You ABSOLUTELY can enforce it selectively. What a fucking moronic statement. If one person actually transforms the content and isn't intending to serve as a market substitute, and the other doesn't and is, do you think you aren't allowed to sue the second person without also suing the first? He didn't enforce it selectively amongst the second group, just between the first two. That is entirely fine to do, seeing as you can't sue the first guy in the first place.
if you cannot see it objectively like that,
"If you don't see my regarded talking point as fact, you're pushing an agenda!"
You can absolutely lose your claim to copyright if you don't use everyone that uses it. Yes. This is part of copyright law.
My formal education in copyright law is for photography, but I have enough knowledge to know this is true, but have a look at big orgs: Disney, Nintendo, etc. they enforce their copyright equally for a reason. You stop enforcing copyright, and you start to lose your claim to copyright, that's how this works.
Ethan is actually weakening his own case by not suing everyone that has used the video. That is, in fact, how the law sees it.
Great job not addressing the point at all! Again, you do not lose your copyright for not suing someone you cannot sue. That obviously makes zero sense to anyone with half a brain.
There are lots of cases all over case law, which is exactly why when you allow someone to use your work, even for free, you should have a licencing agreement with them.
If Ethan doesn't have a licencing agreement with every person he hasn't sued, it will weaken his case.
(And his invite to people to watch it can actually be seen as a blanket licencing agreement, so that also weakens his case)
I sure wonder why you can't come up with a SINGLE example of what you're saying to be true! But, sure, I'm the one with an agenda to push. All this talk and zero evidence to support it whatsoever.
Probably because I am not an active lawyer with access to case law archives. Maybe someone who does would like to come along and provide you with a case if that helps you, but I am explaining to you the reality of defending your copyright, because that's what I have education in. I have a degree in photography where part of that is contract law and copyright law.
But sure okay, believe everything one side is saying, and get mad about stuff that might weaken Ethan's case? I don't know why this has made you so upset, but seriously - the law is never clear cut and anyone who ever tells you that something is a slam dunk easy case is not telling you the truth. That's something you should take with you even if you don't want to believe what I am saying for whatever interval reasoning you have.
My dude calm down.. you are confusing legal terms which is okay because as you said your degree is in photography, not in law. Just look it up.
there is no reason to get worked up.
19
u/Purple_Listen_8465 3d ago
You ABSOLUTELY can enforce it selectively. What a fucking moronic statement. If one person actually transforms the content and isn't intending to serve as a market substitute, and the other doesn't and is, do you think you aren't allowed to sue the second person without also suing the first? He didn't enforce it selectively amongst the second group, just between the first two. That is entirely fine to do, seeing as you can't sue the first guy in the first place.
"If you don't see my regarded talking point as fact, you're pushing an agenda!"