The Lockpicking Copyright Fight

Update July 7, 2025: Just hours after I published this, Proven Industries filed to dismiss the lawsuit voluntarily.

Proven Industries, the manufacturers of Proven Locks, have filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against YouTuber and lockpicker Trevor McNally, better known as McNally.

The lawsuit alleges that McNally used portions of a Proven Industries video in one of his. In McNally’s video, he demonstrated a shim attack that bypassed one of Proven Industries’ locks, despite the lock costing $130.

According to Proven Industries, this video was not only defamation but also a copyright infringement. The lawsuit alleges that McNally made it appear easier than it is to bypass the lock and falsely presented the effort required.

As such, they are suing for alleged copyright infringement, defamation by implication, false advertising, unfair trade practices, tortious interference, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy and trade libel. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and an injunction barring further infringement or defamation.

McNally, in his declaration, stated that the lock’s core is vulnerable and that he has discovered similar exploits on other locks utilizing the same technology.

Since the lawsuit was filed, McNally has released several more videos demonstrating the attack on the lock. This has prompted Proven to amend its complaint to mention the new videos.

How did this lawsuit become so heated? To answer that, we have to go back to March 2025.

The Story So Far

Disclosure: I am an avid lockpicker (though not a particularly good one) and follow McNally, as well as other locksport YouTube channels. I have also made multiple purchases with Covert Instruments, a company mentioned in the complaint.

According to McNally’s declaration, in March 2025, Proven published a video on their social media channels entitled To Prove Its Haters Wrong. The video touted the security of the lock in question. An Instagram user commented on the video, saying, “Let’s introduce it to the @mcnallyofficial poke.”

This prompted Proven Industries to reply, saying that McNally and other YouTubers “like cheap locks” because they are fast and easy to bypass or pick.

McNally responded to the challenge by posting his video on April 3. In that video, he demonstrated bypassing the lock with nothing but a soda can and a pair of scissors. McNally has said the lock was not altered, and the video required minimal preparation.

This led to a war of words between the two sides, with Proven repeatedly accusing McNally of faking or staging his videos. During that time, they announced that they were filing a lawsuit against McNally in an attempt to “expose” him.

On May 1, Proven Industries filed its lawsuit, alleging copyright infringement, defamation, and other claims. However, this did not deter McNally.

On May 23, he published a video showing him obtaining the lock from an Amazon locker and opening it out of its original packaging, with a shim made on site. He then published three more videos, all demonstrating the exploit in various ways.

The court case is ongoing. The judge recently denied an emergency motion for a preliminary injunction filed by Proven. However, Proven was granted leave to file an amended complaint.

The Copyright Issue

The copyright claim is the most prominent complaint in the lawsuit. However, to my mind, it’s also incredibly weak.

Proven’s argument is relatively straightforward. They claim that McNally used their video when making his own. To be clear, he did. He showed roughly two seconds of the video full screen before getting up and showing he was watching on his phone.

The video continues to play in the background while he performs the shim attack. Proven alleges this use went beyond the limited license YouTube grants users and was not transformative, nor protected under fair use.

However, one line from the lawsuit grabbed my attention:

The McNally Video incorporates an EXACT copy of excerpts of the Proven Video at its outset and uses it without transformation or commentary, except to frame it for ridicule.

The “framing it for ridicule” is the transformation and commentary. Parody enjoys broad protection under the doctrine of fair use.

He reused a video about the security of Proven Locks to create a video highlighting a perceived security flaw. This is almost literally the definition of transformation. Throw in the comedic elements, and you have a good argument for parody as well.

Proven is going to have a difficult time showing that this video is not transformative and that it harmed the market for the original work (the video itself, not the company broadly).

But that brings us to the meat of the problem. Copyright is secondary to what this case is about.

The Bigger Picture

It seems unlikely to me that Proven would have filed this lawsuit if McNally had used the same material, but in a positive video. Judging from the responses from both sides, the fundamental disagreement is about how McNally presented Proven’s product.

Here, I do have some sympathy for Proven Industries. McNally does make it look trivial to shim the lock. However, I do agree that it’s not an attack that severely hurts the lock’s overall security.

The truth is that most locks aren’t defeated by picking or shimming. They are defeated by not being used, not being used correctly or by destructive attacks. I believe Proven when they say that no one has reported the lock being shimmed open.

But that doesn’t mean McNally lied or misled either. One thing I’ve learned as a lockpicker is that something being easy for one person does not make it easy for me or anyone else. I’m not sure if I could do this myself (I haven’t tried), but I’m skeptical that I could get it to work on the first try.

It also doesn’t make him a liar to use multiple takes or editing. These are standard fare on YouTube and widely expected by the audience.

However, even if the original video is misleading, his subsequent videos demonstrate that he can consistently perform this bypass. This is a known issue with this core design, and in one of their videos, Proven even acknowledges that. They also offer higher-end cores that do not have this issue.

The truth is that this never should have been a lawsuit. All it does is harm everyone involved and security more broadly.

The Streisand Effect Up to 11

Lock manufacturers have long had a bizarre relationship with lockpickers. Master Lock, for example, has long been the subject of ridicule in the lockpicking world. However, the company has never directly sued any lockpickers.

That’s partly because the locksport community has improved security. The Kwikset SmartKey system, for example, went through several iterations after flaws were discovered. Because of this potential benefit, some take it a step further. Paclock, for example, rewards those who successfully pick their locks open.

This is the first time I could find a lock manufacturer suing a lockpicker. It’s easy to see why.

McNally is a popular celebrity in the locksport community. However, this lawsuit pushed the story into the mainstream press. Now, far more people are aware of this than would have been otherwise.

By first engaging in a war of words and then filing the lawsuit, Proven has ensured that those outside the Locksport community are also aware. Given McNally’s pace of uploading, this likely would have been forgotten in a matter of days. Now, the case has dragged on for months with no end in sight.

While there are legitimate arguments about the seriousness of this issue for the lock, there’s little doubt that there is a perceived problem. Proven could have responded by removing that core from sale, modifying the lock to make the attack more difficult or impossible, or simply ignored it.

Instead, they chose to engage in a verbal and then a legal fight. If nothing else, this makes Proven Industries look petty and does nothing to improve the security of their product.

Bottom Line

Ultimately, a simple question must be asked: Why is Proven Industries suing McNally?

They’re upset because he showed one of their products in a light that they felt was unfair. That is understandable and may even carry a defamation case if they can prove their claims.

But that makes their copyright arguments look especially weak.

It’s pretty clear that McNally was criticizing both the original video and the company. Whether that criticism was fair doesn’t enter into the copyright discussion. McNally has a very strong fair use argument as his use was both transformative and critical, contrary to what Proven claims.

But, even if it IS an infringement, does it make sense to sue? Targeting critics with copyright takedowns and/or litigation rarely works out well. It’s often referred to as copyright silencing and usually results in the plaintiff coming across as a bully rather than addressing serious copyright concerns.

In the end, I don’t believe that McNally committed copyright infringement, nor do I think he lied or misled in a manner that is actionable. Clearly, he can repeat the exploit and, given that it’s one with the core type, not this specific core, it’s easy to see why.

That doesn’t mean Proven Industries’ lock is a garbage product or insecure. It’s a flaw and one that should be rectified, but it doesn’t mean to throw away any existing locks you may have. Every lock can be picked or bypassed by someone knowledgeable enough with adequate time.

There is no such thing as perfect, only good enough for the application.