First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Post Reply The Fine Brothers own "React"
4487 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Virginia, USA
Offline
Posted 1/31/16

DeadlyOats wrote:


maxgale wrote:





Because the Fine Bros. aren't making a claim to any specific work.


They are making a claim to an entire format.


It would be like if you wrote a Fantasy novel with wizards, and J.K. Rolling sued you over it.




Yes. I agree with you. That would be wrong of J.K. Rolling. No one would be able to make a work that contained wizards, Trolls, Orcs, Dwarves, or Elves if the owners of Lord of The Rings stopped everyone else from doing so.

I was thinking that it was a direct copy of their concept. Which is to show kids or elderlies or some other demographic a thing, and then getting their initial reactions. Like making a "Price is Right" clone. Making a "game show" that is a "Price is Right" clone can get you sued for infringement, but making up your own "game show" should not get Bob Barker to sue you for making a "game show."


Pretty much this. I think a lot of people misinterpreted them, thinking they were licensing the entire concept of react vids instead of their own specific format (Also I think people have an immediate allergic reaction to big business working it's way onto youtube which was founded on the idea of allowing people the freedom to do whatever they want with mimimal if any restrictions).
27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 1/31/16

1871212 wrote:


DeadlyOats wrote:


maxgale wrote:





Because the Fine Bros. aren't making a claim to any specific work.


They are making a claim to an entire format.


It would be like if you wrote a Fantasy novel with wizards, and J.K. Rolling sued you over it.




Yes. I agree with you. That would be wrong of J.K. Rolling. No one would be able to make a work that contained wizards, Trolls, Orcs, Dwarves, or Elves if the owners of Lord of The Rings stopped everyone else from doing so.

I was thinking that it was a direct copy of their concept. Which is to show kids or elderlies or some other demographic a thing, and then getting their initial reactions. Like making a "Price is Right" clone. Making a "game show" that is a "Price is Right" clone can get you sued for infringement, but making up your own "game show" should not get Bob Barker to sue you for making a "game show."


Pretty much this. I think a lot of people misinterpreted them, thinking they were licensing the entire concept of react vids instead of their own specific format.




Except that is what they are attempting to do.


Several channels have been closed or have had videos taken down because The Fine Brothers accused them of infringement long before this.


Not for infringing on any specific material produced by The Fine Brothers, but for utilizing the same format: one which has existed long before The Fine Brothers applied it themselves.
37954 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 1/31/16

maxgale wrote:


1871212 wrote:


DeadlyOats wrote:


maxgale wrote:





Because the Fine Bros. aren't making a claim to any specific work.


They are making a claim to an entire format.


It would be like if you wrote a Fantasy novel with wizards, and J.K. Rolling sued you over it.




Yes. I agree with you. That would be wrong of J.K. Rolling. No one would be able to make a work that contained wizards, Trolls, Orcs, Dwarves, or Elves if the owners of Lord of The Rings stopped everyone else from doing so.

I was thinking that it was a direct copy of their concept. Which is to show kids or elderlies or some other demographic a thing, and then getting their initial reactions. Like making a "Price is Right" clone. Making a "game show" that is a "Price is Right" clone can get you sued for infringement, but making up your own "game show" should not get Bob Barker to sue you for making a "game show."


Pretty much this. I think a lot of people misinterpreted them, thinking they were licensing the entire concept of react vids instead of their own specific format.




Except that is what they are attempting to do.


Several channels have been closed or have had videos taken down because The Fine Brothers accused them of infringement long before this.


Not for infringing on any specific material produced by The Fine Brothers, but for utilizing the same format: one which has existed long before The Fine Brothers applied it themselves.



Using the "same format" is infringement. If it wasn't, then there would be all kinds of "The Price is Right" clones, but there are no clones of "The Price is Right", but there are all kinds of "game shows." Inventing their own format to show case the reactions of people to things would not be a problem, unless it copied the "exact same format" of the React shows. The people wanting to create their own shows, showcasing the reactions of people to various things are free to do so, but they have to make up their own format to do it.

