Jan animations shut down by hasbro/C&D

[Fhaolan 4,483]

Everyone keeps saying to change the law, but no one is saying what we should change it to that apparently would be "so much better". I am all ears.

My main thing would be to make the Trademark, Copyright, and Patent laws follow a consistent framework. Having loopholes and escape clauses in one, but not the other two, increases the chances of misunderstanding and misuse. With the way the laws have been extended to cover modern media means there's a lot of overlap now. The primary clauses to examine would be the 'fair use' and 'must actively defend' clauses that are in Copyright and Trademark, but not visa versa.

 

I've thrown Patent law into the mix, because my experience with that set of laws with respect to my RL job, there are similar flags thrown up in that space.

 

Exactly what clauses and the like need to be included, I'm up for debate on it. But making it consistent will at least make the issues more visible and easier to track. At the moment the confusions from having completely independent laws with very little in common other than the items they are being applied to, are making them very murky.

[Guest]

My main thing would be to make the Trademark, Copyright, and Patent laws follow a consistent framework. Having loopholes and escape clauses in one, but not the other two, increases the chances of misunderstanding and misuse. With the way the laws have been extended to cover modern media means there's a lot of overlap now. The primary clauses to examine would be the 'fair use' and 'must actively defend' clauses that are in Copyright and Trademark, but not visa versa.

 

I've thrown Patent law into the mix, because my experience with that set of laws with respect to my RL job, there are similar flags thrown up in that space.

 

Exactly what clauses and the like need to be included, I'm up for debate on it. But making it consistent will at least make the issues more visible and easier to track. At the moment the confusions from having completely independent laws with very little in common other than the items they are being applied to, are making them very murky.

What loopholes do you feel are being abused? I don't exactly see any loophole that Hasbro is abusing. Care to explain?

[Fhaolan 4,483]

What loopholes do you feel are being abused? I don't exactly see any loophole that Hasbro is abusing. Care to explain?

Oh, the loopholes in this case aren't the ones *Hasbro* is using. It's the ones the *fans* think apply. I'd say a lot of the arguments in this thread are based in that confusion as to which loophole applies and when, and if that was cleaned up first it would be a lot easier to find where the laws are not properly formed and posit arguments for and against.

 

Here's some examples of things I think should be better defined:

 

Copyright is supposed to protect against theft of content. Someone presenting themselves as having created someone else's content and profiting in some way from it. Posting MLP episodes, livestreaming them, etc. is very much a violation of copyright, and should remain so. However, it is now being extended to cover the *style* of the work, which it was never meant to do. In my opinion, it should not be illegal to paint like Picasso, as long as it is not presented as *being* a Picasso or directly duplicating a Picasso painting. (Example technically valid, as I believe the copyrights on Picasso's paintings are still valid for a few more years, though I could be wrong on that. He hasn't been dead for over 50 years yet.)

 

Which brings up the confusion as to the duration of Copyright. Copyright can be held by a corporation as a legal entity, but the length of time a copyright is good for is dependent on the life of the original filer (and x number of years after that filer's death), not the holder. It's this glitch that prompts Disney to do it's regular 'pay politicians to extend the copyright life' every ten years or so in order to keep those copyrights on it's films valid. This needs to be fixed one way or the other. At the moment, the only ones truly profiting from this is the politicians whenever Disney rolls around to buying them off again, and I see no reason that needs to continue.

 

Trademark is another set of laws that came from Fraud, in this case a form of Identity Theft. This is not supposed to protect the content as such, but the representation and reputation of the holder. Basically, presenting stuff as if it was produced by Hasbro when it wasn't. This shouldn't need to be aggressively defended to be considered valid. You either hold the trademark, or you don't. To again compare it to Identity Theft, the idea that you can officially 'lose' your identity is borderline insane. It would be as if I would need to sue anyone else using the internet alias of 'Fhaolan' or lose the right to call myself that.

