• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Somebody call VH1: "The Fine Bros" are trying to trademark "reaction videos"

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Gurrry

Member
oh man these guys are true shit bags

border said:
They believe they own the phrases "Kids React", "Youtubers React", "Elders React", and "Teens React". So at least by The Fine Brothers' standards you can still make reaction videos, you just can't use those specific phrases in your video titles.

In theory they should not have a problem with "Children React to Red Bull" or "Youngsters Try Out Red Bull".
Click to expand...


But if you sign up and do their licensing deal and make.. "Animals React".. then no one can ever do Animals React. Because it now belongs to them and their trademark.

Also - It doesnt really seem to matter considering there was a "Seniors React", and finebros got it taken down too.
 
C

Captin Quacker

Member
here's there list of sponsors some pretty big names
Link

https://twitter.com/UniversalPics
https://twitter.com/generalelectric
https://twitter.com/Ford
https://twitter.com/Mattel
https://twitter.com/budlight
https://twitter.com/Chase
https://twitter.com/Colgate
https://twitter.com/Disney
https://twitter.com/EA
https://twitter.com/EsteeLauder
https://twitter.com/McDonalds
https://twitter.com/Microsoft
https://twitter.com/MTV
https://twitter.com/nbc
https://twitter.com/Oreo
https://twitter.com/AmericanExpress
https://twitter.com/FOXTV
https://twitter.com/Ubisoft
https://twitter.com/Discover
https://twitter.com/BestBuy
https://twitter.com/Lionsgate
https://twitter.com/Purina
https://twitter.com/AMC_TV
https://twitter.com/GeneralMills
Click to expand...
 
P

Phu

Banned
UncleSporky said:
That doesn't actually seem ridiculous to me. The only issue is the kinda generic name.

Like if instead it was called Reactapalooza: Kids Edition, you couldn't make Reactapalooza: Kids Edition Redbull.
Click to expand...

It's bad because of how their trademarked name is set up. It's not "Kids React to Videos" or something, it's simply "Kids React."

Noun does verb. It's how people speak English. It's how people explain a thing that happened.

"People run"
"Dogs eat"
"High schoolers try"
"Plants grow"

Especially when it comes to internet videos, it is common practice for people to label their videos with a description of what happens in the video.

And they are even trying to trademark "React" which is even more vague and open to abuse.
 
S

Skux

Member
^ Exactly. "Kids React" as a name is such a common phrase. It's a noun and verb, unlike most shows which are nouns and adjectives. It's like if you called American Idol "People Sing". Are you going to go after all the other videos of "People sing x song?"

If a woman uploads a video with the title "My kids react to getting a PS4" it'd be flagged, regardless of the content.
 
F

Foffy

Banned
Compsiox said:
oik8CsA.png
Click to expand...

Haha.

Fuck these dudes. Totally corporate, money-lusting parasites.
 
U

UncleSporky

Member
Gentle Rodriguez said:
so it is ridiculous, the entire problem is that they're trying to trademark something so generic and common.
Click to expand...

The difference is in trademarking terminology and the whole concept of showing children things and getting a reaction.

I mean theoretically other stuff with generic sounding names would be just as bad from that standpoint. Like "America's Funniest Home Videos," you could be infringing if you do "America's Funniest Whatever" or "Whatever's Funniest Home Videos." It's up to courts to figure that stuff out. This is all over the entertainment industry.

In that particular case they rebranded themselves to AFV, which could be related to this sort of thing.

Foffy said:
Haha.

Fuck these dudes. Totally corporate, money-lusting parasites.
Click to expand...

Again, they say right there that "you could create that content." They just don't want you using that specific wording to title the video/series. They aren't claiming ownership of the idea of kids reacting, just the name.
 
L

lamaroo

Unconfirmed Member
captainnapalm said:
I still think much of the condemnation here is because of jumping to conclusions.

People think they want to control all reaction videos on Youtube and that 'React World' is some Orwellian scheme to make that happen, but they're just licencing their specific show formats for use in other countries, the way some tv shows do.
Click to expand...

What exactly are they licensing though?

They're not licensing their music, animations, titles, personalities, etc.

They're licensing the idea of reacting to things on video?
 
F

Foffy

Banned
lamaroo said:
What exactly are they licensing though?

They're not licensing their music, animations, titles, personalities, etc.

They're licensing the idea of reacting to things on video?
Click to expand...

They are licensing the "style" of video. As if one can own a style of video.

People are fucking weird when it comes to mastabatory bullshit like ownership.
 
