Jump to content
Banner by ~ Ice Princess Silky

So Hasbro is Claiming Fan-Made Videos Now. Thoughts?


nami438

Recommended Posts

The issue here is that they are monitizing videos others made, and no compensating them. This is a very shady business practice, that can actually border on the illegal. Hasbro has every right to C&D and shut down a video, but they step into legal grey territory once they monitize somthing like a fan animation. This not only says to others that they are willing to take your work outright and make money off it, but in the case of digibrony, were he was making a review and not having an animation style similar to hasbro's (they own the copywrite on the style and look of it, but you cannot claim copywrite on a review or critique). Hasbro may have the big boy power here, but continual use of this tactic will end up hurting them in the long run.

  • Brohoof 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the video is making a profit from adsense?

 

Yes.

 

However I think the creators of these videos had something worked out with Hasbro involving this, so if that is so, what's the point of getting riled up over a business deal already agreed upon?

 

If it were simply the case of fan made content that made no profit whatsoever, and Hasbro came around and said, "Mine!" I would probably object to it. I could understand a CnD if the content was too much like Hasbro's, but not claiming it.

1. If Yes, then where is Lucas Arts/Disney coming to get money from my space adventure story? Or why aren't they attacking Space Balls? Because it isn't theirs's. They had no input in the creation of, the payment to the people who worked on it, or really any affiliation with it to begin with. Them going and claiming content that looks, or is similar to their content is completely theft. That is why they cant attack lone wolf artists who do commissioned work, because they have no participation in any of the creation process.

 

2.Hasbro hasn't made any deals with them because they have said so. I am subscribed to a number of reviewers and other pony creators, and know for a fact that Hasbro is going around claiming content to anything that has clips, looks like, or even smells like it has something to do with their product. They aren't claiming everything mind you, but they are claiming a decent amount of things that should not be claimed. (though, some creators may have worked a deal out with them.) But all that might be the work of YouTube, so all this may just be redundant.

 

3. ????

 

4. Profit?

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the video is making a profit from adsense?

 

Yes.

 

However I think the creators of these videos had something worked out with Hasbro involving this, so if that is so, what's the point of getting riled up over a business deal already agreed upon?

 

If it were simply the case of fan made content that made no profit whatsoever, and Hasbro came around and said, "Mine!" I would probably object to it. I could understand a CnD if the content was too much like Hasbro's, but not claiming it.

I'd really like to get more info on them making money off of digibro's video. As that video uses user created content, and is a review (which is covered under fair use policy). If Hasbro really did monitize his review, and without compensating him they step into a legal grey area that will effect them negativly.
  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

1. If Yes, then where is Lucas Arts/Disney coming to get money from my space adventure story? Or why aren't they attacking Space Balls?

 

Space balls was a parody. -_-

 

Jananimations, Snowdrop, are not. There is a difference.

 

 

 

Hasbro hasn't made any deals with them because they have said so. I am subscribed to a number of reviewers and other pony creators, and know for a fact that Hasbro is going around claiming content to anything that has clips, looks like, or even smells like it has something to do with their product. They aren't claiming everything mind you, but they are claiming a decent amount of things that should not be claimed. (though, some creators may have worked a deal out with them.) But all that might be the work of YouTube, so all this may just be redundant.

 

Well that does smell suspicious. Who do we blame then? Hasbro or Youtube.

 

 

 

If Hasbro started supporting something you didn't like, like higher taxes for the poor, you'd all be bashing them even if they're within their legal right to do so. Just because something's legal doesn't mean one can't take issue with it.

 

You are absolutely right. Though I'm not aware of Hasbro doing anything like that, I agree that if people really  have a problem with it, they should dispute it in an effective intelligent fashion.

 

Sadly, from what i've seen on forums, it usually goes like, "Omg! Hasbro is greedy monster!"

 

>_>

 

 

I'd really like to get more info on them making money off of digibro's video. As that video uses user created content, and is a review (which is covered under fair use policy). If Hasbro really did monitize his review, and without compensating him they step into a legal grey area that will effect them negativly.

 

A review is covered under fair use, and shouldn't be claimed by Hasbro, yes.

 

Though, if the creator was making money off the review from adsense, I do wonder about the legal technicalities...I would think that they would be covered, but I'm not %100 percent sure.

 

Grey area is grey.

 

Question? Has digibrony or any of the other youtubers done anything about this?

