web The Fine Brothers are trying to copyright reaction videos

[Mand'alor Dash 2,224]

 

 

Actually no. They didn't. The Fine Bros wanted to trademark the entire format or reacting. They even tried to claim that Ellen doing a reaction video somehow was her ripping them off.

 

Back in 2014. It was immature of them (especially considering her video wasn't even close to their format), but it's not like they tried to sue, or take it down, or any shit like that.

 

 

 

If you watch their announcement video they flat out say that they are tired of people "ripping off" their format. I.e. anyone that does reactions.

 

...And if you watch the update video, they make a point to clarify that it isn't anybody that does reactions. Whether or not you consider their format original, they do have a very specific format.

 

Several reactors, a distinct editing pattern, "question time" at the end, shit like that. Most reaction videos are literally some idiot sitting in front of their computer watching an entire video without interruption. It's a pretty clear difference. And even so, genres and formats aren't something you can copyright. A format may be possible to patent, but it's not a patent application they filed for. It's a trademark.

 

 

 

people were already getting content ID claims because of this,

 

Can I have some examples? 

[Guest]

 

 

Back in 2014. It was immature of them (especially considering her video wasn't even close to their format), but it's not like they tried to sue, or take it down, or any shit like that.

 

Trends is the idea. This is a trend of theirs. Not to mention they also in the past used school shootings to get money in reaction videos, so this really is a trend for them in behaving shitty.

 

 

 

...And if you watch the update video, they make a point to clarify that it isn't anybody that does reactions.

 

Key word is "update" video. AKA, after the fact. Anything they say in that video is more than likely damage control so we can't really take it at face value. They are going to say anything necessary to keep the money coming in. They were losing thousands of subs in short periods of time (and still are doing so) they needed to do something to try and at least fool people into thinking they aren't complete shit. It's basically like doing something really shitty and after getting caught going "Oh yeah, I didn't MEAN to do the shitty thing" while the evidence points in the opposite direction, it's not genuine, it's just damage control.

 

 

 

Whether or not you consider their format original, they do have a very specific format.

 

Not really, their format is vague. People reacting to... Stuff. Market researchers do literally what they are doing for new TV shows, movies and products. This format is not really "specific" enough for any one person to claim ownership of it. The only thing I would say they have "rights" to is their logos and graphics.

 

 

 

Several reactors, a distinct editing pattern, "question time" at the end, shit like that.

 

It's been done long before them. Hell the average Jerry Springer episode does that: presents a topic, people react and discuss, edited to show the "best" stuff and then has Jerry present a thought at the end. It's literally the same format. You can't copyright a "format" so vague.

 

 

 

Most reaction videos are literally some idiot sitting in front of their computer watching an entire video without interruption. It's a pretty clear difference.

 

The difference being they only rip off PART of the video and show more people? That's really not a huge difference. It's just showing less of one thing and more of another, but it's the same exact principle.

 

 

 

And even so, genres and formats aren't something you can copyright. A format may be possible to patent, but it's not a patent application they filed for. It's a trademark.

 

Rewatch their video. They are complaining people are ripping off their format not their logos or anything like that. They're just annoyed that people are making reaction videos that are not them.

 

Their "apology" is even filled with more bullshit. If I may:

 

"The concerns people have about React World are understandable, and that people see a link between that and our past video takedowns, but those were mistakes from an earlier time."

 

Yet they are trying to brush said "mistakes" under the rug. They are more or less saying "Yeah we fucked up before, but that was in the past so it doesn't matter anymore, and definitely shouldn't be considered when we fuck up again."

 

The reality that trademarks like these could be used to theoretically give companies (including ours) the power to police and control online video is a valid concern, and though we can assert our intentions are pure, there’s no way to prove them.

 

"We can't prove we're not full of shit and that this isn't just some damage control, but trust us."

 

**Content ID is YouTube’s copyright system that automatically flags content that looks like or sounds like copyrighted content. This mostly flags videos that are direct re-uploads of our videos (which is what the system is built for), but if you know of a video that has been claimed or removed incorrectly, please email us with “false claim” in the subject line.