 

Patent laws are the ones that are meant to protect inventors and the originators of designs, allowing them to profit from their R&D instead of generic manufacturers. This has many of the same glitches as Copyright, but for historical reasons are an independent set of laws that differs in the details. Such as not having 'Fair Use' clauses, and that the lifespan of the Patent is connected to the holder if I remember correctly, not the original filer.

[irondefender 57]

This is a cowardly move by Hasbro. An illegal move.

Actually, Hasbro has every right to do it. Jan used animation and characters that therefore could be confused for official content.   

[SBaby 660]

It's kind of a grey line.  I mean, yes.  Technically anything with the MLP name attached to it could theoretically be shut down by Hasbro, and they'd probably be within their right to do it.  But when you get into satirical pieces, it falls into an area that could easily be construed as Fair Use, because of how satire is treated in the eyes of the law.

 

Personally as I've said before, I don't think these draconian and outdated laws will ever be fixed until a judge makes an official decision in court.  But I promise you that neither Hasbro nor any company out there will ever let it get to court.  They don't want anything to do with that court case (reference Joshscorcher; it's gotten there twice with him, and he won both times).  Because if a judge makes that decision and says 'This is legal, and this isn't', and it becomes cut and dry, I guarantee that they won't be able to issue as many C&D orders as they currently do, because a lot of what they issue them for now would be considered legal in the eyes of the law.  So they will always resolve it out of court to avoid this scenario, even if it means dropping the case.

Edited March 29, 2014 by SBaby

[Celestial Wish 349]

 

 

 WELL!

 

I see that this thread still is attracting the usual chit chatter and boxing blows between defending Hasbro's rights over their work and defending the rights of the fan-dom with their fan-work.

 

Quite honestly, I don't care if you've taken classes in law & order, or run some big fortune 500 company. The moment when you throw 'money' into any sort of creative piece, all hell breaks loose. 

 

I'm so sick of some of the comments I'm reading that absolutely SCREAM ignorance. It hurts my eyes and makes my brain want to delete itself. "bronies have no concept of business".. and other nonsensical, ridiculous comments that absolutely have no relativity to the current topic.

 

I honestly hope that people will see how foolish it is to bash each other's beliefs and intelligence just because you prefer one side and the opposing team prefers the other.

 

What people don't understand is... common sense states that why in the world would anyone who put so much time and energy into a piece of work just remove its existence without some sort of relief for the fan-dom. Jan and Vox stated themselves that,

 

"Jan Animations ?@JanAnimations  Mar 22

@EpicLPer What I can't believe is people thinking we freak out and delete stuff we worked years on without making sure the claim is legit.:"

 

And also there's this... "Jan Animations ?@JanAnimations  Mar 23

So, someone is uploading my videos on YT as "Jan Animations". I appreciate your enthusiam on preserving them but please avoid using my name."

 

I think everyone needs to take a step back, take a deep breath, and calm down.

 

For the people who are die-hard fans for Jan Animations (including myself), this is not exactly the kind of response we're looking for... Yes we support Jan and Vox for their dedication to creating such wonderfully illustrated fan-work, there's nothing wrong with backing up the fan-dom. But making false accounts and placing C&D material back to the public is only going to cause more trouble for the original creators and it doesn't do any justice for the fan-dom. It just makes you look foolish and completely out of control.

 

For the people who are defending the rights of Hasbro and just such, do not think for a second that just because it is legal makes it right, morally, or with common sense.

 

If we all agreed that every law that has ever been constructed, published, and initiated was 'right' then we seriously need to start questioning some of the laws in our world.

 

Section 13A-12-1

 

Certain acts prohibited on Sunday.