If I look at a show made by Joe Shmoe, and I confused it with a React show from the original guys who made it, then you could say, that the original guys' work was copied. On the other hand, if the same Joe Shmoe did a show that covered the same kinds of topics as the React shows did, but he did not do it the same way that the React guys did it, then I would see a difference in the shows, and would not be confused that I was watching a React show. In that case, the React guys would have no case against Joe Shmoe.

If Joe Shmoe purposefully made the shoe exactly the same, but his purpose was to lampoon, or to do a parody, that's different. As a viewer, I would be able to see that it was a parody, lampooning the React shows. The React guys don't have a case.
27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 1/31/16 , edited 1/31/16

DeadlyOats wrote:


Using the "same format" is infringement. If it wasn't, then there would be all kinds of "The Price is Right" clones, but there are no clones of "The Price is Right", but there are all kinds of "game shows." Inventing their own format to show case the reactions of people to things would not be a problem, unless it copied the "exact same format" of the React shows. The people wanting to create their own shows, showcasing the reactions of people to various things are free to do so, but they have to make up their own format to do it.

If I look at a show made by Joe Shmoe, and I confused it with a React show from the original guys who made it, then you could say, that the original guys' work was copied.




Morrissey v. Proctor and Gamble Co. and Herwitz v. National Broadcasting Co. disagree.
5057 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 1/31/16
The "React" videos sucked anyway, so maybe this will get less of them to happen.

But still, that's a dick move.
Posted 1/31/16
Well, their site FAQ is contradicting some of the things they say.

There also a live stream of people unsubscribing to them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WH0qahqv5YM&ab_channel=SCRUFFYJC
Well, I never have seen somebody commit suicide so willingly before in my life.
This meme is how people feel about their response video to the negativity they receive.

Posted 1/31/16


hahaha they lost over 2 million subscribers and counting

this is the funniest thing ever



There also a live stream of people unsubscribing to them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WH0qahqv5YM&ab_channel=SCRUFFYJC

*sits back, eating popcorn*
Now this is fine entertainment
11041 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
14 / F / California
Offline
Posted 1/31/16

DeadlyOats wrote:
Using the "same format" is infringement. If it wasn't, then there would be all kinds of "The Price is Right" clones, but there are no clones of "The Price is Right", but there are all kinds of "game shows." Inventing their own format to show case the reactions of people to things would not be a problem, unless it copied the "exact same format" of the React shows. The people wanting to create their own shows, showcasing the reactions of people to various things are free to do so, but they have to make up their own format to do it.

If I look at a show made by Joe Shmoe, and I confused it with a React show from the original guys who made it, then you could say, that the original guys' work was copied. On the other hand, if the same Joe Shmoe did a show that covered the same kinds of topics as the React shows did, but he did not do it the same way that the React guys did it, then I would see a difference in the shows, and would not be confused that I was watching a React show. In that case, the React guys would have no case against Joe Shmoe.

If Joe Shmoe purposefully made the shoe exactly the same, but his purpose was to lampoon, or to do a parody, that's different. As a viewer, I would be able to see that it was a parody, lampooning the React shows. The React guys don't have a case.


There have been "reaction" videos and the like since the 1940s.

It would be more like "The Gong Show" trying to copyright the idea of a "talent show"

https://youtu.be/pyQA5vNjihs

GENE GENE THE DANCING MACHINE!
11041 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
14 / F / California
Offline
Posted 1/31/16
Also you think shows today are wild....

https://youtu.be/tDxDYIQL6Nc
37954 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 1/31/16 , edited 1/31/16

maxgale wrote:


DeadlyOats wrote:


Using the "same format" is infringement. If it wasn't, then there would be all kinds of "The Price is Right" clones, but there are no clones of "The Price is Right", but there are all kinds of "game shows." Inventing their own format to show case the reactions of people to things would not be a problem, unless it copied the "exact same format" of the React shows. The people wanting to create their own shows, showcasing the reactions of people to various things are free to do so, but they have to make up their own format to do it.