W

Worthintendo

Member
Man I miss when The Fine Bros. were just the guys who made the awesomely stupid G.I.Joe The Epic Saga series, amazingly silly and amazingly fun :(
 
J

Jacksinthe

Banned
UncleSporky said:
The difference is in trademarking terminology and the whole concept of showing children things and getting a reaction.

I mean theoretically other stuff with generic sounding names would be just as bad from that standpoint. Like "America's Funniest Home Videos," you could be infringing if you do "America's Funniest Whatever" or "Whatever's Funniest Home Videos." It's up to courts to figure that stuff out. This is all over the entertainment industry.

In that particular case they rebranded themselves to AFV, which could be related to this sort of thing.



Again, they say right there that "you could create that content." They just don't want you using that specific wording to title the video/series. They aren't claiming ownership of the idea of kids reacting, just the name.
Click to expand...
Please explain why they have taken down several prominent YouTuber videos for reaction content that didn't use their name, likeness or any of their branding if their intention isn't to milk the concept of a reaction and instead just the name and branding which they said you couldn't use anyway which means there's nothing to license but... ?

I'll wait.
 
Y

YianGaruga

Banned
So except for them backing down voluntarily, there's nothing that can be done? They can just run their shitshow and take down any YT video they think "infringes" on their trademark?
 
F

farisr

Member
UncleSporky said:
Again, they say right there that "you could create that content." They just don't want you using that specific wording to title the video/series. They aren't claiming ownership of the idea of kids reacting, just the name.
Click to expand...

That's what they're saying, but they're also in their video saying that you can't use "their format" without their permission. And that's the main issue here. They had issues with Ellen doing a segment where kids were shown old technology which wasn't called "kids react..". They had issues with a buzzfeed video titled "teens watch old 90s music videos for the first time" which wasn't called "teens react,"
 
captainnapalm

captainnapalm

Member
lamaroo said:
What exactly are they licensing though?

They're not licensing their music, animations, titles, personalities, etc.

They're licensing the idea of reacting to things on video?
Click to expand...

I would have thought it's just a straight copy. Like America's Got Talent vs Britain's Got Talent. Maybe different logos and stuff, but the exact same show. If that's not the case, I'm not sure what they're thinking.

Their shows do have a format. The reactions from a demographic group, then a Q and A between the reactors and an invisible interviewer, with little info bubbles popping up on the screen.

I think the FineBros are going to have to convince people they're acting in good faith here. There certainly are valid concerns that they could abuse the system. I'm not sure the two or three examples currently going around from their five-year history definitively points to that. The Youtuber boogie has a good, measured take on this issue, I think. People should check out his video.
 
U

UncleSporky

Member
AbsintheGames said:
Please explain why they have taken down several prominent YouTuber videos for reaction content that didn't use their name, likeness or any of their branding if their intention isn't to milk the concept of a reaction and instead just the name and branding which they said you couldn't use anyway which means there's nothing to license but... ?

I'll wait.
Click to expand...

I don't really care about all that. I'm not out to defend them on the whole. Just this specific picture that was posted:

oik8CsA.png


That's not ridiculous. That's generally the way trademark and naming goes in the entertainment industry. You can make something similar to someone else, but using a specific string of words identified with that other product is going a little far.
 
J

Jacksinthe

Banned
YianGaruga said:
So except for them backing down voluntarily, there's nothing that can be done? They can just run their shitshow and take down any YT video they think "infringes" on their trademark?
Click to expand...
Due to YouTube rules, abuse has been rampant for some time now. They've been taking down videos before all this, too.

You can easily claim copyright or trademark on any video and it would take forever for the system to work against you. Its guilty until proven innocent once a complaint has been filed. The onus is never on the individual complaining and always on the channel.
 
N

Nokterian

Member
UncleSporky said:
I don't really care about all that. I'm not out to defend them on the whole. Just this specific picture that was posted:

oik8CsA.png


That's not ridiculous. That's generally the way trademark and naming goes in the entertainment industry. You can make something similar to someone else, but using a specific string of words identified with that other product is going a little far.
Click to expand...

This post doesn't make any sense...they want to trademark a goddamn word just like sony tried to with 'let's play' that didn't work and this isn't going to work either. You clearly missed the whole point on why they are scumbags.
 
U

UncleSporky

Member
farisr said:
That's what they're saying, but they're also in their video saying that you can't use "their format" without their permission. And that's the main issue here. They had issues with Ellen doing a segment where kids were shown old technology. They had issues with a buzzfeed video titled "teens watch old 90s music videos for the first time". They clearly have more issues than just using the titles of their shows, which btw one of them is named "try not to smile or laugh" which is a very common video title before they even started doing it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and that's awful, and they need to quit that.
 
