No, Pero Why?
Back to cases
Case 14Media & evidence4 min

Credit is not the whole copyright answer

You added the creator’s name. Are you finished checking?

In the conversationCaioMariGiaPauta
Caio, Mari and Gia set up a camera shoot in a bright studio.

Pause the track.

Caio, Mari and Gia set up a camera shoot in a bright studio.

Caio is with you

Credit matters. It is not the only thing to check.

The original reference

TikTok: Introducing Stitch

TikTok’s official Stitch announcement shows how remix culture lets users combine part of another video with their own; the original creator controls whether Stitch is enabled, and the feature credits the original post. That platform feature is different from downloading someone’s entire video and reposting it elsewhere.

Open the original reference

The track sounds good. The upload is paused.

A credit line is not the whole permission question.

Hear what matters to each person. Choose a question. Notice what their answer adds, then check it against the case materials.

Two people to hear from. Start with either one.

Put their perspectives together

Make the creative choice alongside the rights question. The goal is an explanation grounded in this use, not a shortcut that promises every remix is allowed.

A person’s account explains their perspective. It still needs checking where it makes a factual claim.

Follow the explanation

Bring a companion into this.

Six ways to get unstuck
DudaFind the question

What detail about your planned use could change your first assessment?

Try your first take
PautaCheck who decides

Apply the case’s fair-use questions to the particular use. There is no automatic percentage rule here.

Open the source file
LupaFollow the evidence

Trace the original, credit it accurately and distinguish permission from your own legal interpretation.

Check the original
OndaConsider the people

What do the original creator, remixer and audience each need to know about the relationship?

Consider another view
NexoLook at the bigger picture

What does a platform’s remix feature make possible, and which rights questions does it leave unresolved?

Read the explanation
VozMake a next move

Plan an original remix and write a short rationale for how you would assess its use of someone else’s work. Include uncertainty and a permission-based alternative.

Build your response

Follow the question.

The U.S. Copyright Office explains that fair use is a case-by-case assessment of purpose, the original work, the amount used, and market effect. Educational intent is relevant, but does not automatically make every use fair. There is no universal safe number of seconds. For a class project, first identify the material you need, its permission or license, and why you are using it.

Try the situation

Giving credit answers who made it. Permission is another question.

A credit, a platform remix button and a legal basis to reuse a work do different jobs. A creator can appreciate attribution and still hold rights in the material. Moving a remix to another platform may also change the permissions you are relying on.

The Copyright Office describes fair use as a case-specific assessment using four factors. “For school,” “only a few seconds” and “I’m not making money” are not automatic answers. Identify the original work, what you want to use, your purpose and any license or permission. Then compare the relevant factors without presenting your first judgment as a guaranteed outcome. Creating your own material or using clearly licensed work may make the project easier to finish.

Attribution
Naming or crediting a source.
License
Permission to use a work under particular terms.
Fair use
A U.S. copyright doctrine evaluated in context using statutory factors.

Dar crédito, usar una función de remix y tener una base legal para reutilizar una obra son cosas distintas. Una persona puede agradecer la atribución y conservar derechos sobre el material. Llevar el remix a otra plataforma también puede cambiar los permisos en los que te apoyas.

La Oficina de Derechos de Autor describe el uso justo como una evaluación de cuatro factores que depende de cada caso. “Es para la escuela”, “son pocos segundos” y “no gano dinero” no son respuestas automáticas. Identifica la obra, el fragmento, tu propósito y cualquier licencia o permiso. Examina los factores sin prometer un resultado. Crear material propio o usar obras con licencias claras puede facilitar el proyecto.

Atribución
Identificar o dar crédito a una fuente.
Licencia
Permiso para usar una obra bajo condiciones específicas.
Uso justo
Doctrina estadounidense evaluada según el contexto y factores legales.
An invented situation to think through

You want to explain a creator’s argument in a class video. Which planning note is strongest?

Choose an approach. You can explore every response.

Your turn. Make it useful.

Plan an original remix and write a short rationale for how you would assess its use of someone else’s work. Include uncertainty and a permission-based alternative.

Before you call it done: Does the rationale consider the actual use without promising that attribution or a platform feature makes it lawful?

How the seven fields work together here

These questions shape the same assignment. Work through them in plain language; you don’t need seven separate essays.

Public relations
What do the original creator, remixer and audience each need to know about the relationship? The idea behind this
Communication strategy
How will viewers distinguish the original material, your additions and your interpretation? The idea behind this
Law and legal concepts
Apply the case’s fair-use questions to the particular use. There is no automatic percentage rule here. The idea behind this
Policy and policy studies
What does a platform’s remix feature make possible, and which rights questions does it leave unresolved? The idea behind this
Education and learning
What detail about your planned use could change your first assessment? The idea behind this
Journalism and reporting
Trace the original, credit it accurately and distinguish permission from your own legal interpretation. The idea behind this
Creativity
Sketch a version using the source and another using original or licensed material. Compare purpose, meaning and constraints. The idea behind this
The research behind this case

These are our teaching applications of the ideas below. For the rule or factual claim itself, use this case’s source file.