 

Translation: It's Youtube's fault that those videos got taken down, not ours. We are not apologizing or admitting we did any of them because we can pass the blame onto Youtube and no one can "prove" we did it, so we are admitting to nothing even though it's blatantly obvious because we had to make a statement about it.

 

They also chose to disable responses on their post on The Medium, which to me says they are still damage controlling.

 

No free pass from me.

[Megas 27,703]

Can I have some examples? 

8-Bit Eric posted a video talking about them taking his down or flagging them

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfc_HE8dJ5k

Edited February 2, 2016 by Megas

[Mand'alor Dash 2,224]

 

 

Not to mention they also in the past used school shootings to get money in reaction videos, so this really is a trend for them in behaving shitty.

 

Yeah, that's pretty shitty.

 

 

 

Key word is "update" video. AKA, after the fact. Anything they say in that video is more than likely damage control so we can't really take it at face value. They are going to say anything necessary to keep the money coming in. They were losing thousands of subs in short periods of time (and still are doing so) they needed to do something to try and at least fool people into thinking they aren't complete shit. It's basically like doing something really shitty and after getting caught going "Oh yeah, I didn't MEAN to do the shitty thing" while the evidence points in the opposite direction, it's not genuine, it's just damage control.

 

They obviously needed to try and quell the shitstorm, This doesn't automatically mean they're lying. The e-mob just jumps straight to that conclusion because the only other explanation is that they were wrong about something.

 

Can't have something like that slowing down the witch hunt.

 

 

 

Not really, their format is vague. People reacting to... Stuff. Market researchers do literally what they are doing for new TV shows, movies and products. This format is not really "specific" enough for any one person to claim ownership of it. The only thing I would say they have "rights" to is their logos and graphics.

 

Not to imply that they have the "rights" to the format or anything, but just do a cursory comparison between their videos and a garden variety reactor. They're not even in the same realm.

 

 

 

The difference being they only rip off PART of the video and show more people? That's really not a huge difference. It's just showing less of one thing and more of another, but it's the same exact principle.

 

I guess Aerosmith is the same principle as Nickleback, then. It's all rock. Less of one thing, more of another.

 

 

 

Rewatch their video. They are complaining people are ripping off their format not their logos or anything like that. They're just annoyed that people are making reaction videos that are not them.

 

 

Oh yeah. Annoyed. Not that they can do anything about it.

 

The controversial trademark is for the word "React," which is used in their official logo:

 

 

A logo that, in their announcement video, they offered to license out to other youtubers. Kind of like franchising a Burger King.

 

It doesn't mean they legally own the genre, or even the format.

 

 

8-Bit Eric posted a video talking about them taking his down or flagging them

 

The video in question:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQ9Q0a67A3o

 

It triggered content ID because it literally used FB's content, not because it was a reaction video.

 

I know, "fair use fair use fair use," I get it. Youtube's content ID pulls this shit all the time. It's nothing new.

[Guest]

 

 

Yeah, that's pretty shitty.

 

And they have complained about people ripping off their "format" many times such as Buzzfeed, Ellen and more. If it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

 

 

 

They obviously needed to try and quell the shitstorm, This doesn't automatically mean they're lying.

 

Considering they've done shit like this before it means they need to start providing proof that they are sincere before people believe them. At this point in time due to the nature of their apology not even admitting any kind of guilt, I am not buying it.

 

 

 

The e-mob just jumps straight to that conclusion because the only other explanation is that they were wrong about something.   Can't have something like that slowing down the witch hunt.

 

Or they have been caught trying to make bogus claims that people ripped off their format before and this is just the latest from them as I said before. There comes a point where people have seen you do something so many times that when you just tell them you're going to stop that they don't believe you because you've done the shit so many times. They even tried to get videos taken down that don't even "rip off" their format. I'll believe them when they show some evidence that they aren't just full of it because they've already proven to be full of it.

 

 

 

Not to imply that they have the "rights" to the format or anything, but just do a cursory comparison between their videos and a garden variety reactor. They're not even in the same realm.

 

There really isn't a lot of difference.

