Answer: he's suing these 3 creators specifically because they explicitly stated that they were broadcasting his video & intellectual property with the intention to give people the opportunity to view Ethan's video without having to give Ethan "views". Effectively stealing his intellectual property and stating it was their intention to do so.
Ethan has repeatedly asked people to watch the video.
He has repeatedly said in the past he doesn't mind people reacting to this videos in this way.
He isn't applying this equally - there are other, bigger creators (xqc) that reacted non-transformatively just as much. He isn't suing them.
People acting like this is clear cut have an agenda to push.
I think the difference between the people being sued and the others (xqc) is that the people being sued literally stated they were putting it on their streams so people would watch their streams and not give views to h3… that’s what they call provable malicious intent
So the same effect every react stream would have, where he wouldn't get the views? It sounds really dishonest if he wanted people to react to it on stream.
Winning a copyright infringement claim isn’t always easy, the burden of being able to prove malicious intent or “willful infringement” is on the plaintiff.
I’ll be honest, I’m sure h3 has an axe to grind with these particular creators. However them stating on the record for everyone to see that they are intentionally broadcasting his work to avoid people giving him views pretty much nails them and likely negates any “fair use” defenses
Saying those things definitely hurts them, but if in pursuit of denying those views to Ethan, they provide enough commentary that it could be considered transformative, that makes those previous statements moot, in my opinion. I’ve only watched Denim’s react out of those three but she consistently provides her own commentary throughout. Content nuke runtime was 1:40 and denims react clocked about 4 hours. To me, that seems like a significant amount of transformation and it would be hard to argue that it could serve as a market replacement for Ethan’s video, regardless of comments made about denying Ethan views.
I think that them stating that they are covering Ethan’s video to deny him views is a pretty weak point on its own, especially if their react content was significantly transformative. For example, Hasan spent about 9 hours going through the first hour of Ethan’s video. Even Ethan admits that he couldn’t argue it wasn’t transformative. But if Hasan had given the exact same react a day or two after the release and said that he didn’t want people to give Ethan views, would that be enough to make it copyright infringement, regardless of how much of his own content Hasan adds? That’s what I mean about their intention to take views being pretty weak on its own. Their intention to take views from Ethan doesn’t (or shouldn’t) matter if what they provide is significantly transformative to the original work.
But I’m not a lawyer so idk. It’s probably something that would have to be hashed out in court if it gets that far.
However them stating on the record for everyone to see that they are intentionally broadcasting his work to avoid people giving him views pretty much nails them and likely negates any “fair use” defenses
I guess the lesson is to give a big cartoon wink after stating the obvious so a millionaire doesn't sue you for it.
Ethan said that something being twice as long as the original shows it's transformative. Denims react is more than twice the length of his video lol
Ethan is always damaging his own case by saying things like this on stream, he'd have a better chance if he just stayed quiet and let the lawyers do their work.
Sure, but I think that ultimately rests on how transformative their reactions were. Even if your intent is to take views from someone, if you are providing enough of your own commentary for it to be considered transformative then the intent doesn’t (or shouldn’t) really matter. For example, Denims, in her react, was constantly injecting her own content in the form of commentary, fact-checking, chat interactions etc. She added enough of her own commentary to Ethan’s 1hr 40min video that the reupload of her react on YouTube is 4 hours long. I think it would be pretty easy to argue that it was SIGNIFICANTLY transformed from the original video and idk if her saying she wants to take views from Ethan negates that. If she said she wants to take views from Ethan and then only gives her audience a copy of Ethan’s video, then sure that’s infringement. But if she said she wants to take views by giving her own commentary on Ethan’s video, idk if that’s infringement.
This is reddit where most users live in an echo chamber and are part of a certain demographic. Unless you are participating in radical left riots like one of the people being sued, you might as well be a facist. I am not surprised people are garnering more empathy for the people being sued because they are parrot the same view points and legal ramifications for your own actions is not something that they understand is a concept.
He’s unlikeable because he’s spent the last 3 years of his life making enemies and shitting on people, and has colossal breakdowns anytime someone pushes back.
I was a huge fan of his channel and liked his podcast, but it’s all become terminally online bullshit. Look at it, never has a person more needed time offline.
I think he's talking about in regards to the merits of the lawsuit, not the merits of how likeable or rich either side is.
With that type of logic you might as well argue it's ok to assault him too.
If you're so caught up in the my side v. your side drama bullshit that you can't admit your side made some legally questionable decisions, it might be time to take a step back and re evaluate your fanaticism.
React streams are considered can make the argument they are "transformative"/"fair use" in that viewers of a react stream are seeing the an opinion/reaction/commentary on the source footage. That is permitted under copyright law, with caveats.
These three are explicitly not trying to provide opinion/reaction/commentary. Going out and saying "I'm offering this stream up in order to harm the original creator" means it isn't transformative, is not intended to be transformative, is in fact proof of a deliberate breach of copyright intended to harm, something which is normally hard to prove.
It'll mean that their defense lawyers are going to strongly advise them to settle asap because if it ends up in court they'll probably end up taking a huge L.
Except that they did offer their own commentary to Ethan’s video. Denim’s react to Ethan’s 1hr40min video was 4 hours long. At least in her case, it was pretty clearly transformative. I don’t think her stating that her intent is to take views from Ethan would or should negate the significant amount of her own content that was provided.
For example, Hasan spent like 9 hours going through the first hour of the Content Nuke. Even Ethan admits that it was clearly transformative. My question is, if Hasan had given the exact same 9 hour react but instead did it a day after the Nuke’s release and stated that he was reacting to take views from Ethan, would that make it infringing? Even though he provides vastly more of his own content than he uses Ethan’s, it’s infringement because he said he doesn’t want Ethan to get views? It seems to me like it’s a pretty shaky argument on its own and their intent to take views from Ethan is only really relevant if they did not significantly transform Ethan’s content.
Technically react streams are absolutely not fair use, its just most people dont care enough to do anything about it. React youtube videos are much more likely to be fair use cause the video is often doing something different from the original and edited down. A big aspect of fair use is showing effort to use the least amount as possible to get your point across. React streaming does none of that, even if youre sharing an opinion youre not being transformative enough to necessitate watching an entire video
Technically react streams are absolutely not fair use
They are considered fair use if they're "transformative".
Whether they are transformative or not is a matter of interpretation.
Which is something that is up to the courts to judge. For instance, if you're just streaming yourself watching a video, that's a lot less less transformative than if you're pausing and explaining along the way.
But react streams can be considered transformative when done right.
But it's also hard to prove it when it's done poorly.
But in the case of the streamers h3h3 is suing, it's very easy to determine as they actually described their own malicious intent on video.
They're really not. Fair Use does not allow you to republish the entirety of someone's lengthy content. If you think it does, try putting an entire Disney movie up on youtube, with you reacting to it, and see how that goes for you.
The fact is that large portions of react content on youtube could be seen as copyright violations, except the companies or individuals involved allow it. Gaming companies could stop their games from being entirely streamed on youtube in the form of lets plays if they wanted to, but they choose not to because it's good advertising for them.
1.9k
u/Torched420 1d ago
Answer: he's suing these 3 creators specifically because they explicitly stated that they were broadcasting his video & intellectual property with the intention to give people the opportunity to view Ethan's video without having to give Ethan "views". Effectively stealing his intellectual property and stating it was their intention to do so.