Spotify has terms that clearly say it's for personal use only, and they follow this up with specific statement that it's forbidden to use it in public places like clubs, restaurants etc. Having this in mind - is anybody from Europe able to explain the following scenario? The venue obtains all the necessary licenses for playing music in public from relevant organizations, like PRS in UK or GEMA in Germany for example. The venue hires a DJ to play the music - what copyright law is being violated and how copyright owners rights are being violated when the DJ is using Spotify as a source of music for that public performance? Can the venue or the DJ himself be penalized for this by copyright owners/the organizations like PRS and GEMA? The DJ is using a legal source of music + the venue is paying for that music being played in public = how does that hurt the copyright owners?

EDIT: I'm not trying to justify doing something against the law. I'm genuinely trying to understand the mechanism of how anybody is being hurt in this scenario. So I'd much appreciate if people downvoting this thread and my comments could explain why.

Filing a takedown notice is the DIY step most people can do themselves. Filing one that doesn't get rejected on technical grounds is where most DIY attempts fail. Here's the exact structure that gets through, plus what to do when the platform ignores it.

## The 5 elements every real takedown notice needs

Whether you're filing under DMCA or the TAKE IT DOWN Act, your notice must include:

1. **Identification of you as the depicted person** (for TIDA) or copyright holder (for DMCA). This is where most notices go wrong. Vague "someone leaked my images" language reads as an inquiry, not a formal notice. Use "I am the depicted individual in..." language.

2. **A specific description of the content.** Not "my nudes." Something like "Non-consensual intimate imagery depicting me, distributed without consent, currently hosted at [URL]." Precision matters.

3. **The exact URL** where the content lives. Not the homepage. Not "the site with the leaked photos." The direct URL to the offending page.

4. **A statement of good faith belief** that the content is being used without your consent (TIDA) or without authorization from the copyright holder (DMCA). Required by statute. Most templates online skip it and get rejected.

5. **A signature (electronic is fine) and contact information.** Some platforms require a physical address. Use a P.O. box if you want the notice to work but don't want your home address in a platform's records.

## Common technical rejection reasons

- Sending to the platform's general abuse form instead of their specific NCII channel (different intake, different priority queue)
- Missing the good-faith statement (statutory requirement, not optional)
- Filing a DMCA on content you don't own the copyright to (rejected on standing grounds)
- Filing under TIDA without clearly identifying yourself as the depicted person
- Grouping multiple URLs across multiple platforms into one notice (each platform needs its own filing)

## Where to actually file

- **Reddit, Meta, TikTok, X, OnlyFans, YouTube:** use their NCII-specific form, not their general DMCA form. Most platforms have both. The NCII channel is a different queue with faster priority.
- **Pornhub, xHamster, and other adult tubes:** use their content-integrity contact from the site footer, not their generic DMCA form.
- **Leak aggregators (Bunkr, SimpCity, Fapello, etc.):** skip the site's own channels entirely. They won't respond. Go directly to Cloudflare NCSEI (abuse@notify.cloudflare.com) and the domain registrar's abuse-c contact from WHOIS.

## What happens after you file

If you filed correctly:

- Mainstream platforms respond in 24 hours to 5 business days
- Adult tubes respond in days to a couple weeks
- Offshore leak sites typically don't respond at all

If the platform ignores you, you move to rung 2 (CDN and registrar). If those ignore you, rung 3 (payment processor). And so on. This is where DIY starts to break down.

## When DIY works and when it doesn't

**DIY works well for:**

- One or two URLs on mainstream platforms
- Content you own the copyright to (DMCA leverage helps)
- Cases where you have time and patience

**DIY breaks down when:**

- You're filing across multiple offshore hosts that ignore rung 1 entirely
- You need to sustain pressure across CDN, registrar, and payment processor levers at once
- You're dealing with a re-upload cycle where new URLs appear as fast as old ones come down
- You're doing this alone while also holding down a job

The technical filing is teachable in one Reddit post (this one). The sustained multi-rung pressure across a portfolio of URLs is what paid services actually provide. If your case is one or two URLs on mainstream platforms, do it yourself with the structure above. If your case is a dozen URLs across five offshore hosts, you're looking at roughly 40+ hours of iterative filing work over the next month, and that's where handing it off pays for itself.

For the handoff option, help@intimashield.com is one place that handles the full ladder. Not a plug, just naming it since I already gave you the DIY version.

