IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—N.D. Cal.: TikTik personality is 0-for-2 in seeking to unmask alleged infringers, (Aug 6, 2026)

By Matthew Hersh, J.D.

Critics of the social media star made a fair use of excerpts of his livestreams.

A popular TikTok content creator was not entitled to unmask a Reddit critic who posted an excerpt from one of his live video streams because the anonymous critic made a fair use of the original stream, the District Court for the Northern District of California has held. The court’s decision to retain the anonymity of the subpoena target came a month after another judge on the same bench issued a similar ruling involving the same livestreamer and a different Reddit critic (In Re DMCA Subpoena To Reddit, Inc., No. 3:26-mc-80129-LJC (N.D. Cal. Jul. 29, 2026) and (In Re DMCA Subpoena To Reddit, Inc., No. 3:26-mc-80128-TSH (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2026)).

The subpoena was issued on behalf of Alireza Shafiei, a TikTok content creator with approximately one million followers and over 1.3 million likes. Shafiei, who operates under the username @PrettyBoyAli24, is a decidedly controversial figure within the livestreaming and social media communities. His profanity and allegedly homophobic remarks have repeatedly drawn criticism on Reddit, where several anonymous users have reposted short clips of his broadcasts to criticize his rhetoric.

The TikTok streamer has sought to unmask some of his critics. In August 2025, he had the clerk of an Ohio federal court issue to Reddit two subpoenas under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. One of the subpoenas sought the name of a Reddit user known as “u/tiktoktruthseeker” who posted a 27-second clip from one of his streams accompanied by extended criticisms of his rhetoric. Another sought the name of Reddit user “u/Vegetable_Lettuce450,” who reposted a seven-second clip from one of his livestreams with critical commentary.

The first subpoena failed in June of this year. In a 17-page opinion denying a motion to compel, Judge Hixson of the Northern District of California bench found that “u/tiktoktruthseeker” made a fair use of the 27-second clip. “Even though the Reddit user included an unaltered clip from Shafiei’s livestream,” the court found, “what matters is that the poster used it to express criticism of Shafiei’s rhetoric.” As such, the court noted, “Reddit user’s posting of the clip is a transformative fair use rather than infringement.” Criticism of the TikTok streamer, the court found, “was therefore a quintessential fair use right expressly protected by [the Copyright Act], which transforms the purpose and expressive content of the material, regardless of whether its physical form is changed.”

That set the stage for another judge in the Northern District, Judge Cisneros, to rule on the second subpoena.

Fair use. Judge Cisneros, expressly adopting the analysis of her colleague on the bench, found that “u/Vegetable_Lettuce450” also made a fair use of the TikToker’s livestream. “Consistent with the reasoning” in that case, the court found, “Vegetable Lettuce’s Post constitutes fair use. Indeed, “copying a work for the purpose of criticism or commentary, as Vegetable Lettuce has done in their post,” the court found, “is inherently transformative.”

The court found that the other fair use factors also cut in favor of the anonymous Reddit poster. “Although the Court supposes that the livestream reflects some nominally creative choices, such as the framing of the video and the selection of emojis animating the screen,” the court noted, “the video (which Reddit characterizes as a ‘stream-of-consciousness diatribe’) is hardly a work so creative to be at ‘the core of intended copyright protection.” Moreover, the court noted, “the use of a seven-second clip from someone who livestreams up to 16 hours per day is quantitatively insignificant and weighs in favor of fair use.” Finally, the court emphasized, although the TikTok streamer argued that Vegetable Lettuce’s post harmed his reputation and thus decreased his number of followers, “suppression of demand from criticism is not a cognizable copyright harm under factor four.”

The Case is No. 3:26-mc-80129-LJC.

Judge: Hixson, T.

Attorneys: Melinda Mae Morton (Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP) for Alireza Shafiei. Timothy Michael Carter (Ashurst Perkins Coie US LLP) for Reddit Inc.

Companies: Reddit Inc.

Cases: Copyright CaliforniaNews TechnologyInternet