  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are absolutely right. Though I'm not aware of Hasbro doing anything like that, I agree that if people really  have a problem with it, they should dispute it in an effective intelligent fashion.

 

Sadly, from what i've seen on forums, it usually goes like, "Omg! Hasbro is greedy monster!"

 

>_>

 

Well yeah, Hasbro hasn't done something like that, you're right!

 

It's only a matter of time, though... those monsters! *Wink*

 

But I agree. Instead of just throwing accusations at Hasbro, protest or right letters to them expressing discontent for trying to pull down fan animations or fan works. The best way to hit them is in their public image, every company protects even more than they do their profits; the two are intertwined, so it makes sense.

  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space balls was a parody. -_-

 

Jananimations, Snowdrop, are not. There is a difference.

 

 

 

Well that does smell suspicious. Who do we blame then? Hasbro or Youtube.

 

 

 

You are absolutely right. Though I'm not aware of Hasbro doing anything like that, I agree that if people really  have a problem with it, they should dispute it in an effective intelligent fashion.

 

Sadly, from what i've seen on forums, it usually goes like, "Omg! Hasbro is greedy monster!"

 

>_>

 

 

 

 

A review is covered under fair use, and shouldn't be claimed by Hasbro, yes.

 

Though, if the creator was making money off the review from adsense, I do wonder about the legal technicalities...I would think that they would be covered, but I'm not %100 percent sure.

 

Grey area is grey.

 

Question? Has digibrony or any of the other youtubers done anything about this?

Legally, as it is a review, they can make money off it in any manner they choose. That is why people like the nostalgia critic is legally able to sell his reviews on dvd's, and why his entire website runs adds. User created content is not under the same legal protection, so I can see them C&D'ing the producer of snowdrop. But monitizing it themselves, without entering a contractual obligation with the producer is theft. Because a c&d does not give you legal ownership of the media, it is just a claim that it is comming to close to their owned media, and they may take you to court. But monitizing it without proof of ownership is theft, and if hasbro is doing that I would recommend court action for both fan media makers involved. But I would really like to see some concrete proof on hasbro's side of this occurring.
  • Brohoof 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, I don't really care if Hasbro claims these videos. Seems like the only time people get angry is when Hasbro takes the video down, so if they don't take the video down, it shouldn't cause any turmoil.

 

I understand people put a lot of work into their fan made content and they appreciate some revenue in return, but Hasbro has to step in when people make money off of their IP.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question? Has digibrony or any of the other youtubers done anything about this?

 

Yes, there are a lot of Reviewers going and questioning youtube's new content ID system, saying that it is putting people who's lively hood is in youtube at risk. People like Angry Joe, Alex Side, exc. But I think, when concerning ponies, Hasbro is somewhere in the equation.

 

 

 

Space balls was a parody. -_-

 

Jananimations, Snowdrop, are not. There is a difference.

 

Actually, The Adventures of Button Mash, and Snowdrop are both parodies. So they should fall under the same legal range.

but Hasbro has to step in when people make money off of their IP.

Where is the IP for Snowdrop? Where is the IP for Button? Hasbro doesn't own them, because the fans made them. (Button might be a question though, cause he was on the show.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Legally, as it is a review, they can make money off it in any manner they choose. That is why people like the nostalgia critic is legally able to sell his reviews on dvd's, and why his entire website runs adds. User created content is not under the same legal protection, so I can see them C&D'ing the producer of snowdrop. But monitizing it themselves, without entering a contractual obligation with the producer is theft. Because a c&d does not give you legal ownership of the media, it is just a claim that it is comming to close to their owned media, and they may take you to court. But monitizing it without proof of ownership is theft, and if hasbro is doing that I would recommend court action for both fan media makers involved. But I would really like to see some concrete proof on hasbro's side of this occurring

 

Thank you for the clarification.

 

Thinking about it, I have to agree Hasbro is stepping over a line.

 

The youtubers need to write Hasbro or something, to get a statement from them about this.

 

 

Actually, The Adventures of Button Mash, and Snowdrop are both parodies. So they should fall under the same legal range.

 

A parody (/ˈpærədi/; also called spoof, send-up or lampoon), in current use, is an imitative work created to mock, comment on or trivialize[citation needed] an original work, its subject, author, style, or some other target, by means of satiric or ironic imitation. As the literary theorist Linda Hutcheon puts it, "parody … is imitation, not always at the expense of the parodied text." Another critic, Simon Dentith, defines parody as "any cultural practice which provides a relatively polemical allusive imitation of another cultural production or practice."[1] Parody may be found in art or culture, including literature, music (although "parody" in music has an earlier, somewhat different meaning than for other art forms), animation, gaming and film. - From Wikipedia

 

Spaceballs for example, mocked starwars and other scifi themes. Also, they never used actual tradmark names like "Darth Vader" and never used Darth Vader's exact image.