***First and foremost I understand any answer I receive is not legal advice, I just want to know what people have done in the past regarding this issue***

I have an investor who hasn't paid for the use of my plans the way he is using them - I charged him for a single use, there is verbiage on the plans saying he needs my permission to use them more than once. I informed him of this and sent an invoice for a 20% reuse fee for each build of the plan, as he has come back requesting changes and such, but he has since ghosted me.

My former employer said I could put a lien on the property, however, when I called the county they said since it was not a construction-type work but rather just the drafting/copyright, she wasn't quite sure what to do and couldn't direct me further as to not give me "legal advice." I would rather not scour the internet for days trying to find what I need to know in addition to the extra time it takes to actually go through whatever process I am trying to go through, so I am just wondering what people have done in this situation.

This is a copyright issue, so I understand an attorney could be the best route - however, if I could simply put a lien on the property as opposed to incurring legal fees that would be preferred. Or, I know that copyright laws are very strict - would my legal fees end up being covered by the investor?

Thank you!

I wanted to share my experience and see if anyone has gone through something similar. Over a year ago, I received 7 copyright strikes (around the same short time) that ultimately lead to my YouTube account being terminated. At the time I believed a YouTube copyright message meant certain uses were permitted and I misunderstood the rules.

I’m not seeking to become a creator again. My goal is to simply be allowed back as a regular user for basic Youtube features and to participate in the community.

I’ve explained my story in full detail with evidence in the Twitter link - https://x.com/marktonna1/status/2069400624739795071?s=46

However, I understand that not everyone may feel comfortable using a link so I've made a short video that quickly shows the Main tweet and replies I made along with documented evidence.

https://reddit.com/link/1v4ngi0/video/rgjpl4coi8fh1/player

If a book is published by two authors and both authors claim to have contributed to the work equally and in such way that it's impossible to separate the text into two parts, copyright term (at least in the US, UK, EU) will end seventy years after the death of the last remaining author, correct?

Would then adding a child to the book as an equal joint author (even as a fake claim) be a way of securing longer rights of commercialization for the family? Does this scenario have precedents and has it been tested in the courts?

1. If my friend lends me a book and I make copies of sections of that book and use said copies for personal use while I am being lent the book (and this is assuming that I would destroy the copies after returning the book to my friend), would this be fair use?
2. If I use brief citations of said book in a blog post for purposes of commentary, criticism, parody, etc. (which would normally be fair use) from the book being lent to me, would it be legal for me to keep those brief citations in the blog post after I have returned the book to my friend? Or would the only legal thing to do be either to remove the citations, continue to borrow the book from my friend, or acquire my own copy of said book?

Hello,

I just made a video with music form pixabay, i use music under the pixabay content licence and credited the music and artist in the description because i believe credit where credit is due.

i got a Content claim ID on on of the songs, after some research i've found this is because even thought the pixabay site provides you with a licence to use the music the artist can still register it as their own. not ideal but i understand its to make sure they get credit i guess.

The claim on the been shown as "no impact on your video" but if i get monetised itll send the ad revenue to that creator ( from what i've found online)

when ve gone to dispute this as i have followed all the rules of pixabay to obtain the licence to use this music, i got to the last page and its says legal name.

My question is what is shown to the claimant? as i made this channel faceless as i like having my anonymity. ive looked everywhere but i cant find a we show the claimant x, y and z" from youtube or google

Does anyone have any information on this?

Location: Virginia

The letter is beneath this message. This is for context.

Hello!

I made a super basic app and charge like 2.99. Its made maybe 30 dollars online. Its been up for three or four months, and these people sent me a letter. I have released an okay amount of apps over the years. This one is super basic like a weekend project. I don't really get this letter. I have the link to their app that isn't released and the one that I built.

Thank you for the help!

______________________________________

Mr. my name,

We are contacting you on behalf of the company responsible for the development and ownership of the company name.

We recently became aware of your application, my app name, and have conducted an initial review of the product. That review has identified similarities that have raised serious concerns regarding the potential unauthorized use, reproduction, or derivation of proprietary materials associated with the company name.

The company name has been under active development for a substantial period of time preceding its public App Store release. We maintain development records, source-control history, application builds, product documentation, and other dated materials establishing the development history of the platform.

Based on what we have observed, we are now investigating whether the company name source code, application logic, product materials, or other proprietary work may have been accessed or used in connection with the development of my app name.

Accordingly, we request that you preserve all records relating to the development of my app name, including source-code repositories and commit histories, development builds, design files, AI-assisted development records, third-party development platforms, project imports or remixes, and records identifying individuals who contributed to the application.

