Unfortunately that has no chance of succeeding. When you sign up to reddit, you give them a license to use the content you submit. It’s in the user agreement, section 5 “Your Content”: https://www.redditinc.com/policies/user-agreement
You are confused. What you are describing applies to transferring copyright, not for granting a license while retaining the copyright.
If things worked the way you described, free software, for example licensed through the GPL, couldn’t exist because then the authors could always take away the users’ rights by retroactively revoking their license. Fortunately, it doesn’t work that way.
There are cases where artists withdrew consent and their work had to be taken down, and to my knowledge all contracts can be amended or cancelled, especially if they’re exploitative like reddits. You have a right to compensation if they profit off of your creative work, be it artwork, music, or writing.
Under GDPR you have the right to your content, including data download and revocation. If you are banned from or restricted access to a website it doesn’t strip you of that right. However the complain should have probably been through GDPR and not DMCA.
“As the original creator and designer of the logo and banner, I also filed a DMCA against the further use of the r/TIHI logo on reddit.”
Thanks, I Love It.
Unfortunately that has no chance of succeeding. When you sign up to reddit, you give them a license to use the content you submit. It’s in the user agreement, section 5 “Your Content”: https://www.redditinc.com/policies/user-agreement
This doesn’t hold any grounds in the EU as copyrights can’t be waived, and unless you got paid for it, you can withdraw consent at any time.
You don’t waive your copyright. You grant a license to reddit to use your content.
Read the link, it’s all there:
This doesn’t apply unless you got compensated for your work. Reddit can add anything they like in their agreements, but that won’t hold in court.
The artist can withdraw consent at any time.
You are confused. What you are describing applies to transferring copyright, not for granting a license while retaining the copyright.
If things worked the way you described, free software, for example licensed through the GPL, couldn’t exist because then the authors could always take away the users’ rights by retroactively revoking their license. Fortunately, it doesn’t work that way.
There are cases where artists withdrew consent and their work had to be taken down, and to my knowledge all contracts can be amended or cancelled, especially if they’re exploitative like reddits. You have a right to compensation if they profit off of your creative work, be it artwork, music, or writing.
Under GDPR you have the right to your content, including data download and revocation. If you are banned from or restricted access to a website it doesn’t strip you of that right. However the complain should have probably been through GDPR and not DMCA.
The DMCA is used “successfully” with even less grounds on YouTube every day. But I suppose the difference lies in not being a mega corporation.