This is only a "confusing case" because people are so biased against Activision like this. Look, I fucking hate Activision, but people are trying their damn hardest to somehow make Activision wrong in a situation where Fantano is clearly being the piece of shit, even if that harms other small creators in the process.
I like how Fantano decided that picking a fight with a multi-billion dollar game development studio with a bottomless pit of money to throw at a lawsuit was a GREAT idea.
It’s also a bottomless pit of money to throw at a settlement… the side people always forget. I haven’t finished the video so I’m not going to side against Fantano like everyone apparently has, just saying, I’m sure Fantano’s network have a decently large law firm on retainer that decided to take this on, on its merits. It’s not like Fantano just saw the ad and got mad and decided to sue, someone on his end brought it to his attention with the purpose of asking him to sue, that’s how these things go 99% of the time
goood for ACTIVISION . sometimes these influencers think that just because they have small following of people they can get away with anything. i bet he will try to defame activision and ask his 9 year old fans to post troll comments on activision social media once he loses the cases. (of course he will not deliberately tell his fans to do that because he knows his ass will be in jail but he will definitely try to isuniate hate towards acitvision and it only take small hint for his 9 year old fans to wreck havoc on social media thats how it works nowadays . you dont even have you command your dumb followers . just say that big corporation bad im good and his unga bunga fans are ready to go)
@@bendover-bz4bc You have no idea who Anthony Fantano is, do you? Small following? Try... millions. He is a music critic/reviewer that's been around for years. Pretty sure he has almost no child following either. He's a piece of shit, yes, but to discredit Anthony as some typical run of the mill Tiktok influencer is just disingenuous and makes me think you are just an Activision fanboy, which, btw, none of us here are, so you are not gonna get a lot of support either way. Is Activision right in this instance? Yes, they are, but that doesn't mean we like Activision.
bro what? how did they spin the case? public opinion wouldve always been on their side because the original tiktok sound has 55k videos under it how come he didnt go sue all those people?
@@Brianna_Q how is that any good for anyone? It literally affects everyone else badly don't pray on someone's downfall because you hate them when it affects others at least that's not how it works
TikTok policy works like this: Business accounts (these are accounts registered to businesses) aren’t legally allowed to use anything outside of the CML (commercial music library) even on organic posts. If they want to use non-CML sounds, they have to show that they acquired the rights to use that sound. TikTok’s standard sound library licensing agreement only protects non-business accounts. Activision is claiming that they got the sound from the CML, I can assure you, the CML is highly curated and would never have Fantanos audio recording within it. TikTok policy is written that way for exactly that reason. They’re confusing the standard TikTok audio library (non-business use only) with the CML (free for business use).
@@Junya01 otherwise Walmart could use a Taylor Swift song to promote Walmart products for free on TikTok, skirting the licensing agreements they’d have to go through ordinarily. It’s why TikTok makes the distinction between standard users and business accounts, RU-vid does something similar where standard users you can upload copyrighted music, but you can’t monetize it.
Wouldn't it be literally the easiest thing on the planet for Fantano to simply prove the sound is not on the CML if that were the case? I don't think "the lawyers of this giant corporation are all basing their defense on the idea that nobody will bother checking this publicly available resource" is a particularly likely scenario here.
Even if Anthony could establish he didn’t put his meme into the library Activision can clearly show that they used it fairly since they had no way of knowing that was the case and furthermore they acted in good faith by immediately stop using it once he contacted them about his objection. Anthony isn’t going to get a dime.
Innocent infringement still has a minimum penalty of 200$. so if it ends up a non fair use infringement case where willfull infringment cant be proven, he could still see some money
@21warmasters lol. 200 bucks? Thats nice. Lets make some math on the profits +Profit from the lawsuit = $200 -Lawyer fees = $100,000 Damn. Anthony sure showed everyone
@@21warmastersyour mind is incredibly diluted, please just think about what you said, 200 dollars isnt even crumbs for 90% of Americans, ESPECIALLY in today's age. Your observation was pointless and shows your ignorance when it comes to living in the real world
He isn't right, there's thousands if not tens of thousands of companies that do the exact same thing every day, him being the first one to be a giant crybaby about it doesn't lend much credit I'm afraid
Getting Activision to comply in the first place and take the og ad down was a feat in and of itself, I don't know why he felt the need to press his luck like that..
@jeltje50 That's not a cease and desist. That would imply Fantano knew the commercial using his bit was being created, and he probably didn't. This is a copyright claim, where the claimant can request the person who maybe in violation to take down the work. It must stay down until a counter notification is filed or is taken to court and ruled that the property is fair use. Fantano most likely doesn't have a case since it's fair use.