If I look at a show made by Joe Shmoe, and I confused it with a React show from the original guys who made it, then you could say, that the original guys' work was copied.




Morrissey v. Proctor and Gamble Co. and Herwitz v. National Broadcasting Co. disagree.




Actually, I think they support what I said. Morrissey v. Proctor and Gamble Co. says:


The court established the principle that where a work was so simple and so straightforward as to leave available only a limited number of forms of expression of the substance of the subject matter, the expression would be uncopyrightable.


http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Morrissey_v._Proctor_%26_Gamble

What I said was that Joe Shmoe was free to make his own version of content where panels reacted to things. That's an idea which is straight forward and cannot be copy righted. However, he can't do it exactly the same way that the React guys do it. His presentation of that same idea has to be different.

Herwitz v. National Broadcasting Co. says:



https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14558158944821820113&q=Herwitz+v.+National+Broadcasting+Co.&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&as_vis=1

What I said was that Joe Schmoe could do a show about people reacting to stuff as long as the way his show was presented was different. The idea of the show, showcasing people reacting to stuff cannot be copyrighted. The presentation, the way the showcased idea is presented can be copyrighted. Joe Schmoe has to come up with his own presentation, his own format.

This is how I am understanding what I've read in the two cases you sited.
37954 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 1/31/16

VZ68 wrote:


DeadlyOats wrote:
Using the "same format" is infringement. If it wasn't, then there would be all kinds of "The Price is Right" clones, but there are no clones of "The Price is Right", but there are all kinds of "game shows." Inventing their own format to show case the reactions of people to things would not be a problem, unless it copied the "exact same format" of the React shows. The people wanting to create their own shows, showcasing the reactions of people to various things are free to do so, but they have to make up their own format to do it.

If I look at a show made by Joe Shmoe, and I confused it with a React show from the original guys who made it, then you could say, that the original guys' work was copied. On the other hand, if the same Joe Shmoe did a show that covered the same kinds of topics as the React shows did, but he did not do it the same way that the React guys did it, then I would see a difference in the shows, and would not be confused that I was watching a React show. In that case, the React guys would have no case against Joe Shmoe.

If Joe Shmoe purposefully made the shoe exactly the same, but his purpose was to lampoon, or to do a parody, that's different. As a viewer, I would be able to see that it was a parody, lampooning the React shows. The React guys don't have a case.


There have been "reaction" videos and the like since the 1940s.

It would be more like "The Gong Show" trying to copyright the idea of a "talent show"

https://youtu.be/pyQA5vNjihs

GENE GENE THE DANCING MACHINE!



The Gong Show could not copyright the idea of the "talent show", but their presentation can be copyrighted. America's Got Talent was another "talent show", but they didn't use a gong.

In the Gong show, an host introduced the talent, the talent performed until gonged. The host cracked jokes at the talent. In America's Got Talent, the talent performed, until stopped by one or more of the judges on a panel. The panel then proceeded to give critiques about the performer's act (sometimes the critiques were acidic).

The idea of the "talent show" was the same, but the presentation was different.
Sogno- 
46329 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/31/16
youtube is so lame...
11041 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
14 / F / California
Offline
Posted 1/31/16

Sogno- wrote:

youtube is so lame...


It's getting really stupid anymore.
14983 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Massachusetts
Offline
Posted 1/31/16
you know while I didn't really like their content, I used to think the Fine Brothers were an innocuous, fairly nice duo, who were generally harmless and positive.

I have been disabused of that notion.
13848 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / Australia
Offline
Posted 1/31/16
When people watch live streams of subscriber loss you know the world has gone mad.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.