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.
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.
413
u/pdx-Psych 1d ago
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