I hadn't really heard anything about this so i did a quick search. It turns out these people are responsible for the brands; FailArmy, JukinVideo, World's Funniest, and The Pet Collective. Also, they're the parent company of People Are Awesome Limited.
EDIT: Some more info https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jukin_Media
They also have "This Is Happening," which is their current YouTube apparently.
.
But yeah, they have been doing their very best to extort money from Youtubers doing reaction videos to clips they've licenced it seems.
.
The most bizarre part is I'm pretty sure the people who made the videos/photos to begin with have a license to them by default. They're not required to get a "copyright."
Lel Jukin as a company doesn't care about public opinion. The potential for profit from upcharging YouTubers a under duress is hella more than they would make just selling clip licenses legitimately. Their profit isn't determined by the court of public opinion at all
That explains why they reached an agreement with MxR behind the scenes instead of continuing to harass them for 6000$, and scouring their other videos for more content to strike.
.
I imagine it was becoming a bit tedious for Jukin, being unable to make a post or reach out to anyone across any social media platform without being flooded by people calling them extortionists. They were losing business. People are mass tagging youtube - hell, Youtubers with contacts at YouTube were reaching out to them, pointing out the company's extreme abuse of the copy-strike system.
.
And it was only going to get worse. People are beginning to point out the holes in the way they operate, and dig into their dirty laundry.
People are starting to actually gain traction pointing out the flaws in the company's entire layout.
.
Offering to copyright content such as photos which the creator owns the rights to *from the moment the picture is taken.* Which largely applies to recorded videos as well if I'm understanding correctly.
.
This makes Jukin's entire company hinged on providing two things: a hub for clip organization (which apparently is not well organized at all.. Possibly because they don't want people being able to see what clips they own the licences to with any type of ease). And a bloodhound service to go track down the clips being used without permission.
.
Except they weren't doing that with any consistency either. In MxR's case, iirc they were by and large pulling their clips off of places like Reddit etc. Many of the clips had also been featured in other youtube videos - by people who had never been contacted by Jukin Media. Yet Jukin rarely went after any of those people...
Jukin settled because it was more profitable than going to court. They don't want to actually go to court. If you look at the two times they did go to court they got less than they would have gotten out of court by a hellavalot. They didn't settle because of public opinion they settled because mxr pushed back and they ran away with what money they could get ahold of
... Possibly because, from what I can tell (and what I've seen the legal side of the internet mention) Jukin has almost no legal leg to stand on.
.
In most cases the clips are being used in a "highly transformative" manner, or for critique/commentary. Which means it falls under Fair Use, and in that case Jukin has no right to copy-strike them at all.
.
And regardless of that, even if they feel they do have the right to copy-strike, that is ALL they have the right to do. They can use YouTube's copy-strike system and then they can go through the legal system.
.
What they cannot do is claim they have the right to retroactively demand thousands of dollars for the use of a clip with a $50 licencing fee. Especially from people they had no contract with. ESPECIALLY with the implied threat that they will literally dedicate their time to destroying channels if the people in question don't give in.
But they don't want to go through the legal system. Because they know they're unlikely to win. Companies have tried in the past. Bigger companies than Jukin. It's tedious, time-consuming, expensive, and there is a high likelihood they would fail. Even if they won they would likely not be awarded 6000$.
.
Extorting people from the shadows is much more effective. Or it used to be. But they're getting all the wrong kind of attention now. And I think they are concerned about the court of public opinion. Because in this scenario their entire brand is based on those same people going against them now providing them with the very content theyre exploiting
In specifically mxr's case the stuff wouldn't probably be considered transformative. It's actually a hard mark to hit and there has to be quite a bit of transformation to the work. Another tenant of fair use is how much of the original work is used. In the case of reaction channels they typically show the whole clip which really hurts a fair use argument.
In the cases with =3, he had some clips considered transformative enough and some clips were not however of those that were considered transformative the smallest amount of commentary given was over a full minute.
Mxr very rarely gave that much commentary to any clip at all.
On the payout bit, they could very well be awarded the 6000 for it. Depending on the judge it could go all the way up to the hundreds of thousands total awarded. It's not a matter of if they would get that, it's that the fees and lawyer bills would push profits too far lower than settling out of court
They literally do reactions and commentary on the clips. And yes it's certainly possible jukin could win. Never disputed that. They could win and be awarded 150,000$ per clip iirc.
.
That doesn't change the fact that it's extremely unlikely that they would win anywhere near that over clips they license for 50$. OR that they'd win at all. There have been dozens of cases just like this where companies are clearly abusing the system and they don't win.
.
Hell, Sony went to court over the use of the phrase "Let's Play" and they lost. And yes, copyrighting common phrases and then wrongfully striking people for using them is another thing Jukin Media does.
.
The only reason they've gotten away with it so long is because people don't feel they have any options, don't understand what or how to fight, can't afford to fight, and get absolutely 0 help from YouTube.
And, yes, it wouldn't be worthwhile in the long run for Jukin to go to court. You're literally repeating things I said now.
.
But if Jukin doesn't want to go to court then they have to accept the loss of the clip being used. They don't get to threaten people behind the scenes.
.
Or the court of public opinion certainly says they don't. And they're welcome to try and ignore it. It's not like it would effect their entire extortion scheme if YouTube was forced to actually look into what they're doing.
.