J

Jacksinthe

Banned
UncleSporky said:
I don't really care about all that. I'm not out to defend them on the whole. Just this specific picture that was posted:

oik8CsA.png


That's not ridiculous. That's generally the way trademark and naming goes in the entertainment industry. You can make something similar to someone else, but using a specific string of words identified with that other product is going a little far.
Click to expand...
We know how trademark works.

This is abusing YouTube's complaint and strike policy because its shit as has been explained already a multitude of times regardless of any trademark. The picture you are defending is also flat-out bullshit because they go further than just a trademark name with strikes.

Its all in this thread, dude.

Get there.
 
U

UncleSporky

Member
AbsintheGames said:
We know how trademark works.

This is abusing YouTube's complaint and strike policy because its shit as has been explained already a multitude of times regardless of any trademark. The picture you are defending is also flat-out bullshit because they go further than just a trademark name with strikes.

Its all I'm this thread, dude.

Get there.
Click to expand...

The picture was posted with no context. I'm responding to the image specifically and not anything else the Fine Bros are doing. In a vacuum, yes that is how the industry works.

You can post funny videos on youtube but you probably shouldn't title it "America's funniest home video."
 
S

S3Nt1neLkn1gHt

Neo Member
The FineBrothers Entertainment video was brought to my attention from watching Boogie2988 reaction video. Today I watched 8-Bit Eric on you tube explaining how his content was flagged and blocked world wide by Fine Brothers Entertainment and Full Screen. Very sad video to watch.

AlphaOmegaSin made 2 videos that are now posted regarding The fine Bros and even started a hashtag on twitter.

Maybe Jim Sterling will make a video this week about this nonsense.
 
J

James93

Member
A total shit storm. But this was the next step of youtube. People are making millions and when that much money is in it. You are going to have a corporate mindset start to take over
 
J

Jacksinthe

Banned
UncleSporky said:
The picture was posted with no context. I'm responding to the image specifically and not anything else the Fine Bros are doing. In a vacuum, yes that is how the industry works.

You can post funny videos on youtube but you probably shouldn't title it "America's funniest home video."
Click to expand...
Are you joking?

The post doesn't exist in a vacuum, guy. It exists in a fucking thread where CONTEXT is your best friend before opening your mouth. If it was the OP and nobody knew what the hell was going on that's one thing.

How many posts in are we? Vacuum? Jesus Christ.
 
P

Pineapple

Member
UncleSporky said:
That's not ridiculous. That's generally the way trademark and naming goes in the entertainment industry. You can make something similar to someone else, but using a specific string of words identified with that other product is going a little far.
Click to expand...

They applied for a trademark for the word "react". Just the word. One word.

Are you telling me that if I start up a bunny Youtube channel and post a bunch of videos of bunnies doing random things, that I could then trademark "bunny" and "bunnies", thereby claiming exclusive franchise branding rights to all bunny content on Youtube, and effectively preventing anyone else from uploading a video to Youtube with "bunny" or "bunnies" in the title?
 
U

UncleSporky

Member
AbsintheGames said:
Are you joking?

The post doesn't exist in a vacuum, guy. It exists in a fucking thread where CONTEXT is your best friend before opening your mouth. If it was the OP and nobody knew what the hell was going on that's one thing.

How many posts in are we? Vacuum? Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...

It's alright to respond to specific parts of discussions without engaging the rest of the discussion on the whole. I never pretended to be speaking about anything more than the image. I said "that" doesn't seem all that ridiculous, not "this entire situation."

Like I could say "that one Fine Bro's hat looks stupid" and you could tell me that you actually like it, and we could have this whole side thing going out of context and that would be fine. It'd be dumb to be like "HOW CAN YOU LIKE HIS HAT WHEN HE'S ISSUING TAKEDOWNS ON YOUTUBE VIDEOS." It doesn't have to be part of that discussion.
 
B

BreezyLimbo

Banned
UncleSporky said:
It's alright to respond to specific parts of discussions without engaging the rest of the discussion on the whole. I never pretended to be speaking about anything more than the image. I said "that" doesn't seem all that ridiculous, not "this entire situation."

Like I could say "that one Fine Bro's hat looks stupid" and you could tell me that you actually like it, and we could have this whole side thing going out of context and that would be fine. It'd be dumb to be like "HOW CAN YOU LIKE HIS HAT WHEN HE'S ISSUING TAKEDOWNS ON YOUTUBE VIDEOS." It doesn't have to be part of that discussion.
Click to expand...

The thing is that the image is part of the whole discussion. You can't treat it like it's in a vacuum. You have to take into consideration the whole situation.
 