 

Jananimations, however, was more of an mlp spinoff that used an already established character in the established mlp setting. Snowdrop isn't a parody either.

  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Hasbro doesn't own them, because the fans made them. (Button might be a question though, cause he was on the show.)

 

Snowdrop included Celestia and Luna in its production which are clearly trademarked by Hasbro.

  • Brohoof 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Where is the IP for Snowdrop? Where is the IP for Button? Hasbro doesn't own them, because the fans made them. (Button might be a question though, cause he was on the show.)

Personally, if Jan animated those shorts in a different animation style that wasn't so close to the show, I think he would've been fine. Being able to draw and animate so close to the show has both positives and negatives.

 

But that's just my opinion.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jananimations, however, was more of an mlp spinoff that used an already established character in the established mlp setting. Snowdrop isn't a parody either.

 

hmmmmm i guess when including the side characters, like Celestia, luna, and sweetie belle. but otherwise, they aren't the product of Hasbro, and shouldn't just be abducted by them because they are pony. (again, Button might be pushing it.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmmmmm i guess when including the side characters, like Celestia, luna, and sweetie belle. but otherwise, they aren't the product of Hasbro, and shouldn't just be abducted by them because they are pony. (again, Button might be pushing it.)

 

Both these animations as a whole included trademarked images by Hasbro. Button Mash isn't even pushing it, his character design comes straight from the show. With Snowdrop, she might be an original character, but because the entire setting was in Trademarked territory, they are subject to Hasbro copyright laws, especially since the animation style is so similar.

 

I'm sad to have seen Jananimations struck down, but the truth is, neither of these animations have a leg to stand on.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(edited)

Still, they are taking down stuff containing pony because they have been the seller of pony for over half a century. It is wrong for them to destroy animations, and other pony productions because they think they are the only ones who can sell it. And trust me, that is exactly the mind set of the legal officials of Hasbro. If not, tell me another company that sells pony, and has no affiliation with Hasbro.


I am just not a fan of Hasbro right now. They have been making so many mistakes the last year, that I feel that they getting their old touch again. The one that spawned the absolute lowest point in animations history, MLP generation 3.5.


perfect example of what not to do when animating.

Edited by RDvsDerpy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2.Hasbro hasn't made any deals with them because they have said so. I am subscribed to a number of reviewers and other pony creators, and know for a fact that Hasbro is going around claiming content to anything that has clips, looks like, or even smells like it has something to do with their product. They aren't claiming everything mind you, but they are claiming a decent amount of things that should not be claimed. (though, some creators may have worked a deal out with them.) But all that might be the work of YouTube, so all this may just be redundant.

 

I can't imagine it's Youtube doing this, normally ContentID is automatic. It's just an algorithm that can only auto-claim video and audio that at least closely matches data submitted to them by content owners (or those who claim to be, like news stations falsely claiming video submitted to them by eyewitnesses, but that's a topic for another day). Meaning, that Youtube will only catch stuff that Hasbro submitted to them, like episodes of the show proper. Hasbro can't possibly submit fan animations that they had no idea existed before being put on Youtube, because they don't have them.

 

...

 

...hm. Now I think of a possibility, that Hasbro may be taking these fan animations after they are posted, then download them, then submit them to Youtube to be covered under ContentID, which means claiming that the animations belong to Hasbro. Or more specifically, that Hasbro is the "copyright owner". Whether Hasbro or the creator owns copyright is debatable.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still, they are taking down stuff containing pony because they have been the seller of pony for over half a century. It is wrong for them to destroy animations, and other pony productions because they think they are the only ones who can sell it. And trust me, that is exactly the mind set of the legal officials of Hasbro. If not, tell me another company that sells pony, and has no affiliation with Hasbro.

I am just not a fan of Hasbro right now. They have been making so many mistakes the last year, that I feel that they getting their old touch again. The one that spawned the absolute lowest point in animations history, MLP generation 3.5.

perfect example of what not to do when animating.

 

Is it morally right for Hasbro to take down fan content? That's subjective and questionable. Were talking about what is legally right and what to do about it.