Any person who compels his child, apprentice or servant to perform any labor on Sunday, except the customary domestic duties of daily necessity or comfort, or works of charity or who engages in shooting, hunting, gaming, card playing or racing on that day, or who, being a merchant or shopkeeper, druggist excepted, keeps open store on Sunday, shall be fined not less than $10.00 nor more than $100.00, and may also be imprisoned in the county jail, or sentenced to hard labor for the county, for not more than three months. However, the provisions of this section shall not apply to the operation of railroads, airlines, bus lines, communications, public utilities or steamboats or other vessels navigating the waters of this state, or to any manufacturing establishment which is required to be kept in constant operation, or to the sale of gasoline or other motor fuels or motor oils. Nor shall this section prohibit the sale of newspapers, or the operation of newsstands, or automobile repair shops, florist shops, fruit stands, ice cream shops or parlors, lunch stands or restaurants, delicatessens or plants engaged in the manufacture or sale of ice; provided, that such business establishments are not operated in conjunction with some other kind or type of business which is prohibited by this section. It shall also be lawful to engage in motorcycle and automobile racing on Sunday, whether admission is charged or not; except, that this proviso shall not be construed to prevent any municipality from passing ordinances prohibiting such racing on Sunday.

 

 

 

I don't think I need to explain myself about certain laws are wrong in certain ways.

 

Going back to the relative topic at hand, let's have a little reminder of the Fair Use information...

 

One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair.

The distinction between what is fair use and what is infringement in a particular case will not always be clear or easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

Copyright protects the particular way authors have expressed themselves. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in a work.

The safest course is to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.

When it is impracticable to obtain permission, you should consider avoiding the use of copyrighted material unless you are confident that the doctrine of fair use would apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine whether a particular use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.

 

According to a supporter: this was the actualized situation that Jan Animation was involved in,

"It's sad because I really have enjoyed all the work Jan has put out. But at the same time this is not entirely unexpected, as the show-quality animation is so well-done that I could see people less well-versed in the fandom believing it might involve Hasbro/DHX. I know I've seen people who don't realize the animations in the "official" Brony documentary wasn't done by DHX (again also Jan). 

It's a sticky situation because Hasbro has to enforce their trademarks on the show characters or risk having others claim they've knowingly let Jan infringe and therefore the trademarks are invalid. Jan's stuff has become big enough that Hasbro cannot realistically claim they're unaware of it. The only alternative at this point would be Hasbro licensing Jan Animations to continue to make webisodes, which would be awesome but I don't see as much of a possibility." -Reldan71 from everfree.net.

 

It is unfortunate that Jan fell under one of the Fair Use laws, which no longer enable him to freely construct Button Mash due to the fact the character's were not transfigured into an original art concept but instead looked like they came right out of MLP:FiM. The only reason why Jan Animations was targeted was due to the fact it became so overwhelmingly popular. 

 

What Hasbro did by law, was correct, but from the intellectual stand point of maintaining great relations with the fan-dom (including Jan and Vox)... not so much.

 

Hasbro basically stomped their hoof down not truly caring about the fan-dom's opinions/desires/feelings.. and so forth. It looks cruel due to the fact they honestly showed no remorse from removing a fan-made piece that was in actuality PROMOTING their show. 

 

It doesn't matter whether you went to law school, work in a large business, run a fortune 500, or a kid who goes to school everyday... It is NOT okay to disregard the audiences opinions when they are what bring in the cash in the first place. That's like slapping someone in the face and ask you "will you still support me?" "um no... kthnxbai"

 

Hasbro needs to learn from their faults and the fan-dom needs to work on their executions of their work. I'm not saying Jan Animations should have changed his work to prevent their work from being caught in the radar, I loved Button Mash the way it was and it's cruel to have slapped down such fine work without regarding the creators of the fan-work or the people viewing the material. (k now I sound like a broken record) COUGH COUGH!

 

Setting that aside, both parties were wrong, and both parties on this forum need to STOP pointing fingers at one another. Bashing other people also isn't exactly mature and if you think you sound cool, you don't... so just stop.

 

 

 

?PS: Also if you want a good example of a company listening to its audiences, Fox with Family Guy. Brian's Death. Need I say more?

