YouTuber Extortion?  MxR Plays v. Jukin – Real Law Review // LegalEagle

YouTuber Extortion? MxR Plays v. Jukin – Real Law Review // LegalEagle


100 thoughts to “YouTuber Extortion? MxR Plays v. Jukin – Real Law Review // LegalEagle”

  1. © Are MxR’s videos are fair use? If so, why?
    🕹Get the 11 Myths of Online Copyright for FREE: https://www.copyrightcourse.com/myth

  2. Oh, and I came to think of a friend that sent a bill to a newspaper for using his picture without permission in the newspaper. The ammount he asked for, and also got, was much bigger than if they had asked and payed the standard amount for using a photo in a newspaper. Just because they had already used it and sold the newspapers.

  3. "I almost feel like we can't carry on making money off other people's works by pulling faces at it" haha yeah I know there's more to it than that. but damn, "reaction videos" are really pushing the lower boundary of "creativity". Maybe they could do some original works, like "watch me react to receiving a DMCA takedown notice" or maybe film a coma patient and have a channel where you watch somebody NOT react to anything, FFS

  4. It seems like it would have been best if they made their reactions full-screen and had the clips displayed in a thumbnail.

  5. 31:00 I think you misunderstood them, I believe they were referencing to their editing process before uploading the video. It still doesn't make it a good defense but it wasn't a "trying to unring the bell" situation.

  6. Yukin needs to be destroyed, as long as they exist they are a threat to Youtubers, and they are famous to be Legal Scammers, they scam people Legally, creators and also the people they claim to protect their copyright videos, and what they do is immoral and dirty, these type of dishonest scheme of business has to be taken down, so I suggest whom ever can do anything against them, please do.

  7. Jukin Media reminds me of patent trolls. Despicable exploitation of the legal system in ways that were not intended when the law was created. Makes me wonder what the people working for such a company are like; I dont know (this might be the wrong place to say that), I generally have mixed feelings about people working in the legal business, as at least some are defending people and practices that they know are immoral.

  8. I think MxR was in the wrong kinda, Junkin seem like assholes but MxR is just sat there going "wow so cool and cute" after a 1 min clip. on the otherside H3H3 were actaully commenting on the content they would transform 30 seconds of content into 2 to 3 mins of commentary

  9. Basically what I got from this. Jukin is basically banking on a new form of paparazzi internet footage. By creating a hub were the average person can now make money of just recording a cat, fight, pencil etc. People will now choose make money instead of just posting for the sake of posting on the internet for everyone could see for whatever reason. So my question would be, if a video is posted up let's just say Facebook, before selling the rights to Jukins. Would it be consider copyright infringement if the video was public before going private?

  10. Mxr plays also stated they will remove ANY copyright content but, jukin will not release the titles of the clips. I would consider that purposeful extortion.

  11. Isn't there the whole issue that Jukin was not willing to help MXR find Jukins videos to make sure they didnt use them/bought a license beforehand? Jukin did wait until they released videos to call copyright strikes and charge thousands of dollars. That sounds like predatory behavior IMO

  12. I honestly don't have that much pity for YouTubers who make potentially thens of thousands of Dollars per month with "their" content and think that they can just act as these private persons from next door with a video camera. If you're a professional, you need to act professionally. As you said, they're a medium sized business and they need to cover their legal basis. Honestly, as a content creator I'd be pissed if some kid made thousands of dollars with a clip that I had the rights to only because they watch it and then say "that was cool" or "that sucked" in the end.

  13. I hate the current laws of copyright. I will admit i'm probably wrong as i'm a simple-minded random dude who has no idea about legal stuff, but i feel even i could do better than whoever wrote that stuff lol

  14. I don't think MxR was worried about the music because he KNEW it wasn't fair use. He was probably worried that YT automatic mechanisms would kick in and he'd have to dispute those first. At least that's the way I see it.

  15. If someone is making a million dollars a year to make banal comments on other people's work in a nontransormative way, that someone doesn't have my sympathy.

  16. This guy: "This is totally not extortion."
    Webster's Dictionary; "Dude, have you ever read me?"

    Definition of extortion
    1 : the act or practice of extorting especially money or other property especially : the offense committed by an official engaging in such practice
    2 : something extorted especially : a gross overcharge
    Edit because youtube autoformat is fail.