This is actually settled case law. Once you create content it becomes your IP, however once you put it into a royalty free library you surrender rights to control of said IP. The case this is based on is from a woman who posted an image to a royalty free library, however she later found a stock photo company selling her IP, she took legal action, and the court ruled in favor of the defendant stating that the creator surrenders rights to control their IP upon posting it to a royalty free library.
Honestly, Anthony should've stopped after they had already ceased - they stepped on his toes and they practically apologized. Now Anthony decided to take things too far by trying to shake their pockets.
they already made god knows how much money from their ad before being taken down. I see copyright on RU-vid being abused by companies, I don't want them to limit compensation for the people on tiktok they use, while the people get eff all.
@@lachicoblanco He uploaded it to a public library and surrendered his rights to it. His fault. He doesn't deserve compensation. If he did receive compensation from Activision, that means he could get money from EVERY SINGLE PERSON that used his sound clip on Tik Tok. Copyright is also abused on RU-vid by individuals doing the same thing Activision is going against.
Yeah this public library bs is just annoying. The reason that Anthony can’t just sue everyone using his sound is because Activision used it for an ad. Let’s say for example that Twitch wanted to create an ad using creator clips, they would need to ask permission first. EVEN THOUGH they’re literally clips from Twitch, DOES NOT MEAN THEY CAN USE THEM FOR ADS.
Why call it greedy? A huge company used his work, and he wants to be paid for it, that’s 100% reasonable, he’s not suing normal people for it, it’s billion dollars companies
Wait these last two comments, how can you side with him? Did you not watch the video at all? You can't pick and choose. He gave up his exclusive rights for protection by putting this video up. That means any one can use it regardless. I'm pretty anti corp and I'm siding with Activision here because they're right this time. He got greedy and now must pay the price.
@@devizesolstice4617 I feel like, when it comes to a legal view, Fantano is 100% wrong and screwed, even in an ideal world, you wouldn't go about it the way he did. But morally speaking, I don't see why not? I think if I want to say "Individuals can use my music for free, corporations and ultra rich people can't because they obviously have the money lol", I think that would seem fair to most people intuitively, I feel like that should be allowed. It sort of is, that's WinRAR's entire business model. So as long as people concede that in the real world, Fantano isn't getting anywhere and was stupid to put his stuff in the CM Library if this is how he really feels, I think it's fair for people to have the view that morally Activision owes him because he says so, it is his work.
@@anthbills307saying I'm ok with meme or TikTok videos of me isn't the same as saying im ok with my likeness or anything I created being used in an ad these 2 things aren't comparable
Activision is inadvertently doing a good thing by serving its best interest. It's like Godzilla destroying a city but the city is actually a cartel compound.
notice how when companies sue people they use "legal action", but when it gets turned around on them its "legal THREAT". and for those that want to get stuck on the exact wording, for this specific example "threat" is used in its standard connotation. meaning to try to damage the company in some way. where most companies use "threat" (in terms of legal action) as a synonym of warning or notice.
I dunno, it makes things clear. A legal threat is a threat, they MIGHT do something. A legal action is an action, they WILL do something. It's the difference between "Apologize or I might have to break you" and "Too late for apologies, I MUST break you".
I honestly feel like there is a pretty big difference between small creators making videos with tik tok sounds and direct advertisements. Especially when it uses someone's face or voice.
Details aside, sending a C&D to a multi-billion dollar corporation is pretty foolish. They will always find a way to make the lawsuit more costly than it’s worth
The cease and desist alone was fair. Fantano didn't want his likeness associated with Activision. Activision complied (surprisingly) and took it down. Fantano took it too far by demanding compensation after it was taken down, though. That was just incredibly dumb. Someone else in the comments said Fantano pulled an Icarus, I completely agree.
I know its a small pleasure, but I always love it when a guy in the Twitch chat gets Charlie to look up a news article and it leads to a full face to cam video
@@PlanOfActionz Charlie doesn't make money from these videos. Last I checked he donates his ad revenue on youtube to charities. He only makes money from twitch
It's pretty ballsy to try and hold a corporation to ransom. It's one thing to demand they stop using it, which they did. It's quite another to then demand money from them.
@@itsjohnnyr8560 I don't think I have seen an album review of Fantano in years. I'm fine with most reviews I remember. I do not like his character though.
Should have read further Cman "Business Accounts are not blocked from using original sounds that other users upload, but please note that >>TikTok has not cleared these sounds to use for commercial purposes
Dude doesn’t have much of a case, but I do find it hilarious a company like Activision preaching about fair use when they’ve fraudulently copyright claimed hundreds of videos for reviewing their games negatively.
I find it more hilarious that some content creators/influencers like to pretend that they are against fair use misuse, but when the first opportunity arrives, they instantly do the same thing...