 

 

 

I guess Aerosmith is the same principle as Nickleback, then. It's all rock. Less of one thing, more of another.  

 

What?

 

You're not making a good comparison. The problem here is that The Fine Bros wanted to copyright the CONCEPT of reaction videos and a VERY VAGUE format. To make your comparison more accurate it would be like if Aerosmith copyrighted the concept of rock music in general to where everyone under the incredibly vague umbrella now owes them money.

 

Aerosmith and Nickelback songs are not composed of the same notes, lyrics, music videos, singers or anything else.

 

The problem is also that reaction videos are more or less just ripping off content that's already created and "reacting" to it. The only "major" difference that the Fine Bros do is that they show more people reacting and use slightly less of the copyrighted material that is being reacted to.

 

 

 

Oh yeah. Annoyed. Not that they can do anything about it.   The controversial trademark is for the word "React," which is used in their official logo:

 

Sorry but even trademarking such a vague term is a shitty move. It's basically just another attempt to be like Apple Records and sue anyone who uses an Apple even if their company is nothing like your own and is not trying to rip you off at all. Look up Apple vs. Apple and you'll see a long line of bullshit lawsuits that pilfered millions over nothing. This wasn't to protect anyone, it was to get lots of easy legal money for something that they don't really own nor did they create.

 

The fact that they BLATANTLY said "if you see someone ripping off someone's format don't stand for it" and "we implore people not to support these channels" kind of shows they were intending to do something about people ripping off their format. It was made very clear that they intended to use this trademark to push for more considering they have been caught BEFORE telling people to flag videos that did reactions in the past. If you don't think they will follow the same behavior they have always followed, then you'd only be covering your ears and saying "I'm not listening!"

 

 

 

It triggered content ID because it literally used FB's content, not because it was a reaction video.

 

FB's videos literally use copyrighted stuff in virtually every video and never get taken down, but someone uses their video and it gets flagged? Do you not even SUSPECT that FB filed the complaint? I mean they have been caught in the past encouraging people to flag videos, bitching about people "ripping off" their format, and now this. What will it take to convince you that they are not in it for anyone but themselves and their primary goal is to gain cash they are not entitled to? 

[Shanks 10,816]

We also have the issue of the fact that TheFineBros capitalized on school shootings in the past, so they were never really "great people with high morals" to begin with.

Why am I not surprised? Is there any low they won't sink to? I really hope they try this again, the more I hear about them the more I want to see them go down.

[Mand'alor Dash 2,224]

 

 

There really isn't a lot of difference.

 

 

 

It's night and day.

 

 

 

What?   You're not making a good comparison. The problem here is that The Fine Bros wanted to copyright the CONCEPT of reaction videos and a VERY VAGUE format. To make your comparison more accurate it would be like if Aerosmith copyrighted the concept of rock music in general to where everyone under the incredibly vague umbrella now owes them money.

 

You really didn't understand what the hell I was talking about, did you?

 

The whole point is that Aerosmith and Nickleback don't have a god damn similarity between them, yet both are considered rock music. Same goes for Fine Bros and the generic reaction channel. Completely different videos with completely different content, yet fitting under the massive umbrella term of a "reaction video."

 

 

 

Aerosmith and Nickelback songs are not composed of the same notes, lyrics, music videos, singers or anything else.

 

You don't say.  

 

 

 

Sorry but even trademarking such a vague term is a shitty move. It's basically just another attempt to be like Apple Records and sue anyone who uses an Apple even if their company is nothing like your own and is not trying to rip you off at all. Look up Apple vs. Apple and you'll see a long line of bullshit lawsuits that pilfered millions over nothing. This wasn't to protect anyone, it was to get lots of easy legal money for something that they don't really own nor did they create.

 

But you can get why the Apple lawsuits happened. It's not like they "copyrighted" the fruit itself.

 

 

 

FB's videos literally use copyrighted stuff in virtually every video and never get taken down, but someone uses their video and it gets flagged? Do you not even SUSPECT that FB filed the complaint? I mean they have been caught in the past encouraging people to flag videos, bitching about people "ripping off" their format, and now this.