We also request that you provide the following information:

1. The date development of my app name began;
2. The development platforms, AI tools, templates, repositories, or other third-party resources used in its creation;
3. Whether you or anyone involved with my app name ever accessed, viewed, imported, duplicated, remixed, forked, or otherwise obtained any portion or version of the company name or its development materials; and
4. Whether any third party supplied source code, project files, templates, or other materials used to develop my app name.

Please do not delete, modify, overwrite, or otherwise destroy potentially relevant development records while this matter is being reviewed.

This communication is intended to provide you an opportunity to clarify the origin and development history of my app name before we determine what further action may be appropriate. Nothing in this communication constitutes a waiver of any rights or remedies available to us.

We would appreciate your written response within seven (7) days of receipt.

My ex and I were together while he was developing an independent publication and project. From February through June, I contributed a substantial amount of creative, strategic, promotional, cultural, and logistical work that helped establish the project online and connect it with people and communities in the Philippines.

I initially did this because I believed in him and in what he was building. I was not treating every contribution as a business transaction at the time. I was helping someone I loved. But there is a difference between giving generously within a relationship and pretending afterward that the resulting professional work had no independent value. Plus, the discard was pretty f*ckng brutal.

What I actually contributed

I created the magazine cover, including manipulation and graphic treatment of a photograph he supplied, composition, typography, layout, and final preparation.

I reworked and refined the project's logos and visual identity, including cleaning and reconstructing material he provided, changing typography, and creating transparent versions.

I created reels and other short-form video content- striking videos with original music- DM me to view them. I handled more than 50 revisions, requests, adjustments, and refinements.I created three original music tracks for reels, with both one-minute and 30-second versions, and did associated editing and sound design.

I created promotional graphics and campaign materials.

I developed social-media content and a social-media calendar.

I contributed creative direction, research, strategy, logistics, messaging, and ongoing problem-solving.

I created stickers. I promoted the project through word of mouth and through my own professional and social networks.

This work came from years of experience in journalism, writing, cultural strategy, marketing, music, editing, design, and communications. My work and practice have been documented internationally.

The cultural and professional access I brought

The creative work is only part of the story. I also brought him into parts of the Philippine cultural ecosystem through relationships, knowledge, and connections I had already built independently.

I connected him with the person who built the project's website. Through that connection, he obtained a functioning website for around ₱20,000. Because of the connection with me.

I introduced him to people through my existing network.

I told him about the first Pax Silica talk he attended at Chapterhouse, which I paid for him to attend, and brought him into that context. I also translated the Tagalog discussion for him in real time.

I brought him to his first punk show in the Philippines. I introduced him to people, spaces, conversations, and communities that became relevant to the project. I shared cultural context and information that helped him navigate a scene I had already spent years participating in.

I promoted the project through my own networks and professional relationships.

One reason I am also sharing this in an awareness context is the cultural contradiction I am struggling with.

The project is becoming associated with parts of a punk community whose history includes resistance to imperialism, exploitation, hierarchy, and oppressive structures. That history matters to me personally and professionally because I have spent years working within and around these cultural spaces.

Underground punk and the oppressive conditions that fuel it have also been a major subject of my research and journalistic work. I have reported on these communities and their histories for international publications, so this is not simply a cultural reference I am making from the outside. It is part of my own professional field of research and practice.

That is why the contradiction is particularly difficult for me to ignore. I contributed substantial creative, strategic, promotional, and cultural labor to this project while it was being developed, and some of that work continues to be used publicly while compensation, attribution, ownership, and authorization remain disputed.

I am not presenting the punk community's politics as proof of a legal violation. I am asking a cultural and ethical question: what does resistance to exploitation mean when the creative labor of a person who helped build the project is subsequently treated as though it has no independent value?

For me, this is especially significant because the same cultural histories that inform the project's public positioning are also the subject of my own research and reporting. I therefore find it difficult to separate the project's anti-exploitation rhetoric from the way my own labor has been treated.

At the same time, I am a Filipina cultural worker who contributed substantial creative, strategic, promotional, and cultural labor to the project. Some of that work continues to be used publicly, while compensation, attribution, ownership, and authorization remain disputed.

That is particularly difficult for me because the work was not incidental. It helped establish the project's visual identity, online presence, promotional material, and access to parts of the cultural network it was entering.