U

UncleSporky

Member
Pineapple said:
They applied for a trademark for the word "react". Just the word. One word.

Are you telling me that if I start up a bunny Youtube channel and post a bunch of videos of bunnies doing random things, that I could then trademark "bunny" and "bunnies", thereby claiming exclusive franchise branding rights to all bunny content on Youtube, and effectively preventing anyone else from uploading a video to Youtube with "bunny" or "bunnies" in the title?
Click to expand...

I don't know, I don't issue trademarks. In the image I was responding to, the person asked if they could post "Kids React To Redbull." That has three words in common with most Fine Bros videos, and in fact sounds like an actual video title they would do. So I don't think that's ridiculous.

If the question had been, "can I make a video titled Redbull React from Kids," and they said he shouldn't use that name, I don't know. But that wasn't the question asked.
 
J

Jacksinthe

Banned
UncleSporky said:
I don't know, I don't issue trademarks. In the image I was responding to, the person asked if they could post "Kids React To Redbull." That has three words in common with most Fine Bros videos, and in fact sounds like an actual video title they would do. So I don't think that's ridiculous.

If the question had been, "can I make a video titled Redbull React from Kids," and they said he shouldn't use that name, I don't know. But that wasn't the question asked.
Click to expand...
Again, I'll reiterate: the trademark stuff is how trademarks work.

We understand that.

It was posted because they take down reaction videos that don't violate their trademark at all.

They said reaction videos are fine if its not their trademark

They lied in that post.

They go BEYOND their trademark.

Do you understand yet?
 
Compsiox

Compsiox

Banned
AbsintheGames said:
Again, I'll reiterate: the trademark stuff is how trademarks work.

We understand that.

It was posted because they take down reaction videos that don't violate their trademark at all.

They said reaction videos are fine if its not their trademark

They lied in that post.

They go BEYOND their trademark.

Do you understand yet?
Click to expand...

He's trolling. He's doing everything he can to make it seem unclear to him including an example that doesn't make sense.
 
U

UncleSporky

Member
AbsintheGames said:
Again, I'll reiterate: the trademark stuff is how trademarks work.

We understand that.

It was posted not because they take down reaction videos that don't violate their trademark at all.

They said reaction videos are fine if its not their trademark

They lied in that post.

They go BEYOND their trademark.

Do you understand yet?
Click to expand...

You seem pretty angry when I'm not even defending them. I'm right here with everyone else thinking the situation is hilarious to watch.

If I owned a trademark on "Absinthe Games Presents..." and you were like "hey can I make a video called "Absinthe Games Presents A Reaction To This One Dude's Post," I might say that's an infringement. But you could title the video something else if you wanted.

Compsiox said:
He's trolling. He's doing everything he can to make it seem unclear to him including an example that doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

No, I genuinely think it's alright to compartmentalize. It's alright to say, "ok this whole thing is nuts, but let's not go overboard here, this one thing is reasonable. Fuck the rest, though."
 
F

Foffy

Banned
UncleSporky said:
You seem pretty angry when I'm not even defending them. I'm right here with everyone else thinking the situation is hilarious to watch.

If I owned a trademark on "Absinthe Games Presents..." and you were like "hey can I make a video called "Absinthe Games Presents A Reaction To This One Dude's Post," I might say that's an infringement. But you could title the video something else if you wanted.
Click to expand...

The problem here is React is such a general term that one would literally have to change communicative language to get around being infringing.

And people are pissed these guys went to such disgusting lengths to make that a reality.

Your example involves something that isn't general as the word "React" that it's almost a non-example to use, here.
 
U

UncleSporky

Member
Foffy said:
The problem here is React is such a general term that one would literally have to change communicative language to get around being infringing.

And people are pissed these guys went to such disgusting lengths to make that a reality.

Your example involves something that isn't general as the word "React" that it's almost a non-example to use, here.
Click to expand...

"React" alone is probably a bit much. The question was regarding "Kids React To Redbull," though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Phil Spencer interview - Says that their intent is for all Xbox games, including Call of Duty, to be available on Xbox Game Pass Day One
2 3
102
8K
Kenneth Haight replied
Apple is allegedly copyright striking videos on youtube that focus on the crowd's reaction to the $999 display stand
38
3K
Airola replied
[Bustle] Please Respect Mia Khalifa’s Rebrand
6 7 8 9 10
499
64K
Maiden Voyage replied
  • Locked
The Fine Bros back down after internet backlash, rescind all "React" trademarks
9 10 11 12 13
629
118K
The Real Abed replied
Kotaku: Nintendo's Lawyers Need To Chill
Clickbait
49
5K
HeresJohnny replied
Top Bottom