 

:okiedokielokie: 

Edited March 28, 2014 by Celestial Wish

[rjrgmc28 130]

I don't normally bring updates to situations like this (and my stress and anxiety levels have not been helping either), but it has been a week since the news broke and it there seems to be some good news according to the JanAnimations Twitter account this afternoon (morning/evening etc) with this tweet:
 
"So far, permission has been given to keep a few videos online. Not a total loss." (link)
 
Five videos have been made available for public viewing again including Don't Mine at Night (the animatic version, not the final cut) plus a segment from the Brony documentary after permission was sought and approved.
 
The fate of the other videos still remains unknown at this stage though.

[SBaby 660]

 

 

 WELL!

 

I see that this thread still is attracting the usual chit chatter and boxing blows between defending Hasbro's rights over their work and defending the rights of the fan-dom with their fan-work.

 

Quite honestly, I don't care if you've taken classes in law & order, or run some big fortune 500 company. The moment when you throw 'money' into any sort of creative piece, all hell breaks loose. 

 

I'm so sick of some of the comments I'm reading that absolutely SCREAM ignorance. It hurts my eyes and makes my brain want to delete itself. "bronies have no concept of business".. and other nonsensical, ridiculous comments that absolutely have no relativity to the current topic.

 

I honestly hope that people will see how foolish it is to bash each other's beliefs and intelligence just because you prefer one side and the opposing team prefers the other.

 

What people don't understand is... common sense states that why in the world would anyone who put so much time and energy into a piece of work just remove its existence without some sort of relief for the fan-dom. Jan and Vox stated themselves that,

 

"Jan Animations ?@JanAnimations  Mar 22

@EpicLPer What I can't believe is people thinking we freak out and delete stuff we worked years on without making sure the claim is legit.:"

 

And also there's this... "Jan Animations ?@JanAnimations  Mar 23

So, someone is uploading my videos on YT as "Jan Animations". I appreciate your enthusiam on preserving them but please avoid using my name."

 

I think everyone needs to take a step back, take a deep breath, and calm down.

 

For the people who are die-hard fans for Jan Animations (including myself), this is not exactly the kind of response we're looking for... Yes we support Jan and Vox for their dedication to creating such wonderfully illustrated fan-work, there's nothing wrong with backing up the fan-dom. But making false accounts and placing C&D material back to the public is only going to cause more trouble for the original creators and it doesn't do any justice for the fan-dom. It just makes you look foolish and completely out of control.

 

For the people who are defending the rights of Hasbro and just such, do not think for a second that just because it is legal makes it right, morally, or with common sense.

 

If we all agreed that every law that has ever been constructed, published, and initiated was 'right' then we seriously need to start questioning some of the laws in our world.

 

Section 13A-12-1

 

Certain acts prohibited on Sunday.

Any person who compels his child, apprentice or servant to perform any labor on Sunday, except the customary domestic duties of daily necessity or comfort, or works of charity or who engages in shooting, hunting, gaming, card playing or racing on that day, or who, being a merchant or shopkeeper, druggist excepted, keeps open store on Sunday, shall be fined not less than $10.00 nor more than $100.00, and may also be imprisoned in the county jail, or sentenced to hard labor for the county, for not more than three months. However, the provisions of this section shall not apply to the operation of railroads, airlines, bus lines, communications, public utilities or steamboats or other vessels navigating the waters of this state, or to any manufacturing establishment which is required to be kept in constant operation, or to the sale of gasoline or other motor fuels or motor oils. Nor shall this section prohibit the sale of newspapers, or the operation of newsstands, or automobile repair shops, florist shops, fruit stands, ice cream shops or parlors, lunch stands or restaurants, delicatessens or plants engaged in the manufacture or sale of ice; provided, that such business establishments are not operated in conjunction with some other kind or type of business which is prohibited by this section. It shall also be lawful to engage in motorcycle and automobile racing on Sunday, whether admission is charged or not; except, that this proviso shall not be construed to prevent any municipality from passing ordinances prohibiting such racing on Sunday.