I also find it difficult to reconcile that with the language of resistance and anti-exploitation associated with the scene around the project.

I am sharing this because I think these contradictions are worth examining, especially when creative labor is provided within intimate relationships and later becomes invisible in the public history of a project.

I am not claiming that he could never have developed a project without me. I am saying that the version of the project that emerged publicly during that period was materially shaped by my creative work, professional skills, cultural knowledge, and network.

I can document that.

Why I think this history matters

I keep coming back to a relatively simple question:

How much of the project that people now encounter publicly was already being built through my work, knowledge, relationships, and creative infrastructure from the beginning of our relationship?

I don't know what the answer to the hypothetical would be if we had never met, and I don't need to know.

What I do know is what actually happened.

I created the cover.

I created and refined the branding.

I created the reels.

I created the music.

I created promotional materials.

I helped establish the online presence.

I made introductions.

I connected him to the person who built the website.

I brought him into cultural spaces.

I provided information and context.

I promoted the project.

I worked on the project repeatedly over months.

That is part of the project's history whether or not it is currently visible in the public narrative around it.

The compensation dispute

After the relationship ended, I began separating the professional work from the personal relationship.

I made it clear that I was not asking to be paid for being his partner, caring for him, cooking, cleaning, emotional support, or ordinary relationship contributions.

I was talking about identifiable professional creative work.

His response was that there had been no contract for payment, no agreed hourly rate or payment terms, and that asking for compensation retrospectively was unfair. He characterized the work as contributions made within the relationship rather than professional services. Even when I itemized the commercial and market value based on standard rates, not even the rates commensurate with my decades of experience.

I subsequently narrowed the request to tangible deliverables such as reels and graphics.

The position I was left with was essentially:

“You're not getting a handout.”

I am including this because it is part of the documentary history, not because I want this post to become a demand for money.

I have estimated the replacement value of the documented creative work at approximately ₱220,000 to ₱250,000, based on the scope of the work, number of deliverables and revisions, specialized creative expertise, and my professional experience as a multidisciplinary creative practitioner whose work has been documented internationally.

But at this point, the valuation is secondary. The more important issue for me is that the work existed, it was performed, it was used, and there is a documentary record of who created it.

The intellectual-property issue

There is also a separate issue concerning intellectual property and continued use.

For the logo, I have the original material he sent me and the transparent versions I created after cleaning, reconstructing, changing the typography, introducing new fonts, and preparing the final graphics.

For the magazine cover, I have the photograph he supplied and the versions I created through manipulation, compositing, typography, layout, and graphic treatment.

I have source files, exported files, revisions, messages, timestamps, and other records showing what I produced.

I also expressly told him that we had never signed an agreement transferring ownership of my original music or assigning all intellectual-property rights to the project. I asked that compensation and continued use be documented formally.

That means there are separate questions concerning authorship, ownership, authorization, licensing, attribution, continued use, third-party use, and compensation.

The work is still visible

While the IG posts have now been deleted, the value, visibility and benefit remain. The logos I created are still appearing on the website. The magazine cover I created is still appearing on the website and in posts.

My version of the logo has appeared in promotional posters for events connected to the project.

I have repeatedly seen reels that I created appear on other platforms without my name or credit.

I was also blocked from the publication's social-media account and have not been given access to the relevant metrics. Even after repeatedly asking for it since July.

I mention these things because removing or deleting individual posts does not remove the historical value that the work already created. The work contributed to the project's presentation, reach, branding, and public identity while it was being used.

Why I think awareness matters

This is the part of the story I want to preserve. A project does not emerge in a vacuum.

Behind a publication, brand, cultural platform, or media project are often people whose work is not visible in the final presentation: designers, editors, producers, researchers, strategists, photographers, musicians, friends who make introductions, people who open doors, and people whose networks make access possible.

When those relationships end, the public version of the project can make it look as though the project simply appeared in its current form.

That is why I think it is important to document this history while the evidence still exists.

I am not claiming sole authorship of the entire project. I am documenting my actual contribution to its development.

The relationship context

The relationship ended during a period when I was dealing with a serious situation in my own life. It became serious enough that I am now being represented by the University of the Philippines legal aid team.

During that period, he became increasingly distant and deliberately limited communication. When I told him that I felt he was being insensitive to the seriousness of what I was experiencing, he characterized my communication as hostile and used that as part of his explanation for limiting contact.

