|
Bobbin Threadbare posted:I'm pretty sure most of them did, hence them haphazardly uploading to Youtube. A lot of them got kicked off of Youtube in the first place for copyright violations, so it's not exactly their first rodeo. Todd in the Shadows is getting hosed especially hard by copyright, considering his entire shtick is reviewing music and Youtube tends to frown upon that. 
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 03:08 |
|
|
Bobbin Threadbare posted:I'm pretty sure most of them did, hence them haphazardly uploading to Youtube. A lot of them got kicked off of Youtube in the first place for copyright violations, so it's not exactly their first rodeo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
Only tangentially related to LP's what with their gaming videos and all, but TheFineBros (those people that make those Youtubers React videos you hate) have trademarked their video format. They are attempting to basically make a franchise out of a style of video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2UqT6SZ7CU Word is that despite this blurb in their description: quote:We do not own the idea of reaction videos nor would we shut down anyone making reaction based content. Of course you can make your own react videos, but React World is an opportunity to localize versions of our specific series. This is also a way to create a community on YouTube of like minded producers and fans who want to work together, and benefit from the guidance and resources that we can provide around the specific FBE shows that we are making available through the React World program. They actually are taking down other channels that are similar to theirs using the power this new licensing gives them.  The reception has not been very kind. They lost multiple tens of thousands of subscribers in less than a day. CJacobs fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Jan 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
The response by Mega64 has been my favorite so far. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRYnOPJiTaA
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
I like Kr1tikal's since he was pretty drat merciless about it. EDIT: Oh wow, Adults React to Pewdiepie already down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
HGH posted:I like Kr1tikal's since he was pretty drat merciless about it. beef said on twitter he made it private as a precaution.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
remember when youtube was all about web 2.0 had video responses in case you wanted to react to a video
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_rCQEtlCtU critikal's video is pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Which lead THIS awesome thing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aj22U5F8iU8
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:remember when youtube was all about web 2.0 had video responses in case you wanted to react to a video When was that phased out? 2010? Or did that go the way of the dodo the same time the "Star Rating" system did because supposedly a "Thumbs down" is less abrasive than a bunch of people 1 starring your video. RATE 5 AND SUBSCRIBE Oh, also, they uploaded a response to the negativity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0t-vuI9vKfg "What constitutes the format you're licensing?" "JUST WATCH OUR VIDEOS, THAT'S THE FORMAT" hahahaha BMS fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Feb 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:remember when youtube was all about web 2.0 had video responses in case you wanted to react to a video Yeah, and every video had responses from the same women with their chest front and center in the thumbnail.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
I don't understand why they are getting so much hate. I mean, I get they are doing something that is coming off as stupid and vague, but how did that translate into this much backlash that they are hemorrhaging subscribers and getting massive amounts of dislikes on their videos?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
A lot of people are just now having the illusion that YouTube isn't corporate shattered.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:I don't understand why they are getting so much hate. I mean, I get they are doing something that is coming off as stupid and vague, but how did that translate into this much backlash that they are hemorrhaging subscribers and getting massive amounts of dislikes on their videos?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Yeah, the problem isn't that people are re-uploading their content, they've literally copyrighted a video style. They've copyrighted (or trademarked or whatever, I don't really care specifically) the very idea of having people react to things on video and now are taking down other peoples videos that are similar in style. It really would be like if slowbeef copyrighted Let's Play and then wouldn't allow other people to commentate over videogames on video.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:I don't understand why they are getting so much hate. I mean, I get they are doing something that is coming off as stupid and vague, but how did that translate into this much backlash that they are hemorrhaging subscribers and getting massive amounts of dislikes on their videos? Also, because they've done things in the past that contradict their statements that they're not trying to claim all "reaction videos" as their own property. The big one I've seen linked to is when they posted on Facebook and Twitter to sic fans on Ellen Degeneres for doing a segment where she showed children a typewriter and an old mobile phone, which looked pretty heavily scripted to begin with and didn't use the word "react" at all, particularly in the title. (I think it was "Introducing Children to Old Technology" or something.) And now either they or the corporate entity that holds the trademark on behalf of Fine Bros. Entertainment are taking down any videos that feature