Depriving them of their market is assuming that the article was getting any sizable traffic at all when IH made the video. IH and MF are two completely different markets, sure he profited off of their work, but unless they are regularly reading mental floss content already, I doubt many people were going to read that article anyway.
nope. you can't just steal someone's shit and then say that they weren't popular anyways. that's not a defense, legally or ethically. might does not make right.
Josh, would you at least agree that the animations, narration, and comedic tone do change the video from merely a copy paste? I'd wager the people watching IH videos aren't terribly likely to have read through an article.
Exactly there's actually a lot of problems with copyright broadness in the US like Taylor Swift being able to copyright Shake It Off which is a very common saying.
H bomber guy it's now making $10000 more off of his patreon he doesn't give as*** about some s***** clickbait website losing some revenue from internet historian copying one of the articles.
Might makes 100% of right anybody telling you otherwise is trying to sell you some b******* solution.
No. The animations reflect the author's language. The script for the animations was written by a third party who was not compensated for their work. Even without the legal concept of copyright, that is not ok.
I thought you had died, Mr. Kissinger?
I mean, I do agree he should have credited the article and author, and probably asked permission, but I guess what I'm getting at is that the actual subtractive effect to the article is almost non-existent.
Not if they asked for alterations in the video it wouldn’t…
He should have paid the authors for the rights of the work he used to make hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Pretty much this exactly, I had already known of the story of Floyd Collins, but it was nice to have that video on in the background since I found it something funny in the background and maybe pick up something new. Had he listed the original article then there wouldn't be a fuss since it would not be seen as an original work and he still would have made the same amount of money on it.
People read and watch movie reviews before going to see a movie to see if it is worth their time. They might be retarded for doing so since going in blind can give a better experience in many instances but that is a case of a critique costing a movie revenue that is completely protected. I do think that of the tens of thousands of people who have accessed the farms at least one person who is hostile to the subject of a thread might have paid of a premium account to have a behind the scenes peak or to leak the pictures themselves. As for the discord thing I had only mentioned it because I remember you saying you were trying to rip them off as much as possible in a MATI, but I could be wrong. But according to the standard set by HBG a shoutout to discord for design/layout inspiration would appease the anglo. I am not trying to accuse of any legal wrongdoing. Regardless I will admit my analogy was rather shit and I am starting to get off the topic of the thread.
For all anyone knows he has.
I'm repeating myself for the 100th time because people are too lazy to read the thread as per usual.
People aren't going to admit I'm right because the accuser is a faggot and the accused is based hungarian meme man. That's just how it goes these days.
The question though is that CP copyrighted though and did Dan Olson properly compensate the people for using their material
That’s not certain. They might have asked for more than just money. As said, video removal, re-edit and reupload with citation and possible money compensation is fairly standard for this type of thing when companies get involved.