When he explained why he chooses to leave me during quite possibly the hardest, most challenging period of my creative and professional life... and i am someone who build things independently, enduring years of attacks and defamation. He had replied, after I asked to talk face to face--- he simply said

“to be feeling shit and not enjoying my time and the process is such a waste of time, after all those years of grinding.”

I found that difficult because I was dealing with something serious and was asking for some understanding, not asking him to abandon his ambitions.

The breakup is relevant to the story because it is when I began looking at the professional contribution separately from the relationship.

What triggered me to finally talk about this

I probably would have continued dealing with all of this privately, but I recently ran into him on an island that I had originally told him about.

Before that, I had also come across his Tinder profile. He had changed the name on the profile, claims he is a filmmaker (but it's funny how thats the case as he relied on me to create short form videos). He was still using photographs from our relationship, and in at least one photograph I had been cropped out while some of my identifying tattoos remained visible.

What I find particularly difficult to reconcile is the public presentation of the project as a magazine that pays contributors fairly and takes questions of exploitation seriously, while my documented experience as someone who contributed substantial creative work to its development has been the opposite.

I contributed the cover, branding, reels, original music, promotional materials, revisions, research, strategy, cultural access, introductions, and other professional work that helped establish the publication online. I have records documenting that work and the subsequent use of those materials.

I was then told that because there had been no prior agreement specifying payment, asking for compensation afterward was unfair, with the position ultimately being framed to me as “You're not getting a handout.”

That creates a serious contradiction between the publication's stated principles and my documented experience as a contributor.

If a publication publicly presents itself as one that treats contributors fairly, then the treatment of contributors should be consistent with that representation. In my view, presenting a publication as committed to fair treatment of contributors while an extensively documented contributor is left disputing compensation, attribution, ownership, and continued use of her work is not simply an interpersonal disagreement. It raises a legitimate question about the credibility and integrity of that public claim.

I am therefore interested in hearing from people with journalism, publishing, media-ethics, or accountability experience about how such a discrepancy should be assessed. I am not asking Reddit to determine whether the publication has committed a legal violation. I am asking whether the public representation of its contributor practices is consistent with the documented experience of someone whose work materially helped build the publication.

Why I am posting this: It is very easy to think, “I'm doing this because I love them,” and therefore never formalize anything.

I am sharing this partly because I think there is a broader lesson here for anyone, regardless of gender, who contributes significant creative work to a partner's project.

That is what I did.

In retrospect, I would have kept a more systematic record from the beginning and clarified much earlier which things were personal generosity and which things were professional creative contributions.

I would encourage anyone in a similar situation to preserve original files, source files, messages requesting work, revisions, timestamps, delivery records, publication history, attribution, conversations about pricing, and evidence of where the work eventually appears.

That is not about assuming a relationship will end badly. It is simply good protection for both people when creative work becomes part of a shared project.

What I am looking for

I am in the Philippines, where copyright includes moral rights, and I am already being represented by a legal-aid organization. I have extensive documentation, including source files, transparent PNGs, revisions, timestamps, messages, original materials, website captures, social-media examples, third-party promotional posters, examples of my reels appearing elsewhere without attribution, and correspondence concerning compensation and intellectual property.

I am particularly interested in advice about where this kind of history and any associated IP or attribution concerns can appropriately be documented or independently reviewed in Australia and the Philippines. I am looking for platforms that can help me investigate the ethics of this kind of journalism practice, especially if refusing to compensate the valuable creative work of a Filipino.

I would appreciate recommendations for copyright/IP lawyers or clinics, artist and creative-worker organizations, journalism or media ethics organizations, and people experienced with cross-border creative-work disputes.

I have documentation I can share privately, including the identity of the publication/project and the people involved. Please DM me if you have relevant experience, know an appropriate organization, or can point me toward a suitable reporting or review process.

I am not posting this primarily because I want compensation.

I am posting because I think there is an under-documented history of this project's development that should be part of the record, particularly the amount of creative labor, cultural knowledge, professional access, and network-building that went into it from the beginning of the relationship.

I want to preserve that history accurately, share what I can substantiate, and make other people more aware of the importance of documenting their own creative contributions when relationships and professional projects become intertwined.

"There is simply nothing fair about a company using theft to build for purely commercial purposes a multi-billion dollar business while those from which they steal receive nothing," Round Hill said. Ethan Millman, August 17, 2026

If this isn't allowed, I apologise. I've never needed to use a legal sub before.

Location: Illinois.

(I put the location as US because the other party is based there, so the legal stuff would probably be handled by Americans as well).

