- Joined
- Nov 10, 2021
Sorry to be this guy and I know this is pretty late and gay, but...He redid huge portions of his video after making his stack, seemingly to avoid having to make any real deal with the copyright owner. You seem to think that him rewriting entire portions of his video to be more legally distinct is a sign of "making good", instead of the bare minimum to avoid being sued after having already made his money.
Isn't there an argument to be made that an article from 2018 (nearly six years ago at this point), has already made the money it would have made from its traction? While I am of the mind that Internet Historian should have properly cited his video (strange, because he's usually pretty good about citations), I can't help but feel like any money the article stood to make outside of the video had already been made.
I don't see why a video, essentially necro'ing an article from years ago that had already run its course would entitle the author to any of the video's revenue.
Also I'm pretty sure the article holder at the absolute most would be able to get the video taken down in protection of copyright, but I don't think he'd be able to show any damages that would entitle him to any revenue from the Internet Historian video. I doubt there's a huge cross over between people who watch IH's youtube videos versus people who read Cave Disaster articles on Mentalfloss.com