 

Quote mining won't help you.

 

 

 

I know, "fair use fair use fair use," I get it. Youtube's content ID pulls this shit all the time. It's nothing new.

 

 

And it does. There was a huge scandal about it in the gaming scene, and everything. YouTube is shit at determining fair use, and often hand out copyright strikes for no legitimate reason.

 

Even if the Fine Bros (wrongly) filed the claim, it should be obvious to absolutely anybody why this specific video was targeted over any other reaction videos. I'm not saying they're saintly knights of the internet, only that it's fucking impossible to legally own a genre.

 

 

 

What will it take to convince you that they are not in it for anyone but themselves and their primary goal is to gain cash they are not entitled to? 

 

You want a goalpost? Show me one instance where a reaction video was taken down:

 

1. By the Fine Bros, or a representative of them.

 

2. Which contained no content under their ownership.

 

3. Purely because of its genre.

[Guest]

I have never seen such a "move" backfire so hard on YouTube, ever.

 

Turns out they backpedaled and pulled both videos down afterwards.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Guest

[DJW 142]

The live count page is open at the moment.

 

I've been just sitting there, watching and smiling to myself....

Edited February 2, 2016 by DJW

[CandyStrike 603]

I don't think anyone has posted this graph

https://tfbsubscribers.github.io/

According to this site, "Prior to the controversy, they were gaining 9-10,000 subscribers per day."

[DJW 142]

Also, technically, they were trying to Trademark various react formats, not copyright, which is a very different thing.

 

What's odd is A: They got approval, and B: There's a one month period for opposition to be registered before the trademark goes 'live', rather than sitting on it, they announced their intentions right from the start.

Edited February 2, 2016 by DJW

[Comic Sans 401]

* oh, haha, i saw this story blowing up all over my twitter feed yesterday and i was too lazy to look up the full story, so i only got the jist of it. bloody idiots.

[Jonny Music 3,416]

My friend of mine here has a good point:

[Phill 1,287]

They should never be forgiven. Period. This is not some innocent, little mistake that they made. They knew full well what they were doing, and planned it all out. And if they didn't caught caught with their hand in the cookie jar, they'd still be going ahead with their plan. 

 

The only thing they're sorry about, is the fact that they got caught, and now things are going to crap for them. 

[SBaby 660]

Why am I not surprised? Is there any low they won't sink to? 

 

I have seen what they did back in the days of Ravenstake.  This is nothing.

 

 

Also, technically, they were trying to Trademark various react formats, not copyright, which is a very different thing.

 

What's odd is A: They got approval, and B: There's a one month period for opposition to be registered before the trademark goes 'live', rather than sitting on it, they announced their intentions right from the start.

 

They actually were able to get it approved?  I need to tell MiMo about this one.  He'll laugh.

Edited February 2, 2016 by SBaby

[DJW 142]

Yes.

 

For those who are unaware of the difference, copyright is automatic; you create something and it is your copyright regardless of whether you state it or not. It's primary objective is defending against direct copying/plagiarism of your work being promoted as another's original work and/or gain (financial or otherwise, though usually the former) without the recognition, consent and/or reimbursement of the original creator.

 

A trademark is a formal application that is more to do with branding and preventing deliberate confusion between your work and theirs in order to feed off popularity/renown.

 

Eg. Releasing a toy line under the title 'Star Wars' is (probably) not copyright infringement if the toys/logo/packaging design bare little resemblance to the official product. However, the title 'Star Wars' and it's logo have been trademarked, so using them is a violation.

 

If you release a line called 'Galaxy Battle' with the same logo design but different toys then it's a trademark issue.

If you release a line called 'Space Fight' with a different font/logo but obvious copies of the toys, it's a copyright issue.

 

If copyright is content, trademark is identity.

 

What these guys tried to do was trademark the format of their videos (one or more people reacting to something they watch which is overlaid onscreen) and the format of the video's titles (xxxxx Reacts:).

As this is a pretty new thing in media as a whole, the trademark was rather blindly given.