So I am a small artist, pretty much unknown at this point. I made a little illustration of a gold bullet with blue and silver butterfly wings inspired by the song, "Bullet With Butterfly Wings" by Smashing Pumpkins, which I think would look really cool as a holographic sticker with some text that says "The world is a vampire" around the outside. I have not ordered or sold any yet since I don't have the funds to pay for Vistaprint fees right now anyway.

My question is: Am I asking for a lawsuit if I sell these in the future from my shop (tbc) because it was inspired by something else or is it fine because it's technically my own design? I really don't want Billy Corgan coming after me for trying to pay my bills.

Hey everyone, I honestly don't even know where to turn anymore, so I'm hoping someone here has dealt with this or has advice that actually works.

I’ve spent months building out a digital influencer character from scratch—the look, the personality, the voice, the lore, and all the content pipelines. She finally started gaining traction and blowing up. But with that growth came a nightmare I wasn't prepared for: widespread, blatant identity theft and content scraping.

People are setting up exact duplicate accounts, stealing my rendered images and video loops, re-uploading them, and pretending to be her. Some are even farming engagement off stolen assets while my original posts get flagged or buried.

Here is where I am losing my mind: When I try to defend my own work, the system breaks down entirely.

• The reporting loop is broken: Every time I submit formal copyright claims or DMCA takedowns, the platforms either give automated runarounds, demand impossible hoops, or worse—the automated systems flag my accounts for reporting infringement or submitting verification tickets, while the actual thieves walk free.
• Zero accountability: Real human support is virtually non-existent. You get stuck in endless chat bot loops, shadowbanned from submitting valid reports, or hit with automated restrictions for trying to protect what you built.

I’m exhausted. I poured creative energy into developing this character, only to watch massive platforms protect the copycats while penalizing the original creator.

I need help, and I’m open to advice:

1. Has anyone successfully navigated this exact issue on Meta, Instagram, or YouTube? What magic formula actually gets a human reviewer to look at a copyright dispute?
2. Are there legal, technical, or procedural strategies creators use to lock down their AI characters and assets before they get stolen?

If you’ve been through this or know how to cut through the corporate red tape, I’d love to hear how you handled it. Thanks for reading.

A local business is claiming the photo they illegally used for marketing over the last 11 months was provided to them by a stock image site with a .ru address.

Even IF this is true, would they still be liable for paying a retroactive license fee?

P.S. they brag on their website about making 3 million dollars or something and won’t acknowledge my payment request, just responded with some sob story.

My own YouTube channel was just deleted for copyright violations on MY OWN SONG.

Here’s what happened: On June 18th, I created a viral version of the song "Love me, hate me" (based on an unreleased Oliver Tree song) and uploaded it to my channel. I had no plans to put it on Spotify or Apple Music. The song blew up, got around 500k views, and started going viral on TikTok.

The Loophole Exploited: Someone downloaded the audio straight from my YouTube video and distributed it through a digital distributor to YouTube Music as their own official release. After that, they hit my original video with a copyright strike. They did this exact same thing with two of my other tracks. Because the system automatically trusts "official releases," YouTube blindly accepted the strikes, and my channel was completely terminated.

At first, I thought this was just my fault for not distributing the track officially. But after watching recent videos from massive creators like Davie504 and Richard Mauricio regarding insanely aggressive and false copyright claims, it’s clear this is a systemic issue.

It feels like YouTube is relying on a highly aggressive AI to scan and strike videos, and it’s hurting everyone from small creators to millions-subscriber channels. I even read about a channel getting terminated just for analyzing Taylor Swift lyrics (without even playing her music).

The Resolution Options are Broken

If a malicious actor steals your work and strikes you, the options to restore your channel are virtually nonexistent:

• "Work it out privately": YouTube provides the claimant's email to resolve it. I reached out to the person who stole my track, and they responded with pure hostility and insults. Furthermore, if you get a false claim from a massive entity like UMG, good luck ever getting a human to read your email.
• The Counter-Claim: This is the only official route, but it requires you to expose your real, full personal data (essentially doxxing yourself to the claimant) so they can potentially take you to court. For small creators or independent artists, risking a massive legal battle over a stolen track is terrifying and financially impossible.

It feels like the current system is designed to purge independent creators in favor of large corporations and distributors. And YT support system does not exist. I spent an entire month getting auto-replies from bots on Twitter and via email on copyright issues.

Seriously, do human beings even work at YouTube anymore?