Dramacow FineBros - Copyrighting React Videos Controversy, the Ongoing Shitstorm, Sadly Increasing Subs

LordCustos3 said:
Yeah, but that is the problem. The "person" who "answers" DMCA takedown notices on YouTube is a bunch of scripts on a server somewhere. Apparently, That part of YouTube has been running on autopilot for almost a decade.
Thing is 99% of these specious DMCA takedowns are hurled out by butthurt weebs who will never, ever follow through. Anyone who counterclaims wins because the DMCA abuser will not fight the counterclaim.
Click to expand...

Right, but what I'm getting at is that frequently the "person" who generates the notice is also a bunch of scripts and whoever is signing (or letting their name be signed to) these notices is breaking the law unless they review each one personally, because they are swearing that they have a good faith belief that the "use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law". The issue here that is making people unsatisfied is not just that handling the bunk notices is done poorly (which is rely required by the statute if they service provider wants to stay in the safe harbor) but that the act of making the bunk notices is a crime (I believe their is also a civil remedy backstop, but I haven't read the DMCA in like two years) that no one ever faces sanctions for so they just keep doing it.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Marvin, Uncanny Valley and LordCustos3
TheFineBros Subscribers over time.png


:story:
 
  • Winner
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Wally Balljacker, Emo Supremo, Dynamite Ninja and 23 others
Charles A. Woodward said:
so this is angle that Fine Brothers were after (someone trademarked - people are awesome)
Click to expand...
The sad thing is?? These types of "every day/common" phrases aren't suppose to be trademarkable. They don't generally fit the tests needed to get a trademark. They don't meet the needs to intellectual property.
BUT they get through because, in the paperwork, they list them in a way that makes the trademark offices view them as trademarkable. So, for example, the trademark paperwork that the FineBros sent in (and someone found) list the ELDERS REACT and CELEBRITIES REACTS as "Educational" and stated that they were a series of show that presented and recorded the reactions of people to unusual or uncommon videos and content. To a copyright/trademark office, this seems pretty individual and befitting of their tests. It is not the job of the trademark office to go out and do their own research to see if this trademark/copyright is valid or legit. That's what the 30-60 days of public availability to defend is for.

Or, it can be brought to court. So, for example, if someone has a shitty trademark like "People Are Awesome" it can be contested because that's actually a common phrase that will have no logical tie for a normal person to whatever that company's "brand" is.

Nike, however, owns the shit out of "Just Do It" because, while it's a common phrase, it's been used so much as the Nike slogan that it's commonly referable to Nike itself. For example: I say "People Are Awesome" and you're like "ok?? whatever" you don't tie it to whatever brand those people have. Or, I might say "REACT!!" and you'd be like "What the fuck is wrong with you?" you don't tie it to the Kids React channel. BUT, I say "Just Do It!" and you'd tie it to Nike (or currently Shia LaBouef).
Basically this is a lot of mombo-jumbo to a layperson, but to put it bluntly; even if "REACT" had been trademarked, it could have been contested and won at any point. (Same thing with Sonichu actually...but that's offtopic)
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Wally Balljacker, Dynamite Ninja, Marvin and 2 others
4Macie said:
Nike, however, owns the shit out of "Just Do It" because, while it's a common phrase, it's been used so much as the Nike slogan that it's commonly referable to Nike itself. For example: I say "People Are Awesome" and you're like "ok?? whatever" you don't tie it to whatever brand those people have. Or, I might say "REACT!!" and you'd be like "What the fuck is wrong with you?" you don't tie it to the Kids React channel. BUT, I say "Just Do It!" and you'd tie it to Nike (or currently Shia LaBouef).
Click to expand...

To be a trademark at all, something has to be used in commerce, but the same applies to (at least vanilla) infringement. Shia saying "Just do it" (no caps) is simply using the words as language. They're not designating a product for sale or a source or origin. A trademark also needs something else called distinctiveness. A trademark can be obviously distinctive, for instance, a completely novel term like Xerox. Or it can acquire distinctiveness through use, like a chain of grocery stores named "Giant."

In one case, trademark holders like a mark like Xerox because they can control the shit out of it. Xerox means only one specific corporation (although of course now people "xerox" things meaning a photocopy but you still couldn't come out with a competing line of photocopiers called Xerox).

The "react" term is generic as hell, and has not acquired enough acquired distinctiveness to make it trademarkable, at least not in the way the Fine Bros. are doing it.

Also, whether or not these two idiots are apologizing sincerely or not, their statement of intent will make it very hard for them to walk it back to making claims like this again, as they have effectively ceded control of the terms as they were attempting to use them. To maintain a trademark requires aggressively protecting and controlling it. It's not like copyright where you can sit on your ass and watch 999 people infringe it and then sue number 1,000 without any issue.
 
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: Splendid, Trombonista, c-no and 14 others
I just don't understand how this all could get so big and out of hand that fast in the first place.

While the FineJoos are probably so hungry for money they probably huff the ink used to print dollar bills, they must have an attorney on staff right? Or multiple lawyers? At least on retainer or something, right? Because that would be one of the first people I'd get hired if I were to start a big company. Lawyers are fucking dope and do dope shit for you if you pay them.

Did their lawyer(s) not explain to them in detail what it would mean to go ahead and trademark all those various words/brands/whatever? Did they not sit them down in their office and explain exactly what happens, what the implications are and, what might be within their right to do once this all goes through? Did they not tell them that what they were trying to protect was way too watery on its own?

And not just lawyers because apparently they have staff. Nobody ever said something like "You know, Benny and Rafiki, I know you're not big on keeping up with the youtube/internet landscape, but we, the people that moderate the video comments, compile feedback from viewers and are generally not dipshits, know that this isn't going to fly. You're going to get blastet out of the water for this!" to them?

Did they just ignore it all?

There's greed and there's being wilfully retarded. I can't imagine they weren't seeing this coming from over the horizon days before the even made the first announcement video.

Mind blowing stupidity.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Silvana, Wally Balljacker, Dynamite Ninja and 8 others
AnOminous said:
The "react" term is generic as hell, and has not acquired enough acquired distinctiveness to make it trademarkable, at least not in the way the Fine Bros. are doing it.
Click to expand...
What I don't understand is what were they actually trying to do with it?

Ok, so THEY say that they were doing it to protect their own show and their shows format. But you don't trademark a show...you copyright it, right? I get that the "format" could be a design...but is the format the type of design that a trademark even protects?? I thought the design was for the something like the design of the logo or whatever... To me, a format isn't a design, it's an idea on where things go..and that would be copyrighted as well, wouldn't it?

What I'm getting at is this: I don't think the Fine Bros apology is sincere. I think they knew exactly what they were doing and they explained it to the people exactly how they were going to do it. But with this backlash, they're trying to dig themselves out of the hole, CLAIMING that they just wanted to protect their show and their show's format...but I still don't think Trademark is the way to do that particular thing... So essentially, they were trying to Trademark "REACT" and then fuck over the "competition".
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Wally Balljacker, Dynamite Ninja, Phil Ken Sebben and 7 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back