people reacting to things, particularly to Fine Bros. videos (see examples upthread), again showing that it's not just the trademark they're trying to lock down. There's some room to believe that perhaps they gave good instructions to Youtube on what kind of content was infringing (a.k.a. NONE AT ALL), but they should know as well as anyone that Youtube would shut down their entire service if someone with enough money mentioned that there might possibly be an "infringing video" somewhere on there. The whole thing comes together to make it clear that they're just trying to get money from people doing what they've always done. While the idea they presented is a decent one (essentially, you sign a contract with us that gives us a portion of your profits forever and we'll give you some resources, advice, and promotion to get you making that sweet, sweet money we get a part of forever), they talk about how un-corporate they are and how invested they are in creating a community while actively going corporate on that same community. Pretty much the textbook definition of "selling out", I think.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
From what I heard that the original idea was good. It was the equivalent of signing up and getting a capture device and all the editing script files and graphics you would need to be able to replicate their style, and hopefully quality, of video. You would still have to bring the talent and the games or props.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
Garrand posted:Yeah, the problem isn't that people are re-uploading their content, they've literally copyrighted a video style. They've copyrighted (or trademarked or whatever, I don't really care specifically) the very idea of having people react to things on video and now are taking down other peoples videos that are similar in style. It really would be like if slowbeef copyrighted Let's Play and then wouldn't allow other people to commentate over videogames on video. Trademarked. Copyrights are for specific works, trademarks are for, well, marks of the trade, and as such they're using it inappropriately to try and claim a format when all they can really claim are their logos and mottoes and stuff like that. A format would be a patent if it was anything, and there's way too much prior art for that to be kosher, either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
I've heard people say videos have been taken down, but no evidence or examples have been given. If someone has some information about this, I would love to hear it, but if it's just sensationalist exaggeration, it doesn't do anyone any good to parrot false claims. I get the idea behind what they are saying; They have a brand, and they want to license that brand globally. They have formats they feel are unique to them, and feel people should be required to license those formats if they want to do something similar. Of course, the problem here is trying to understand what they feel makes their brand/format unique so that others don't infringe upon it. It's really vague to the audience and seems like they are just trying to lay claim to the concept of reaction videos as a whole. So the whole thing comes off as stupid and concerning. I'm just surprised that there's such a huge backlash over it. I get why people are upset, but I just wouldn't have expected so many to turn on them so fast from a single confusing announcement video. Niggurath posted:It's like if Pewdiepie came out with the Pewd Network and all his bros can come under his umbrella to make him money and share in the network, but you might be hosed if you are a screaming meme machine playing a game with a scarecam cause he'll take down your video for taking his idea. I'd actually be OK with this. Pewdiepie shuts down all the annoying copycats. Pewdiepie's fans turn on him and he disappears. Win/Win Jamesman fucked around with this message at 02:01 on Feb 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:I get the idea behind what they are saying; They have a brand, and they want to license that brand globally. They have formats they feel are unique to them, and feel people should be required to license those formats if they want to do something similar. Of course, the problem here is trying to understand what they feel makes their brand/format unique so that others don't infringe upon it. It's really vague to the audience and seems like they are just trying to lay claim to the concept of reaction videos as a whole. So the whole thing comes off as stupid and concerning. Their format is not something that is unique enough to warrant a trademark, their brand is generic enough that their trademark's reach is incredibly wide for what their videos are, and they're acting specifically like they were the first and thus are the most important. They are portraying an air of making it "for the people" while trying to hop, skip, and jump around saying what they really mean: "It's for the people if you pay us, you didn't have to before but you do now". That's what people have problems with.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
Bobbin Threadbare posted:Trademarked. Copyrights are for specific works, trademarks are for, well, marks of the trade, and as such they're using it inappropriately to try and claim a format when all they can really claim are their logos and mottoes and stuff like that. A format would be a patent if it was anything, and there's way too much prior art for that to be kosher, either. If we go full legal, it's service mark, as trademarks are used to identify goods (i.e. physical goods), whereas service marks are the same thing for services (which is entertainment in this case).* *CONTEXT: everything that can be bought or sold is generally split into three broad categories: goods, services, intellectual property rights. In Eastern European legal tradition you will also have so-called "works" (there is no better way to translate it, I swear), where you have a service and its result as one (i.e. construction); in the Western tradition these go under services. Fun fact: they actually just trademarked the word "react", along some other things. The application was filed in July 2015. http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4801:jh03qm.2.15