Authority and jurisdiction

Cornell Legal Information Institute. Legal reference.

Whether legal authority binds a decision-maker depends on the relevant jurisdiction and legal system.

Keep in mind: This reference introduces a concept. The actual rule, jurisdiction, facts and current primary sources must be checked in each case.

Read the original source

The Double Diamond

Design Council. Professional design framework.

Understand the situation, define the challenge, explore alternatives, then test and improve a response.

Keep in mind: We adapt the process for small creative assignments. A polished artifact does not make an unsupported claim accurate.

Read the original source
Take this assignment to the making studio

Put your reasoning into words.

You can have a view and still have questions. Build a short take you can explain.

This stays in your browser and is not saved or submitted. Keep personal information out.

Voz asks what comes next

Make it specific.

Create a four-item rights log for your project: creator/source, intended use, permission or license, and any fair-use reasoning requiring review.

Check the sources

Make a reuse record before you edit.

  1. List each outside image, clip, sound or quote.
  2. Record its source and the permission, license or legal reasoning you would rely on.
  3. Check whether the planned publication matches those terms; use an alternative if you cannot support the use.

How you might tell a friend

Credit matters, but I still need to check the terms for this use and this platform.
Una forma de decirlo en español

Dar crédito importa, pero todavía tengo que revisar las condiciones para este uso y esta plataforma.

Use your own voice. Keep the meaning, the evidence and the limits.

Find a student creative or media teamMake a source cardTurn this into a post or explainer
Where this example applies

TikTok’s cited announcement is from 2020 and documents the feature’s launch; do not copy its menu instructions as a current tutorial. In-app permissions are not a blanket license for every later use.

Lupa keeps the sources close

The cultural reference starts a question. The other sources support the explanation.

Open the source file.

1

TikTok: Introducing Stitch

Actual platform cultural example; original creator controls and attribution.

2

U.S. Copyright Office: Fair Use

Four-factor, case-specific assessment; education is not automatically fair use.

Sources checked September 23, 2026. General education; no independent expert review is claimed. Source standards

Another angle?

Find another case
Bring this case to your course

English language arts and writing are the main fit. Civics, journalism, communications and sociology courses can add their disciplinary sources. These are selected practice targets; your submitted work shows what you can do.

Common Core targets and evidence

Grade 6

an original remix plan with source-based rationale, uncertainty and an alternative that obtains permission; a revised written product; and a teacher observation or transcript of collaborative discussion.

  • RI.6.1 Cite a relevant source passage and distinguish what it states from an inference. Apply this to actual proposed use, attribution and a permission-based alternative.
  • W.6.1 Develop a supported recommendation about actual proposed use, attribution and a permission-based alternative in an original remix plan with source-based rationale, uncertainty and an alternative that obtains permission.
  • W.6.5 Submit a first draft and revision; identify a factual, reasoning or audience change prompted by feedback.
  • SL.6.1.c Ask a specific question, respond with detail and paraphrase another perspective.
  • SL.6.1.d Ask a specific question, respond with detail and paraphrase another perspective.
Grade 7

an original remix plan with source-based rationale, uncertainty and an alternative that obtains permission; a revised written product; and a teacher observation or transcript of collaborative discussion.

  • RI.7.1 Cite several relevant source details and explain how they support the distinction. Apply this to actual proposed use, attribution and a permission-based alternative.
  • W.7.1 Develop a supported recommendation about actual proposed use, attribution and a permission-based alternative in an original remix plan with source-based rationale, uncertainty and an alternative that obtains permission.
  • W.7.5 Submit a first draft and revision; identify a factual, reasoning or audience change prompted by feedback.
  • SL.7.1.c Ask for elaboration and record whether new information changes your view.
  • SL.7.1.d Ask for elaboration and record whether new information changes your view.
Grade 8

an original remix plan with source-based rationale, uncertainty and an alternative that obtains permission; a revised written product; and a teacher observation or transcript of collaborative discussion.

  • RI.8.1 Select the strongest evidence and explain why it is stronger than an alternative detail. Apply this to actual proposed use, attribution and a permission-based alternative.
  • W.8.1 Develop a supported recommendation about actual proposed use, attribution and a permission-based alternative in an original remix plan with source-based rationale, uncertainty and an alternative that obtains permission.
  • W.8.5 Submit a first draft and revision; identify a factual, reasoning or audience change prompted by feedback.
  • SL.8.1.c Connect ideas from several speakers and qualify or justify your view with evidence.
  • SL.8.1.d Connect ideas from several speakers and qualify or justify your view with evidence.
Grade 9–10

an original remix plan with source-based rationale, uncertainty and an alternative that obtains permission; a revised written product; and a teacher observation or transcript of collaborative discussion.

