First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Post Reply The Fine Brothers own "React"
27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 2/1/16 , edited 2/1/16

DeadlyOats wrote:




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.



There is no need to create a new format when the Fine Bros. are only able to use theirs because there are limited forms of expression in the format. That is the importance of Morrissey v. Proctor and Gamble Co.


If the Fine Bros. insist other people need to create a new format, then they can easily be sued by the entities whose format they, the Fine Bros, copied.




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.



Herwitz
further clarifies this by showing how much burden there is on the Fine Bros. to establish their format as unique, and by what measures the court might possibly construe elements of a format as new or novel, and by looking at that rubric it is evident the Fine Bros. have not created any expression significantly different compared to predecessors.


41690 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Somewhere
Offline
Posted 2/1/16
37353 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 2/1/16

maxgale wrote:


DeadlyOats wrote:




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.



There is no need to create a new format when the Fine Bros. are only able to use theirs because there are limited forms of expression in the format. That is the importance of Morrissey v. Proctor and Gamble Co.


If the Fine Bros. insist other people need to create a new format, then they can easily be sued by the entities whose format they, the Fine Bros, copied.




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.



Herwitz
further clarifies this by showing how much burden there is on the Fine Bros. to establish their format as unique, and by what measures the court might possibly construe elements of a format as new or novel, and by looking at that rubric it is evident the Fine Bros. have not created any expression significantly different compared to predecessors.




As it turns out, the issue wasn't about copyrights, but about trademarks, as this attorney explained.

http://ryanmorrisonlaw.com/attorneys-react-the-fine-bros-react-trademark/

So, the arguments we have all put forward was all moot, and did not pertain to the issue. Trademarks are much more powerful, and are more easily enforced. However, it may appear that the whole issue is moot, because not only is this attorney going to go after them to challenge their trademark claims, but the Fine brothers have posted this:

https:[email protected]/a-message-from-the-fine-brothers-a18ef9b31777#.b260r9gbg

Let's hope they actually do what they say. Let's hope that if they have any other tricks up their sleeves, that someone will point those out and call them on it.
17181 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 2/1/16
*sigh*

they were doing so well....
27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 2/1/16

DeadlyOats wrote:


As it turns out, the issue wasn't about copyrights, but about trademarks, as this attorney explained.

http://ryanmorrisonlaw.com/attorneys-react-the-fine-bros-react-trademark/

So, the arguments we have all put forward was all moot, and did not pertain to the issue. Trademarks are much more powerful, and are more easily enforced. However, it may appear that the whole issue is moot, because not only is this attorney going to go after them to challenge their trademark claims, but the Fine brothers have posted this:

https:[email protected]/a-message-from-the-fine-brothers-a18ef9b31777#.b260r9gbg

Let's hope they actually do what they say. Let's hope that if they have any other tricks up their sleeves, that someone will point those out and call them on it.




The issue is also one of copyright as the Fine Bros. in the original announcement referred to other channels "illegally" using "their" format, and have used that as the basis to get YouTube to take down videos using "their" format.



It appears they are moving forward even still!


They have no shame, it seems.



125 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / The End
Offline
Posted 2/1/16
How long ago was it that Sony tried to copyright the term "Let's Play" and fell flat on their face again?


Either way it's still entertaining to watch them fail over and over again and watching so many YouTubers call them out on it (and watching their sub count go down). XD
406 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 2/2/16
17031 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / In a van down by...
Offline
Posted 2/2/16
Fine Brothers:

Taking their ball home because NYAAAH NYAAAH GIVE US $
11713 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Online
Posted 2/2/16
30759 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Fraxinus
Offline
Posted 2/2/16 , edited 2/6/16
Ah the beauty of watching their sub count skydive.

Cruel? Perhaps.

Hilarious? Definitely.
17057 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 2/2/16 , edited 2/2/16
I would have thought that most people who would unsubscribe would have unsubscribed by now. But their sub count is still dropping 1-10 people every couple seconds. I guess some people just take several days to find out about this kind of thing
6090 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / US
Offline
Posted 2/2/16

I heard about this. I also heard that when they tried to trademark it, they started hemorrhaging subs. They deserve it, to be honest.
1515 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / USA
Offline
Posted 2/2/16 , edited 2/2/16
This is what they tried to do in a nutshell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-Zr7c-J6qE

Once caught, they quickly tried to do damage control.
15947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 2/2/16 , edited 2/2/16

Ctonhunter wrote:
They apologized. Personally I think it went too far. Being upset is one thing, but how some people reacted seemed a bit much. To live stream people unsubbing and just wishing for their downfall is so wrong. I don't think they deserved to be attacked like they were.
attacked in what way?
I just saw this and if this is right then I wouldn't care much for them..(for the most part)

FINE JOB, BROS. (IHE REACTS)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjOKNSOflhk

19122 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / The Netherlands
Offline
Posted 2/2/16
It doesn't matter whether people overreacted or not.
This will serve as a reminder for other content creators to never pull this type of crap again, ever.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.