 

 

The completely bizarre thing is that their initial proposal for franchising a format might have been a really good idea for both them and other content creators.

Got a great idea for a react series but need exposure?

'Use these graphic templates, video duration boundaries, video structure rules and etc. and we'll add it to our 14m+ subbed channel for a cut.'

 

As a spring-board this could be great.

 

Instead they shot themselves in the foot by not waiting for the objection period to pass, clearly not realising/being delusional that their format was unoriginal and being completely insincere about their later 'apology'/redaction.

Edited February 3, 2016 by DJW

[Rawzy 1,302]

For some reason, the Fine Brothers remind me of Flim and Flam :/

[TailsIsNotAlone 3,695]

Wow. Well, they're fucked. Talk about getting way too big for your britches. These guys refine an idea that was already there, get a few million views and a few years later start talking about copyrights? Time for them to take a vacation from Youtube, get out in the sun and smell the roses.

[Guest]

 

 

It's night and day.

 

I'll concede that in some people's perspective that their format could be seen as original, but to many it's very similar. So we'll have to agree to disagree one that one because it's a matter of subjectivity.

 

 

 

You really didn't understand what the hell I was talking about, did you?   The whole point is that Aerosmith and Nickleback don't have a god damn similarity between them, yet both are considered rock music. Same goes for Fine Bros and the generic reaction channel. Completely different videos with completely different content, yet fitting under the massive umbrella term of a "reaction video."

 

 

But you can get why the Apple lawsuits happened. It's not like they "copyrighted" the fruit itself.

 

 

That is the problem. Apple sued Apple computers because their logo was an Apple, so they might as WELL have copyrighted the fruit is the problem, and that is kind of what The Fine Bros was aiming to do. Copyright something vague enough to where they can get away with frivolous lawsuits.

[MasterSpark95 430]

I'm kind of glad they're losing subscribers, they deserve it for trying to take down and copyright reaction videos (even though react-types of videos have existed long before their channel), and acting like a bunch of arrogant, greedy, stupid pricks.

Edited February 4, 2016 by iNachos10

[Looking Glass 197]

How the fuck can they even think they can do that?  Reaction videos are too General, so they would not fall under copyright protection, and even using the word react is not grounds for copyright eligibility. They may be able to get something on the way they present their reaction videos, but thats it.  No sensible  Lawyer would even attempt to grant them this, and any who try would be immediately dismissed.  

 

If Honda or Suzuki could not get a patent on three and Four Wheeled ATVs, then these idiots would not get a copyright on reaction videos. the difference here is that both Honda and Suzuki were the first to introduce a 3 and a four wheeled ATV. 

Edited February 3, 2016 by Frosted Glass

[Buck Testa 5,505]

As of This post, they have lost 370,000 subs from their main channel. They've been pulling shady things behind the scenes for years, and now with this whole incident all of their skeletons are falling out of their closet. Make no mistake about their "apology"; They likely got some intern to write that corporate drivel that STILL tries to paint it like they were "Pure" in their intent with these trademarks. I've been heavily into the #UnSubTheFineBros hashtag and ended up walking out with a ton of new youtube channels that make way better content than the Swine Bros ever did. Or any reactionist for that matter. They and Bronies React were the only Reaction people I ever followed, and now the fine bros go and lose all their subs for all I care. 

 

Hell  bronies React has more effort because each one of the "reactors" script out what they are going to say and do in the episode. Its Like MLP plus funny skits intermingling with it that critique and parody what is going on. If Anything they are MORE in line with fair use than any other "reactionist" out there. 

[SBaby 660]

Oh, we know the apology is a form of damage control.  This is going to hurt them for a long time.

[MasterSpark95 430]

React World is just about

as serious and believable as this :

 

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

 

 

By the way, if anyone wants to see how much subscribers the Fine Bros are losing:

Edited February 3, 2016 by iNachos10

[Jest (Inactive) 875]

Those subscriber counts seem to be slowing down alot now, S***storms like this on the internet don't last very long I would give it another week before people forget this all together, last week it was Keemstar, this week Finebros and next week probably someone else who knows Pewdiepie might try to license gaming videos x)