 

Also, no company has a monopoly on ponies. Make a new cartoon show called The pony pals, that's about ponies, drawn in a different style form Hasbro, doesn't borrow concepts from hasbro like Alicorns or cutiemarks, doesn't borrow trademarked names, and boom.

 

You have competition. Hasbro can't do anything about it just because it also happens to be about ponies.

 

This is about Hasbro protecting they're copyright, and how they are probably going to far in doing that in the case of adding their content ID to things like fan made reviews. Perhaps it's greed, perhaps it's business sense going in the wrong direction, perhaps it's them thinking they got a shortcut in protecting their copyright without pissing off their fanbase. (Which if is the case, they are mistaken)

 

I'm not sure, but I'm not really angry at Hasbro. They treat the brony community alright.

 

It's not like they're Ann Rice. She hates fanfiction with a burning passion.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(edited)

Legally, as it is a review, they can make money off it in any manner they choose. That is why people like the nostalgia critic is legally able to sell his reviews on dvd's, and why his entire website runs adds. User created content is not under the same legal protection, so I can see them C&D'ing the producer of snowdrop. But monitizing it themselves, without entering a contractual obligation with the producer is theft. Because a c&d does not give you legal ownership of the media, it is just a claim that it is comming to close to their owned media, and they may take you to court. But monitizing it without proof of ownership is theft, and if hasbro is doing that I would recommend court action for both fan media makers involved. But I would really like to see some concrete proof on hasbro's side of this occurring.

That's my feelings, too. I do not believe that Hasbro owns these fan videos or has any right to ownership of them, copyright violation or not. The proper thing to do is to take the fans to court and sue if they're monetizing MLP, but of course that'd make them look even worse.

 

Also, at least with ContentID the video gets to stay up for the rest of us to see, unlike with DMCA cease and desist orders like with JanAnimations.

Edited by nami438
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

...hm. Now I think of a possibility, that Hasbro may be taking these fan animations after they are posted, then download them, then submit them to Youtube to be covered under ContentID, which means claiming that the animations belong to Hasbro. Or more specifically, that Hasbro is the "copyright owner". Whether Hasbro or the creator owns copyright is debatable.

 

That's shadier than an open umbrella at noon.

 

No, they shouldn't do that. Perhaps they're in the right to do that with Snowdrop, that is debatable, but not with a fan made review.

 

 

That's my feelings, too. I do not believe that Hasbro owns these fan videos or has any right to ownership of them, copyright violation or not. The proper thing to do is to take the fans to court and sue if they're monetizing MLP, but of course that'd make them look even worse.

 

Also, at least with ContentID the video gets to stay up for the rest of us to see, unlike with DMCA like with JanAnimations.

 

This is probably what Hasbro is banking on.

 

On one hand, they don't own any copyright to fan-made stuff, at least when it comes to a fan-review, like Nostlgia critics stuff, but on the other hand, with the ContentID, your fanmade stuff is protected from CnD.

 

So they're putting us in the position of choosing the lesser of two evils. If we try to sue, then it makes us look bad, so they may be counting on that as well.

 

Well played, Hasbro.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn it Hasbro, why can't they just leave us alone, I fail to see how they are losing any mony over fan made content, it must just be that their legal department is going mad with power, or hates bronies, or BOTH! :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't imagine it's Youtube doing this, normally ContentID is automatic. 

 

Which is the issue. A computer has no concept of law, or what is just. A computer is cold, and calculating, and cant see beyond the boundaries of its programs.

 

Youtube is having an issue, watch this and find out.

fan made content is also being targeted, but no one is putting much focus on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(edited)

Which is the issue. A computer has no concept of law, or what is just. A computer is cold, and calculating, and cant see beyond the boundaries of its programs.

Precisely. imo ContentID has its heart in the right place, and it works great at keeping people from uploading entire episodes, songs, or movies without being checked. It's just extremely outdated now and needs to be updated.

Edited by nami438
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sent Hasbro an email about the issue. Basically asked if it was Youtube's contentID or them that's doing this. Sent it to the corporate responsibility dept.

 

Not sure if that's the right place or not, and probably won't get a response, but who knows.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Precisely. imo ContentID has its heart in the right place, and it works great at keeping people from uploading entire episodes, songs, or movies without being checked. It's just extremely outdated now and needs to be updated.

 

But having just a 2 second clip in a review makes the content ID match, it is extremely inconvenient to reviewers, and people of the like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Join the herd!

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...