 

 

 

I don't think I need to explain myself about certain laws are wrong in certain ways.

 

Going back to the relative topic at hand, let's have a little reminder of the Fair Use information...

 

One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair.

The distinction between what is fair use and what is infringement in a particular case will not always be clear or easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

Copyright protects the particular way authors have expressed themselves. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in a work.

The safest course is to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.

When it is impracticable to obtain permission, you should consider avoiding the use of copyrighted material unless you are confident that the doctrine of fair use would apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine whether a particular use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.

 

According to a supporter: this was the actualized situation that Jan Animation was involved in,

 

"It's sad because I really have enjoyed all the work Jan has put out. But at the same time this is not entirely unexpected, as the show-quality animation is so well-done that I could see people less well-versed in the fandom believing it might involve Hasbro/DHX. I know I've seen people who don't realize the animations in the "official" Brony documentary wasn't done by DHX (again also Jan). 

It's a sticky situation because Hasbro has to enforce their trademarks on the show characters or risk having others claim they've knowingly let Jan infringe and therefore the trademarks are invalid. Jan's stuff has become big enough that Hasbro cannot realistically claim they're unaware of it. The only alternative at this point would be Hasbro licensing Jan Animations to continue to make webisodes, which would be awesome but I don't see as much of a possibility." -Reldan71 from everfree.net.

 

It is unfortunate that Jan fell under one of the Fair Use laws, which no longer enable him to freely construct Button Mash due to the fact the character's were not transfigured into an original art concept but instead looked like they came right out of MLP:FiM. The only reason why Jan Animations was targeted was due to the fact it became so overwhelmingly popular. 

 

What Hasbro did by law, was correct, but from the intellectual stand point of maintaining great relations with the fan-dom (including Jan and Vox)... not so much.

 

Hasbro basically stomped their hoof down not truly caring about the fan-dom's opinions/desires/feelings.. and so forth. It looks cruel due to the fact they honestly showed no remorse from removing a fan-made piece that was in actuality PROMOTING their show. 

 

It doesn't matter whether you went to law school, work in a large business, run a fortune 500, or a kid who goes to school everyday... It is NOT okay to disregard the audiences opinions when they are what bring in the cash in the first place. That's like slapping someone in the face and ask you "will you still support me?" "um no... kthnxbai"

 

Hasbro needs to learn from their faults and the fan-dom needs to work on their executions of their work. I'm not saying Jan Animations should have changed his work to prevent their work from being caught in the radar, I loved Button Mash the way it was and it's cruel to have slapped down such fine work without regarding the creators of the fan-work or the people viewing the material. (k now I sound like a broken record) COUGH COUGH!

 

Setting that aside, both parties were wrong, and both parties on this forum need to STOP pointing fingers at one another. Bashing other people also isn't exactly mature and if you think you sound cool, you don't... so just stop.

 

 

 

?PS: Also if you want a good example of a company listening to its audiences, Fox with Family Guy. Brian's Death. Need I say more?

 

:okiedokielokie: 

 

I agree with you here.  It's a shame, but as I said, until a Judge makes an official decision in a case, these draconian and often outdated and confusing copyright laws are going to continue to cause issues and provoke these kinds of things.  

 

The problem is, a Judge making a decision on it is precisely what Hasbro and other big name companies DO NOT WANT (if they're smart).  The blurred line is part of the reason why they can issue so many C&D orders and why they can get away with shutting so many people down.  If you remove that and make it black and white, then there will be MAJOR limits on what they can issue C&D orders for, and it will be spelled out exactly as to what people can and can't use.  Again, reference the issue with satirical pieces (and the fact that Button's Adventure could easily be construed as one).

 

But as I said, until a Judge is able to rule on it, this will keep happening (hence why companies will usually resolve these kinds of cases out of court, again referencing Joshscorcher).