  17. Not sure how anyone can say that was fair use by the definition legaleagle puts up. Also being a small guy doesnt mean its ok to screw with the big guy. Its not a relevant analogy here.

  18. Question Legal Eagle. Out of curiosity what is fair use laws on Streaming video games or recording your gameplay in a video game? The game its self is art own by developers but the gamer streaming or recording is using that art to show off his skills in the game. What is fair use for video games ?!?!

    Dammit, you got me thinking like a lawyer. I am doomed.

  19. The only thing worse than copyright trolls like Jukin are reaction channels. HOW DID YOU MAKE ME ROOT FOR THE CORPORATION, MXR???

  20. What did he admit??? Henry was talking about playing a music which obviously would not involve any commentary while reaction videos by nature has commentary.

  21. Normally I'm on the side of the little guy, especially when it comes to copyright stuff. But we need to not live in a world where people can make a living producing videos of themselves watching other people's videos. It is truly egregious that it has come to this.

  22. The Quartening is a completely braindead moron so I'd be careful to even think about his concave skull for more than 10 seconds.

  23. the copyright law has been molded entirely to the benefit of gigantic companies, instead of individual copyright holders. by now it is intentionally hostile and prohibitive in regards to public conversation, commentary, transformation about any given piece of media that enters popular culture. discussing stories is a fundamental part of human behavior. The current system only encourages these conglomerate media juggernauts to steamroll anybody who infringes on the copyrights they bought up, making even giant companies like YouTube bend the knee…

  24. Legal Eagle:'It would be pretty difficult to review a movie or provide commentary without using any clips of it.'
    Screen Rants:"Actually, super easy, barely an inconvenience!"

  25. This is interesting. I worked in magazines for a decade buying rights to photos. Then the internet came in and made a mess of everything. We lost sales to hundreds of free websites who globally circulated photos we paid local rights to. All of those magazines had closed now. Now that the internet is getting organised, it's intriguing to see we're at a stage where copyright control is now gaining some structure on the web.

  26. Is there any follow up information you might have about the current situation with mxr/jukin as it stands now? I have only just heard about this the same day posting this comment.

  27. I love and support MxR, but I really hope they watched this video. Take a lot of it to heart and make better decisions for their channel. I want to see them go for a very long time. They make me happy every day.

  28. "If they see that a video is trending, they'll go out and they'll reach out to the person that created the clip and they will get the ownership rights"

    I do not like the sound of that…
    The way you put it, it sounds they just take ownership away from the creator.

  29. Jukin media: someboby used our video, that's the cause we're dropping audience!

    MxR: huh?

    Jukin media: Okay, prepare to spend million dollar lawsuit

  30. Yeah…you seem to have stepped in something on your way to tip toe around the subject, that jukin intentionally kept their claim vague enough to prevent mxr from complying. Sure the argument can be made that its mxr's responsibility to check their exhaustive list of thousands of videos before hand, but thst doesn't address the threat of having exactly enough strikes available at a moments notice, to take down their channel, just to reiterste that the offending content would not be provided to them.

  31. I heard that juries will take into consideration the intention behind the actions and lawsuits before making judgement. Won’t it work towards MxR’s favor if the juries think Jukin is abusing technicalities of the law to make money?

  32. Jukin keeps doing this, I have seen a dozen semi big channels from 200k to 1m subscribers getting hit by these clowns and its starting to spiral with a couple cases being clear fair use and legit parody.

  33. Objection. You presupposed that you will, in your words, "see you in court". That was threatening, defamatory and straight up rude…… Grounds to sue?
    Another great video, thank you for what you do.

  34. 7:36 Did he say, "for INTENSIVE purposes"?!
    For a lawyer to get that wrong.. and an American one (fyi, English is my second language!)
    Wow.

  35. There's literally a million pages…. Well, there goes all value of the copyright tag to my sense of justice. As it essentially just become an arbitrary interpretation fest, which can easily be used to quell several forms of free speech for starters. The law can fck off at that point.

  36. I am just sick of drama. Plenty of channels I like have dealt with similar, and its pissing me off. Ymfah has to Copyright strike his own shit now, Infernoplus has to butcher his own videos, and some videos I like from many other channels too just disappear… Hell, on occasion people I like just quit or give up YouTube altogether. I get its "Real Life", but clearly "Real Life" doesn't have room for common sense. And that is a real issue. I rephrased this last part many times now, because there is no way I can say it without being extreme. But one day, shits gotta change.