The only way I see Anthony winning is if, in a plot-twisted manner, Activision was the one who uploaded the copyrighted tik-tok audio to the open source license wiithout his permission so they could use it and have a defensive barrier of “oh, we didn’t know it was uploaded there by someone else.” lol that would be absolutely craaazy tho!!
You can’t upload stuff to the commercial content library, look it up, it’s not possible. Anything that doesn’t get detected by TikTok’s copyright filter is allowed to be used by business accounts. But the damage was done, his likeness has value and he need to give permission for them to use it.
@@AhhhAh-qv6rc"All Commercial Sounds in the CML are pre-cleared for commercial use on the TikTok platform" The only way a sound bite could be pre-cleared for commercial use is if the creator had specifically entered into a licensing agreement with Tiktok that would allow Tiktok to sublicense any other user. It's pretty difficult to do that on accident.
the thing i've heard that makes the most sense is that if someone else, either accidentally or intentionally, uploaded it to the commercial sound library, they should be held liable. if it was accidental, i think tiktok could be held liable too for letting something like that happen so easily.
While this makes sense. The dude has a lot of subs. He's been around a long time and I'm willing to bet has made a damn good living being a YT'er. I don't think this is a cash grab for that reason and the fact that well, he just doesn't seem like that kind of guy (though I could be totally wrong on that second one, not like I know him personally).
@@JayBigDadyCy Why does him being around for a while and you not knowing who he is make you think it's not a cash grab? The fact that he has multiple out of court settlements for similar things against large companies definitely raises my eyebrow while your reasonings simply makes me roll my eyes.
@@JayBigDadyCyyeah this is absolutely a message he is trying to send. Like whatever lil money activision may have neen willing to throw his way is irrelevant to him.
It bugs me that people are genuinely not in the know on how copyright law works. It’s there for a reason. People aren’t better than the law just because they’re famous.
@@WompaStompaCynnothing to do with fame and entirely with money, don’t let yourself think its famous people that get away with everything its rich people, its just a lot of famous people are rich.
10 месяцев назад
As someone who has brown eyes, i hate having brown eyes. They aren't even good looking. My parents said if i get 2k followers they'll get me an eye color surgery 🥺🙏
Well what do you think people do when they don't receive what they think they deserve? Not sue? lol. Not getting money is the reason for 95% of people suing other people/companies.
@@pinkanimositygaming No it's standard discussions before a lawsuit. Most lawsuits are resolved like this before taking it to a judge and essentially all before taking it to trial. $100k is cheap compared to going to trial.
@@volundrfrey896 my main point was about the wording. I pursued contract law in college. When an ultimatum is issued, the wording needs to be taken into account. If it’s worded in that blunt of terms, a judge or a jury might interpret that as a hostile money grab. They could interpret the ultimatum to be made in bad faith depending on if the wording seems hostile.
Charlie learn how Tik Tok works and then make a video on this. I was fine with your stream clip about this because it was an on the moment reaction but this video is just incorrect.
It's fairly concerning that now the way a lot of people consume the news is via someone learning about the topic in real time while reading a single article.
Anthony shoulda just accepted that they took down the post out of respect when they didn’t have to. Instead he crossed the line and threatened legal action. He better pray that they accept a settlement.
It's kind of an interesting area because wouldn't other companies be required to pay to use other peoples content? Like call him greedy but what he is doing seems pretty standard.
@@Lastofthefreenamesmorally i don't think people are saying fantano is in the wrong, but the fact is that if his actions are accepted and normalized it will negatively affect a lot of other people due to the precedent. he's also just legally wrong besides that
@@ladyinwightNot necessarily. Fantano winning is only bad if he argues from his ownership of the meme. If he argues that the ad using him is misleading and wins that's pretty much objectively a good thing. What's bad for corporations is typically good for humans.
I was under the impression that Anthony himself didn't create the meme, but someone actually clipped it and turned it into one and it went viral. So I don't don't think he entered it into the commercial sounds library, but this will be super interesting to follow
If Activision wins, and if it’s true that Fantano got other companies to pay him those “similar 6 figure amounts”, would they be able to come back and countersue?
Probably not, settlements are supposed to *settle* the case, no matter what happens in the future. They would likely have to prove outright fraud to get the money back.
idk im not a lawyer. What? You think anybody in this comment section is gonna start pulling up website links to cases or laws created from... Name a year in 1900s. Like shit, I can just say yes with no evidence to support my claim or I can say no with no evidence to support my claim. I didn't pass the bar, I didn't go to law school. Not only that but I highly doubt there are any lawyers here. Now of course this isn't me saying that there is a 100% guarantee theirs not an individual with sufficient knowledge in the law because there might be.
Since people seem to be confused: Fantano did not file any lawsuit against Activision. He merely threatened to do so. Activision sued Fantano for declaratory relief (to get a declaration from the court saying they didn't do anything wrong.) Not sure where people are getting that idea from, but there you have it.