Edited March 29, 2014 by SBaby

[SilverDays 1]

Aww man. Sucks to hear. At first, I was really jealous of JanAnimations because his Button Mash Adventures series really looked like it was show-accurate. Many fan animators believed that he was actually creating a monopoly among fan animation because he was the only one who could actually duplicate it to the show. What's really funny is that Hasbro actually allowed his videos to stay up for that long just because they were impressed by them. The only reason why they did the C&D now is because, according to Hasbro, his videos were actually presenting competition to the actual show and they were trying to protect their IP (intellectual property). The only thing Hasbro could do was either order a C&D or risk losing their copyright and IP and they were just following the law to protect it. I have absolutely no clue how he was able to make his animations show accurate or what puppets he used, but now I actually feel bad for him because he did put in a lot of work into the animatics

which I still don't know how to do without a graphics tablet like the Cintiq

and into his animations. Of course, JanAnimations followed up with the C&D and let the lawyers know that he did remove them (made them private). The reason why did that is because he wants to work with DHX Media one day and animate MLP: FiM.

 

But, let this be a lesson to fellow fan animators or those that wanna develop fan animations or video games based on the show. If you ever plan on making any kind of fan animations or video games, at least do it with OCs (original content) that doesn't look like any characters and doesn't take any names from the show. At least then, I think, you couldn't be liable. And I don't think Hasbro has the right to copyright a "style" of animation.

Edited April 8, 2014 by SilverDays

[Ohnhai 69]

His stuff is coming back.... Just watched 'don't mine at night' and 'meet the Bronies' on his jan animations studios channel !!!!!

 

Apparently he has been in talks and he is being allowed to re-post the parodies but BM's Adventures is still a step too far

 

So yay A victory for common sence has been won (it seems)

[Shenron00 366]

His stuff is coming back.... Just watched 'don't mine at night' and 'meet the Bronies' on his jan animations studios channel !!!!!

 

Apparently he has been in talks and he is being allowed to re-post the parodies but BM's Adventures is still a step too far

 

So yay A victory for common sence has been won (it seems)

Better than nothing though, right?

[Mars Caramel 319]

His stuff is coming back.... Just watched 'don't mine at night' and 'meet the Bronies' on his jan animations studios channel !!!!!

 

Apparently he has been in talks and he is being allowed to re-post the parodies but BM's Adventures is still a step too far

 

So yay A victory for common sence has been won (it seems)

 

Button Mash may be dead, but he said he had a brother. Will Jan be able to give the show to him? Just a thought I had.

 

As long as we have at least one gamer pony, it would be neat for me.

[Crazy Misty 653]

I don't understand how C&D applies to something not for profit. I wish Hasbro would snuff out some of the terrible things like Tiarawhy. Shutting down Molestia was a step in the right direction, but it's a shame Friendship of Witchcraft still exists. I need to find out how to contact Hasbro's lawyers and feed them a few names.

 

Censorship is never the right direction.

[Ohnhai 69]

Better than nothing though, right?

Yup. I was trawling through my old playlists and clicked and it played.... I checked the channel and it was JanAnimationStudios and I was like " how am I watching this?? This was taken down!!'

 

Hopefully all the other non BM-A stuff will return over time ( hope the 'hearts and hooves outtake' is allowed to return)

[Shenron00 366]

Yup. I was trawling through my old playlists and clicked and it played.... I checked the channel and it was JanAnimationStudios and I was like " how am I watching this?? This was taken down!!'

 

Hopefully all the other non BM-A stuff will return over time ( hope the 'hearts and hooves outtake' is allowed to return)

If you want to see BMA, a few people re-posted it on YouTube.

[Espurr 449]

Uh, please don't hurt me... but um, maybe Hasbro was right to take it away. I mean someone else here made a topic on how some people over react to people's youtube videos being taken away for copyright purposes, but Hasbro isn't really... doing anything wrong, they are just doing what any company would do when somebody copyrights something, so wouldn't that be the right thing for them to do... I mean I really liked his videos, but I'm just saying, even I was joking earlier.