  • RI.9-10.1 Use strong, thorough evidence and distinguish direct source support from a disputed inference. Apply this to actual proposed use, attribution and a permission-based alternative.
  • W.9-10.1 Develop a supported recommendation about actual proposed use, attribution and a permission-based alternative in an original remix plan with source-based rationale, uncertainty and an alternative that obtains permission.
  • W.9-10.5 Submit a first draft and revision; identify a factual, reasoning or audience change prompted by feedback.
  • SL.9-10.1.c Invite a peer, verify or challenge a conclusion, and summarize agreement and disagreement.
  • SL.9-10.1.d Invite a peer, verify or challenge a conclusion, and summarize agreement and disagreement.
Grade 11–12

an original remix plan with source-based rationale, uncertainty and an alternative that obtains permission; a revised written product; and a teacher observation or transcript of collaborative discussion.

  • RI.11-12.1 Use strong, thorough evidence and explicitly identify an uncertainty that the source leaves unresolved. Apply this to actual proposed use, attribution and a permission-based alternative.
  • W.11-12.1 Develop a supported recommendation about actual proposed use, attribution and a permission-based alternative in an original remix plan with source-based rationale, uncertainty and an alternative that obtains permission.
  • W.11-12.5 Submit a first draft and revision; identify a factual, reasoning or audience change prompted by feedback.
  • SL.11-12.1.c Synthesize positions, resolve a contradiction where possible and name additional information needed.
  • SL.11-12.1.d Synthesize positions, resolve a contradiction where possible and name additional information needed.

Course variations

Pre-AP English 1 and English 2 practice

English 1: Closely annotate two pivotal wording or design choices in the case records about actual proposed use, attribution and a permission-based alternative; write one analytical paragraph explaining how those choices affect meaning, then revise the case product. English 2: Compare three relevant records, develop a cohesive multi-paragraph analysis or supported recommendation, address a competing interpretation and explain one revision.

Turn in: English 1: annotated excerpt + analytical paragraph + revised product. English 2: source comparison + sustained analysis/argument + revision memo.

  • Specific details support the explanation of actual proposed use, attribution and a permission-based alternative.
  • Commentary connects wording or design to meaning, rather than only naming features.
  • The argument/analysis has a precise focus and relevant evidence.
  • English 2 integrates sources and addresses a plausible competing view.
Official course framework
AP English Language practice

Defend a proposed production route while responding to the claim that attribution settles the rights question. Build a defensible thesis from the case records and appropriate primary-source material; explain how each source supports the reasoning, qualify a claim and revise the argument for the case’s named audience.

Turn in: Source-supported argument + fair counterclaim + audience-specific revision and commentary

  • A defensible thesis takes a clear, qualified position.
  • Evidence and commentary accurately handle actual proposed use, attribution and a permission-based alternative.
  • The strongest plausible counterclaim receives fair treatment.
  • Organization and language suit the intended reader; qualification reflects an actual evidentiary limit.

Selected course-skill practice; not an official AP task, exam simulation or score prediction.

Official course framework
IB MYP Language and Literature practice

Compare two case texts about actual proposed use, attribution and a permission-based alternative, supporting an interpretation of a creator’s choices. Organize the findings with references, create the case’s reader-facing product, then explain how a draft changed for its audience.

Turn in: Supported text comparison + referenced plan + original revised product + audience reflection

  • A: A supported comparison explains a textual choice connected to actual proposed use, attribution and a permission-based alternative.
  • B: Ideas and references are organized so the reader can follow the reasoning.
  • C: The original product makes intentional choices for a specified audience and shows development from draft to revision.
  • D: Vocabulary, register and expression communicate accurately in the chosen context.

Teacher selects the actual MYP year descriptors. These local indicators do not assign official achievement levels.

Official course framework
IB DP Language A: Language and Literature practice

How do a platform or rights explainer’s wording, examples and qualifications construct the user’s sense of permission? Choose a substantive nonliterary case text and write a guided textual analysis: develop an interpretation, analyze specific authorial choices and evaluate how they shape meaning. Keep a public-policy recommendation separate from the textual analysis.

Turn in: Focused guided textual analysis of one substantial nonliterary text, with precise textual/visual references

  • A: A reasoned interpretation is grounded in relevant references.
  • B: Analysis evaluates how particular language, structure or visual choices shape meaning.
  • C: A focused line of argument connects paragraphs.
  • D: Clear, precise analytical language suits the task.

Paper 1 skill practice only. Not an assessed individual oral, HL essay or Paper 2; those have additional work/body-of-work requirements.

Official course framework
Honors extension — locally defined

Compare two uses of the same source work, identify which facts alter the reasoning and investigate a permission-based alternative. Independently locate an appropriate corroborating source, document its limits and defend which new evidence would change your conclusion.

Turn in: Independent inquiry/decision memo + rival explanation or option + limitations/revision-trigger note

  • Independent evidence is traceable and relevant.
  • The analysis accurately handles actual proposed use, attribution and a permission-based alternative.
  • A serious competing interpretation or option is tested fairly.
  • The conclusion names a material limit and a concrete condition for revision.

No national Honors code or certification is asserted. Add the school’s actual course expectations.

Set the criteria with your local course teacher.

Keep the first draft, source notes, a discussion record and your revision. A solo response does not demonstrate a collaborative discussion standard. AP, Pre-AP and IB routes are independently designed practice, not official program assessments. Honors expectations are set locally.

See the complete curriculum crosswalk