As I said - the people they're abusing are the ones supplying and using their content. Jukin can bite the hand that feeds it if they want to. They have more than enough attention now
"They literally do reactions and commentary on the clips" you cant win a fair use case with only 1 of the 4 factors of fair use. for something to be fair use it has to balance all 4 factors of it. reaction and commentary is ticking a single box and as i said before, it was ruled in a court cases involving jukin in jukins favor on clips for youtubers being not fair use on a very large amount from =3. Only clips with more than a full minute of commentary were considered fair use. Saying that its unlikely they would win is just false. hell just look up any lawyers talking about mxr's situation before they settled. they all say mxr's stuff is very likely not fair use because it isnt transformative often comparing it to someone posting a video of themselves watching a movie in its entirety and having 3 seconds of themselves saying "yea it was an ok movie" at the end and calling it a fair use commentary.
I have heard lawyers talking about it. Apparently more than the ones you have if you only encountered the ones saying it's likely not fair use. Not to mention other Youtubers who have been faced with the exact same bullshit, fought it, and won. And saying that it's likely they'd be awarded thousands of dollars if they DID win is equally "false."
.
At the end of the day whether Jukin would win the hypothetical lawsuit is rather irrelevant anyway because they decided not to actually go the legal route, they went the extortion route.
.
And the court of public opinion seems to have successfully made them BTFO. Because they showed no interest in working with MxR before this. Iirc MxR even mentioned asking for help in sorting out any other accidental usage of their clips, which Jukin declined, and instead raised the price even further.
But then this hits the feeds. Suddenly everyone is talking about it. Flooding their social media. Contacting youtube. Leaving ratings. Refusing to sell clips to them.
.
And NOW they want to deal.
.
You can believe the social response played no part in it if you want to. I don't personally buy the theory that the CEO quit social media and cut bait for environmental reasons, and nothing you've presented so far has even come close to convincing me otherwise so we'll just have to agree to disagree
EDIT: Some more info https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jukin_Media
.
But yeah, they have been doing their very best to extort money from Youtubers doing reaction videos to clips they've licenced it seems.
.
The most bizarre part is I'm pretty sure the people who made the videos/photos to begin with have a license to them by default. They're not required to get a "copyright."
.
I imagine it was becoming a bit tedious for Jukin, being unable to make a post or reach out to anyone across any social media platform without being flooded by people calling them extortionists. They were losing business. People are mass tagging youtube - hell, Youtubers with contacts at YouTube were reaching out to them, pointing out the company's extreme abuse of the copy-strike system.
.
And it was only going to get worse. People are beginning to point out the holes in the way they operate, and dig into their dirty laundry.
.
Offering to copyright content such as photos which the creator owns the rights to *from the moment the picture is taken.* Which largely applies to recorded videos as well if I'm understanding correctly.
.
This makes Jukin's entire company hinged on providing two things: a hub for clip organization (which apparently is not well organized at all.. Possibly because they don't want people being able to see what clips they own the licences to with any type of ease). And a bloodhound service to go track down the clips being used without permission.
.
Except they weren't doing that with any consistency either. In MxR's case, iirc they were by and large pulling their clips off of places like Reddit etc. Many of the clips had also been featured in other youtube videos - by people who had never been contacted by Jukin Media. Yet Jukin rarely went after any of those people...
.
In most cases the clips are being used in a "highly transformative" manner, or for critique/commentary. Which means it falls under Fair Use, and in that case Jukin has no right to copy-strike them at all.
.
And regardless of that, even if they feel they do have the right to copy-strike, that is ALL they have the right to do. They can use YouTube's copy-strike system and then they can go through the legal system.
.
What they cannot do is claim they have the right to retroactively demand thousands of dollars for the use of a clip with a $50 licencing fee. Especially from people they had no contract with. ESPECIALLY with the implied threat that they will literally dedicate their time to destroying channels if the people in question don't give in.
.
Extorting people from the shadows is much more effective. Or it used to be. But they're getting all the wrong kind of attention now. And I think they are concerned about the court of public opinion. Because in this scenario their entire brand is based on those same people going against them now providing them with the very content theyre exploiting
In the cases with =3, he had some clips considered transformative enough and some clips were not however of those that were considered transformative the smallest amount of commentary given was over a full minute.
Mxr very rarely gave that much commentary to any clip at all.
.
That doesn't change the fact that it's extremely unlikely that they would win anywhere near that over clips they license for 50$. OR that they'd win at all. There have been dozens of cases just like this where companies are clearly abusing the system and they don't win.
.
Hell, Sony went to court over the use of the phrase "Let's Play" and they lost. And yes, copyrighting common phrases and then wrongfully striking people for using them is another thing Jukin Media does.
.
The only reason they've gotten away with it so long is because people don't feel they have any options, don't understand what or how to fight, can't afford to fight, and get absolutely 0 help from YouTube.
.
But if Jukin doesn't want to go to court then they have to accept the loss of the clip being used. They don't get to threaten people behind the scenes.
.
Or the court of public opinion certainly says they don't. And they're welcome to try and ignore it. It's not like it would effect their entire extortion scheme if YouTube was forced to actually look into what they're doing.
.
As I said - the people they're abusing are the ones supplying and using their content. Jukin can bite the hand that feeds it if they want to. They have more than enough attention now
.
At the end of the day whether Jukin would win the hypothetical lawsuit is rather irrelevant anyway because they decided not to actually go the legal route, they went the extortion route.
.
And the court of public opinion seems to have successfully made them BTFO. Because they showed no interest in working with MxR before this. Iirc MxR even mentioned asking for help in sorting out any other accidental usage of their clips, which Jukin declined, and instead raised the price even further.
.
And NOW they want to deal.
.
You can believe the social response played no part in it if you want to. I don't personally buy the theory that the CEO quit social media and cut bait for environmental reasons, and nothing you've presented so far has even come close to convincing me otherwise so we'll just have to agree to disagree