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:I've heard people say videos have been taken down, but no evidence or examples have been given. If someone has some information about this, I would love to hear it, but if it's just sensationalist exaggeration, it doesn't do anyone any good to parrot false claims. Trying to claim a format with a trademark is like if Coach tried to shut down every purse manufacturer for making purses or if Ford tried to get rid of every muscle car because they made the Mustang. Alexeythegreat posted:Fun fact: they actually just trademarked the word "react", along some other things. The application was filed in July 2015. http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4801:jh03qm.2.15 Yeah, trademarking a word doesn't work. It has to be a specific graphic and/or font in connection with the word. So "nickelodeon" is free for anyone to use, but "Nickelodeon" with the round font and the orange outline is strictly for the channel to use and license. There's also some stuff about using the same name in the same industry, but that's got a lot of wiggle room. Apple Computers successfully defended their name against Apple Records even as they went into the music business with iTunes, for instance. Bobbin Threadbare fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Feb 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
Bobbin Threadbare posted:
Isn't it also the case that the trademark holder can still take you down if they can prove that your version of the word or phrase is being presented such that the layperson might mistake yours for the original?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
Any trade/service mark should have distinctive capability, yes. So trademarking a word shouldn't work. Unfortunately, it's not "doesn't work", it's "shouldn't work". That's why I was almost positive back when Sony trademarking/service marking/whatevering "Let's Play" that their application would actually be succesful, and I do suspect that something like this may happen now with "React". Also, I'm not sure what the procedure is in USPTO for these things, and if "Published for opposition" means that the USPTO itself has or hasn't reviewed the mark already
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
Alexeythegreat posted:Fun fact: they actually just trademarked the word "react", along some other things. The application was filed in July 2015. http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4801:jh03qm.2.15 Is that actually a trademark on the word "React" or is that the label for the format/service they are trademarking? It looks like the latter. Bobbin Threadbare posted:Trying to claim a format with a trademark is like if Coach tried to shut down every purse manufacturer for making purses or if Ford tried to get rid of every muscle car because they made the Mustang. This is all baseless until someone can show some actual evidence that they are shutting down other people making reaction videos. Until then, they are just stupid, not villains.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:Is that actually a trademark on the word "React" or is that the label for the format/service they are trademarking? It looks like the latter. No, it's the word. "Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK" means that there is no drawing and just the characters that comprise the word. In addition to "react", they have also filed for servicemarking "Adults react" and "Celebrities react", but not all other variations of react, which is weird. In the end, there are succesful applications within other categories of goods and services: http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4808:iwiv3d.2.24 http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4808:iwiv3d.2.38 http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4808:iwiv3d.2.39 However, in the YT video realm the word won't have the distinctive capability that it has in these categories (i.e. you can trademark anything if you alone use it and it actually identifies something as your good/service, even if it's just a word; I'd say that it's not the case with reaction videos, as how the hell are you going to name it if you don't use the word "react" or its derivative) nutri_void fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Feb 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
Alexeythegreat posted:Any trade/service mark should have distinctive capability, yes. So trademarking a word shouldn't work. The funny thing, for those that don't know, about Sony and their Let's Play deal was it got declined for an already existing deal for Let'z Play. Second story in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51rE0yIno0w
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
So far from just a cursory search, it seems that most of the videos being taken down (or openly talked about as being taken down) are videos that are directly using that announcement video as their content that they are reacting to. So it's like a multi-level Inception type deal where the Fine Bros. put up an announcement with a montage of their own reaction videos that people then took out the audio from and put up their own reactions over. If anything it just seems like smaller youtube channels are trying to drum up faux controversy to get views on their own videos and their videos are probably being taken with just cause. Still it does seem like there might be a never ending rabbit hole to go down with this 'Reactgate' (trademark pending) as I was able to uncover that indeed these guys apparently strong armed the 'Seniors React' out of the youtube game with their own series 'Elders React' a month later. Seriously, this was a thing: http://web.archive.org/web/20120406235634/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99bwWcZ2Eg8&gl=US&hl=en#!