  37. Jukin Media has struck again and now copyright striking Tyrone Magnus… When will this stop?
    Also the video that I watch was 4 days ago now.

  38. the day lawyers found a way to leverage the internet for money the internet became nearly useless to the average user.

  39. Jukens use of the term "creator" is a joke.. as if the guy who shot the vid of the bear with the pot on his head created that….

  40. Can you please make a more in-depth video on copyright claims and sampling in music? As a musician, it’s FRUSTRATING to me when frivolous lawsuits are made because most juries don’t understand the concept of “transformative”.

  41. So the greater problem here is that justice is so expensive that individuals can't afford it and even medium size companies are afraid of it. So no one knows what is allowed and it all turns into a game of chicken.

  42. These are 2 attractive people doing minimal work to make money off their attractiveness. I agree with you Legal Eagle, there was nothing transformation about their work. Shame on them for trying demand sympathy from their viewers. They know what they're trying to get away with.

  43. Upwards a million over a copyright claim. At this point content creators should be extensively studying law as a means of self defense. That's the 21st century karate I guess.

  44. but in jukin comment said they happy for them to be the $50 licenses and same time charge them so much more behind the scenes, extortion?

  45. Legal eagle
    I've found you look very simmilar to dr.Mike
    Are you two have biological bond of anykind?
    Just a yes or no question
    I don't want to pry more deep than that

  46. Really educational video this, I see people online blether on about fair use as if it is a magic button all the time.

    I want to know who is watching MxRs videos and finding them entertaining though.

  47. Does the legal system and his mom mentality you get off Mom Italia behind something and make a press so bad that it makes something looks makes a company or person look like shit most companies just because they know business will make that problem go away that’s why they stopped it not because they’re sorry but because they wanted the problem to go away and because Jenny’s chair is a nuclear

  48. "Junkies Media" clearly aren't trying to protect their videos, this is an internet hustle. Just like how they wont give you the chance to take the video violations down and would rather take your money instead. They aren't looking to protect content, they're running around, watching reaction videos, looking for popular clips, 'purchasing' the rights to them and suing anyone who's previously reacted for $$$. It's a smart hustle, but an immoral one

  49. Does what you can win the legal quart room and what you can when you cut my public opinion for business public opinion sometimes is more important

  50. It is a complicated case.

    I have always assumed that when people are making reaction videos, they are taking a calculated risk. They know that they did not create the content and were unwilling to take the steps necessary to determine who owned the content. They post it anyway, hoping that whoever owns the content will not see, not care, or think it is too difficult to take action against the offending channel.

    Recently, I have had more and more MxR plays reaction videos being recommended to me. Whether this is just because they are making more of these types of videos, or they are just becoming a more popular channel is irrelevant. The risk to their business model has increased and now Jukin can point to real damages to their own business. To be fair to Jukin, MxR plays had been showing entire clips of viral videos, and plenty of them, so the probability of a copyright strike by someone was high.

    As for Jukin's model, it may very well be predatory, as they realize they have leverage using YouTube's rules. They are also gambling thinking that a big channel will pay their invoices as the cost of doing business. Perhaps this is where Google should get involved and review their rules. For instance, they could make a rule that to have the right to a copyright strike on their platform the seller has to remove their content which then has to be re-uploaded by the buyer, in this case Jukin. No valid copyright strike would be allowed for content that was posted prior to the sale.

    Then both content creators and consumers of content would have transparency. Google could write this into their terms of use, and Jukin's predatory business model collapses. It would not keep them from purchasing and licensing content and using it on the YouTube platform and it would keep content creators from claiming they couldn't have known.

    Then if Jukin wanted to claim that YouTube's terms of use unfairly infringes on their real copyright agreement made with the original creator for content that really only has value because it was aired on YouTube's platform, they can try to sue Google. Good luck with that.