[Ohnhai 69]

If you want to see BMA, a few people re-posted it on YouTube.

I made sure to record it for posterity

[Shenron00 366]

Uh, please don't hurt me... but um, maybe Hasbro was right to take it away. I mean someone else here made a topic on how some people over react to people's youtube videos being taken away for copyright purposes, but Hasbro isn't really... doing anything wrong, they are just doing what any company would do when somebody copyrights something, so wouldn't that be the right thing for them to do... I mean I really liked his videos, but I'm just saying, even I was joking earlier.

WHAT?! HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT?! HASBRO'S EVIL AND SO ARE YOU!! Lol jk. Hasbro did have the right to take BM though (giggity). We're lucky they gave back the parodies.

[Ohnhai 69]

WHAT?! HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT?! HASBRO'S EVIL AND SO ARE YOU!! Lol jk. Hasbro did have the right to take BM though (giggity). We're lucky they gave back the parodies.

I think what's most important is (I'm assuming) that jan and the big H will have hammered out a frame work for any new pony stuff from him ( I know he is working on the gala con 2014 promo right now). So yes while we can be greatfull that the old stuff is coming back, I think it even better that it seens we can expect new pony stuff too.

[RubyVesper 100]

The reason this is happening is because of our fucking ancient copyright laws. Copyright laws around the world are not suited for the modern age. I personally think that any use of material, as long as it does not have a negative influence on the market of the product, should be legal. Exceptions made for negative commentary/criticism. This way, things like PMV's, Button Mash's Adventures, ETC would all be perfectly legal, but selling an episode would obviously not be legal, nor would reposting an entire episode (not legal now either, but it happens.) I'd love to be able to use any track in my videos and have everything legally sorted, but artists often don't have the time to read through my requests, even though they'd probably love me to use it. For now, I need to stick to doing stuff that I know is allowed, like music by Monstercat.

[galaxysquid 2,122]

The reason this is happening is because of our fucking ancient copyright laws. Copyright laws around the world are not suited for the modern age. I personally think that any use of material, as long as it does not have a negative influence on the market of the product, should be legal. Exceptions made for negative commentary/criticism. This way, things like PMV's, Button Mash's Adventures, ETC would all be perfectly legal, but selling an episode would obviously not be legal, nor would reposting an entire episode (not legal now either, but it happens.) I'd love to be able to use any track in my videos and have everything legally sorted, but artists often don't have the time to read through my requests, even though they'd probably love me to use it. For now, I need to stick to doing stuff that I know is allowed, like music by Monstercat.

 

I agree 100% with you.

 

I'm glad to have Monstercat around...

[MAIKUN 262]

So any news on the C&D yet? Anybody?

[Red Cedar 1,408]

The reason this is happening is because of our fucking ancient copyright laws. Copyright laws around the world are not suited for the modern age. I personally think that any use of material, as long as it does not have a negative influence on the market of the product, should be legal. Exceptions made for negative commentary/criticism. This way, things like PMV's, Button Mash's Adventures, ETC would all be perfectly legal, but selling an episode would obviously not be legal, nor would reposting an entire episode (not legal now either, but it happens.) I'd love to be able to use any track in my videos and have everything legally sorted, but artists often don't have the time to read through my requests, even though they'd probably love me to use it. For now, I need to stick to doing stuff that I know is allowed, like music by Monstercat.

 

I would agree, except that this likely had nothing to do with copyright law.

 

A large number of JanAnimations' videos featured Sweetie Belle. Sweetie Belle's name is trademarked. One of the requirements of having a trademark is that the holder of that mark must defend it legally when they see it to be used by someone else and can identify that person. If they don't defend it, they could lose the trademark, which is a lot more valuable than one fan making videos.

 

That's the law that sank it, and it was actually kind of predictable.