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
Are the videos being taken down altogether or in specific regions (i.e. the US)? I can watch both of the videos that were mentioned in the thread and I watched boogie2988's video about it (which uses the entire announcement video precisely as the content that is being reacted to) 10 minutes ago.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
Well, here's at least one person who claims to have had reaction videos taken down and posted a screenshot of one that's blocked worldwide: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfc_HE8dJ5k He was reacting specifically to Fine Bros videos, so maybe they objected to his use of their content, but I've heard from various creators that the Fine Bros don't always ask for permission to use their videos in their React (TM pending) shows, so it's at least hypocritical for them to issue takedowns for people reacting to their content while claiming that they don't want to do that very thing that they're doing. They're probably wiping their tears with thousand-dollar bills while sobbing "We don't want to have all this money! We just can't figure out how to give it back to people, so we keep taking it instead! You can make all the reaction videos you want, but for the love of God, please pay us while you're doing it!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
Bobbin Threadbare posted:Yeah, trademarking a word doesn't work. It has to be a specific graphic and/or font in connection with the word. So "nickelodeon" is free for anyone to use, but "Nickelodeon" with the round font and the orange outline is strictly for the channel to use and license. Without getting into all the details about confusing similarity, let me just say that the quoted is completely not true and that there are any number of registered trademarks just on a particular word without a graphic and/or font. Including "NICKELODEON" for "Television Entertainment Services" (us registration 1217864). There are separate registrations for the specific graphics and fonts. E: such as US registrations 3901510 and 3026958, each with a particular font design for NICKELODEON. ulmont fucked around with this message at 03:19 on Feb 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:Is that actually a trademark on the word "React" or is that the label for the format/service they are trademarking? It looks like the latter. Okay. Here's a video about a video that had 8 views which got blocked with a strike for using a portion of their announcement video in it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHhHP_zCch0 edit: Of course, this is different from utilizing the format itself, but using portions of other videos is also not against the rules. But really, even if it's not true that they have been taking down channels that utilize the format, they certainly have the ability to do that now pretty easily and they most definitely should not. CJacobs fucked around with this message at 03:53 on Feb 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
Bobbin Threadbare posted:Yeah, trademarking a word doesn't work. It has to be a specific graphic and/or font in connection with the word. So "nickelodeon" is free for anyone to use, but "Nickelodeon" with the round font and the orange outline is strictly for the channel to use and license. There's also some stuff about using the same name in the same industry, but that's got a lot of wiggle room. Apple Computers successfully defended their name against Apple Records even as they went into the music business with iTunes, for instance. But trying to start a random unrelated TV channel called "Nickelodeon" without an round font or orange colors and you'll probably lose the case Viacom will bring against you. Or if you release a brand of kids' toys.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:But trying to start a random unrelated TV channel called "Nickelodeon" without an round font or orange colors and you'll probably lose the case Viacom will bring against you. Or if you release a brand of kids' toys. Also that quote is just wrong, like ulmont said.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
Something else here I want to bring up. Law isn't black and white. The Fine Bros. could indeed make a copyright case against videos falling under a similar format, saying it is either plagarism or that it violates its "trade dress", especially if you made an effort to copy the editing and visual style. I would venture to say that they would lose, but you can't say that copyright is an inappropriate tool here. It's the most appropriate tool if they were to actually attempt to sue another filmmaker.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:But trying to start a random unrelated TV channel called "Nickelodeon" without an round font or orange colors and you'll probably lose the case Viacom will bring against you. Or if you release a brand of kids' toys. I said "a lot of wiggle room," but that doesn't mean that direct competition is a-ok. That's pretty specifically what isn't ok. Apple Computers got away with its name because it started out in an entirely different industry from Apple Records, and pretty much any time AC did anything sound related AR sued them again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:The Fine Bros. could indeed make a copyright case against videos falling under a similar format, saying it is either plagarism or that it violates its "trade dress", especially if you made an effort to copy the editing and visual style. And if they win, the BBC will probably sue Robert Zemeckis next for plagiarizing their idea of a senile old man and a companion traveling through time in a vehicle and having to find an elaborate mechanism for returning home. I don't think there's much more to a reaction video than "video of people watching a thing and somehow reacting to it, with overlaid video of the thing they're reacting to such that it places their reactions in context." If anything, Fine Bros-brand React (TM pending) videos always follow the reaction portion with questions and MTV-style pop-up notes (Hey, maybe MTV's parent company should sue them for infringement!), which is a unique and clever thing that I've never seen any other reaction video do that would make sense to protect as part of a Brand Identity. Trying to claim any portion of the actual reaction portion of the video as Brand Identity just seems way too generic and is the sort of thing that I wish I couldn't imagine standing up in a court. TItle formats, music, etc., yes, but not the format of the reactions themselves, especially when they themselves have stated that's not what they're trying to do. Really, I think it's just irresponsibility on the part of anyone who thought they could monetize an idea and DIDN'T expect their parent company (Fullscreen Inc.) to abuse it, especially given Youtube's track record.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
Yeah, in the end this is less of a question whether this is truly trademarked and what is just being allowed via the mysterious system that is Youtube's copyright system.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
Onean posted:The funny thing, for those that don't know, about Sony and their Let's Play deal was it got declined for an already existing deal for Let'z Play. The Let'z Play thing was actually fairly irrelevant to the final verdict, that video is wrong (there was an initial thing about Let'z Play, but then the USPTO followed up saying the term was just too generic, so the first bit was pointless). Here's a more accurate reporting of events.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 03:08 |
|
|
Niggurath posted:Yeah, in the end this is less of a question whether this is truly trademarked and what is just being allowed via the mysterious system that is Youtube's copyright system. Unfortunately, they have
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2016 05:45
|
|