  51. The thing with this situation is that MxR allege that Jukin have been extorting them. Yes, if MxR is violating their copyright, Jukin have rights. They can take down the video entirely and strike the channel, they can claim the ad revenue, or they can make the video otherwise unavailable without striking the channel. They can inform the youtubers of the situation and take them to court if they won't pay. What they DON'T have any right to do is demand thousands of dollars that MxR never made off the video or else they will copyright strike the channel and ruin their living. That's extortion, it doesn't matter if they do have any rights to the clips or not. It's clearly not a mutually consentual agreement, it's a threat in order to extract money.

    This is assuming what I've heard is correct.

  52. i think the time has come finally…where even if the video is interesting, we can just say its shit. since commenting or reviewing also ends up putting you in trouble. hence just leave a comment without their shitty video and not make them popular anymore. so no 1 is earning whether they do good or bad. lets say f. u to all. and we go back to the stoneage

  53. people everywhere are regarding their own profit. i hope mxr also puts a copyright on this video as this channel uses their video for reviewing to explain something. if they can get copyright for short clips. here too many for their own cam recordings are used. well does someone has anything to say about it

  54. This channel is great. The legal explanations are clear and interesting. In this video, you have given MXR some excellent advice even though you are not their lawyer.

  55. Somehow it kind of reminds me of Hulk Hogan v. Gawker Media…

    Also, this whole patent/copyright trolling… are we getting to a point where everything there is, was, will be is copyrighted by someone so we can't freely say, photograph, film, use, quote or mention anything without a troll sending a cease and desist letter?

  56. The last time Jukin went to court they were unable to produce the majority of their copyright licensing to prove that they even had the right to file the claims. They were not prepared. I don't think they've changed which is why they took down all of their social media.

  57. The question being tho is what happens when someone reacts to a video or something, then the person who own the reacted to video gets contacted by Jukin. So someone reacted to the video before Jukin had control over it, do they still get to slap copyrights on reaction videos before they had control over said video?

  58. The guys at Epic Rap Battles of History have actually commented on reactors who reacted to their videos when the reactors leave a link to the actual video on their channel. They liked the reactors when the reactors stop the videos explaining the history or bio of the subject matter. They are cool with them.
    Their are some reactors who do leave a link to the original video to music artists or singers, and the labels are not doing the copyright issues on some of them. There are tear jerking songs and videos for the songs that the reactors actually broke down emotionally like feeling the pain of losing a family member. The spike to the artist's channel it seemed got more people interested in the songs who are not a fan of that particular genre which seems to help sales on ITunes of that song.
    I even talked to an artist on Facebook after I shared his video about bullies making fun of others. I went through being bullied as a kid, and explained how being bullied as a kid really hurt me. I never got into trouble or anything because I guess my post with his music video fit under education about me being one of the people he talked about being bullied.
    Plus, Jukin gets a lot of these videos from Youtube and other video sharing sites. I do not think they could do that since the owners of the videos wanted them to be shared. One thing that is wrong is actually take the original video of another person and reupload it claiming it is your's.

  59. this is why I compose, write and code my work by myself from scratch(mostly, things like printf or basic DX functions are too much work to replace and some times even replacing them, like in the case of printf, would still remain under copyright if those things weren't under a permissive license)

  60. I watch MXR because of all the different thing they do. I do not search for cats or Jukin.. So the video Jukin are claiming values $0.

  61. Correct me if I am wrong, but do not owners have a duty to protect their content (or at least try to) if they wish to claim ownership over it at a later time? Like say Disney suddenly stopped caring about their ownership of Star Wars and let every Bob, Joe, and Phil do whatever they want unimpeded with the IP (unlicensed mind you) with absolutely no attempts to assert their ownership, and then suddenly 5 years later they sue the makers of a wildly successful fanmade (not hot garbage fire version) remake of Episode 7 for eleventy jillion dollars. Is it not then up to the discretion of the courts to say "naw, fam, use it or lose it to the public domain" or not?
    I ask this because it goes toward establishing if Jukin even has a valid claim to these videos. They buy the rights to videos that have already gone viral. I'm willing to bet in nearly every case the videos' original owners were not asserting their ownership and freely let their content be consumed, redistributed, and monetized without their license until Jukin came along and offered them 5 bucks for their cat video rights. If so, then Jukin was buying junk stock, empty rights, buying ownership of the public bridge from its builder. No different than buying the rights to old fairy tales and then suing people for printing Snow White and Beauty and the Beast.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *