photo used in this ad falls under fair dealing for criticism and review. Companies like PicRights don't represent the copyright holder directly. Rather they've bought a licence to chase people and organisations for payment through bullying or unfounded requests. The legal system should protect people, but currently there's no means to fine such companies or otherwise stop this activity. ORG is aware of at least one other organisation that has recently received a similar speculative invoice. We're asking for other charities and groups that have been affected to get in touch. If you are a lawyer and willing to help with disputes, please contact us and we'll put you in touch. Read more ⬇️ #copyright #intellectualproperty #legal https://lnkd.in/edPWhTJi

Is this internet drama or a double down on Fair Use…? Maybe both! One of the more fascinating copyright developments this week comes from the ongoing Ethan Klein v. Denims litigation. According to a recently released tentative ruling, the court appears to be leaning heavily toward finding content creator “Denims’” reaction content to be fair use, concluding that three of the four fair use factors strongly favor the defendant. What makes this especially interesting is the irony. The court reportedly cited Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, the landmark 2017 fair use case where Ethan Klein himself successfully defended their own reaction content against a copyright infringement claim brought by Matt Hoss. That case immediately stood out to me because I cited it in my Master’s thesis, “From Partial to Full Liability – Why Internet Intermediaries Are Held Accountable?” My interest in copyright laws and the fact that I am actively on the internet, all the time, makes this specially interesting to me! While my research focused on intermediary liability rather than fair use, Hosseinzadeh v. Klein was one of the many cases illustrating how courts have had to adapt traditional legal doctrines to digital platforms and online content creation. It’s a reminder that legal precedents often take on a life of their own. The arguments and victories that help shape internet law today may eventually be relied upon in entirely different disputes tomorrow including against the very people who helped create those precedents. The final ruling is still pending, but regardless of the outcome, the case raises important questions about fair use, reaction content, online commentary, and the continuing evolution of digital rights jurisprudence.

[REUPLOADED] 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝗛𝗼𝗬𝗼 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗸 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲, 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝟮: 𝗜𝗳 𝗛𝗼𝗺𝗗𝗚𝗖𝗮𝘁 𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗞𝗟, 𝗰𝗼𝗽𝘆𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁. In Part 1, I looked at the U.S. civil suit by Cognosphere, miHoYo's international arm based in Singapore, and the parallel Shanghai criminal case against the Genshin and Honkai: Star Rail leaker known as HomDGCat. But what if he had run his operation out of Malaysia? Which cause of action would have bitten first? In my view, copyright. Specifically, the right of "communication to the public" under section 13(1)(aa) of the Copyright Act 1987. The act complained of is simple. He posted unreleased game content to a Telegram channel and a public website where anyone could see it. In Malaysian copyright terms, that is textbook communication to the public. Two recent High Court decisions show how broadly that phrase now reaches. In 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘍𝘰𝘰𝘵𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘈𝘴𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘦𝘳 𝘓𝘦𝘢𝘨𝘶𝘦 𝘓𝘵𝘥 𝘷 𝘉𝘢𝘳 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘚𝘥𝘯 𝘉𝘩𝘥 [2022] MLJU 2950, a KL bar livestreamed Premier League matches without an Astro subscription. The High Court held that making a broadcast available to a "new public", meaning an audience the rights holder did not contemplate, is communication to the public. In 𝘔𝘌𝘈𝘚𝘈𝘛 𝘷 𝘓𝘶𝘪 𝘒𝘪𝘮 𝘚𝘦𝘯𝘨 [2026] MLJU 612, decided this February, the defendant sold TV boxes preloaded with a streaming app giving free access to Astro content. The High Court held that the sale itself was communication to the public because the defendant had "enabled a direct link" between unauthorised sources and end users. The court drew on the CJEU reasoning in 𝘚𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘉𝘳𝘦𝘪𝘯 𝘷 𝘞𝘶𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘴, finding it persuasive. The threshold is the act of making available, not actual viewership. A Telegram channel with 96,000 subscribers and a public website fall comfortably within the statutory definition. Whether anyone actually watched is, legally, beside the point. A leak operation like this run out of Malaysia would meet section 13(1)(aa) first, and meet it cleanly. But copyright is only the first net. The Cognosphere complaint also pleads tortious interference against HomDGCat for inducing the beta testers to break their NDAs. That is a separate wrong with a settled answer in Malaysian law going back over 40 years. That is Part 3.