@@luiscastilloful In general, the purpose of seeking declaratory relief is to protect against extortion. Suppose there's a 10% chance part of a game would be found to be infringing, and a company is about to spend $50,000 pressing CDs, but replacing that part would cost $6000. A statistically fair license fee would be $600 paying it would avoid a one in ten chance of having to spend $6000). If a company couldn't get a definitive ruling on the infringement without pressing the CDs, but as soon as the CDs were pressed the holder demanded $4000 for the license, that would be a better deal for the company than having to take a 10% chance of losing $50,000, but a far worse deal than what the company should have to pay. A declaratory judgment would shift the scales so that if court finds that the work would be infringing, the company can switch to using the alternative (or license the work for slightly less than the cost of switching) before committing to pressing the CDs. If the potential copyright claimant were to offer to settle for $600, that scenario would be better for both the company and copyright holder than pursuing the judgment, but the declaratory judgment would prevent the claimant from holding the $50,000 CD pressing costs hostage.
Even if Fantano can prove he didn’t put the clip in the commercial library Activision has plausible deniability and their initial comply of the C&D as means to dismiss any further action. Overall it’s a power move for everyone, they get to know if he uploaded it or not and they also get to use that as their plausible deniability. Fantano can’t even win anything monetary in court as he has no registration number for enough slices. He’d win an injunction preventing further use at most.
If he didn’t upload it then activision can fall back on the fact that the sound has been used millions of times and he only takes issue with it being uploaded now. They would still have to take down the clip but there is no avenue for financial gain for Fantano that I could see.
@@Seven-tk7spthat’s not the defense. The defense is that to keep certain rights you have to defend them and you can’t be choosy about whom you defend them from. I’m not a lawyer and even I have read about this numerous times lol it’s nothing unusual. People with no idea of how things work and whom have read nothing about it : “that couldn’t ever work that way!” 😂😂 The people who know the least will always talk first and loudly lol
@@mrjjman2010 "The people who know the least will always talk first and loudly lol" Not quite looking in the mirror there are we bud? When it comes to advertising, a company would need explicit permission to use the likeness of an individual or organization, either visual or audio, regardless of the origin of said likeness. The defense of certain rights that you mention is only applicable in copyrights, of upholding and defending copyrights via suits or DMCA in most cases. This does not fall under copyright defense as you claim as one: Fantano most likely does not have a copyright on the "that's enough slices" clip, i believe that is partially taken by TikTok actually under their terms, two: there is a vast difference between what could fall under fair use or be argued as "defamatory" ie what Activision is counter suing here, and three: Activision used the clip in a advertisement sense, which allows for a lot more broadness in protections of individuals when it comes to their individual rights.
The commercial sound library on Tiktok is different to their standard sound library. It’s a more limited selection of sounds for business and brands that can be used commercially and doesn’t include most popular songs
I don't respect Activision as a company but they've got a point on this one. Anthony got way too greedy. He was lucky to even get the Crash Bandicoot video using his meme clip taken down in the first place. I wouldn't be surprised if he dropped the lawsuit before it could go to trial. If not, he'd likely lose and his reputation would be shot!
The reason I don't agree with it benefitting regylar tik tok user is, tik tok users aren't using it to advertise a product. Activision were explicitly using Fantano for an ad. Totally different circumstance. The Tik-Tok Library actually stipulates "non-commercial use", the sounds are commercial sounds for trivial use, not commercial sounds for commercial use. Otherwise the Eminem Black Ops Trailer wouldn't need to pay eminem if they only released it on Tik Tok. That's ridiculous. Activision are attempting to sue Fantano over Bytedance policy.
Yeah there is a separate non commercial sound library and a curated commercial sound library that registered businesses on TikTok can take from to make commercial ads. Fantano was not in any way in the commercial sound library, so he's 100% in the right legally. Not surprising Charlie missed this considering he doesn't use TikTok
@@stupidmango4036 you don't need to have TikTok to do basic due diligence. Then again, if I made thousands pumping out rushed videos I have no merit speaking on, I would do that too. Only the minority would realize I'm speaking out of my ass and the rest would eat it like slop. It only makes sense
@@sodanakinYou clearly don't know Fantano as tik tok is just a small thing he started doing besides his youtube channel. Definitely not a "tik tok brain rot user"
Honestly, if Anthony is caught up and somehow admits to knowingly put it into the "Commercial Sounds", he loses. The only way I can really see him winning this dispute is if someone else stole his audio and published it there without him knowing, which can raise the question "Why didn't they get sued?". People can argue that Activation used it for "promotional purposes", but that is immediately discarded since it's apparently in the "Commercial Sounds"
Think for a second; if Fantano agreed - why would Activision take the video down and not contest it at that point? Why wait for a countersuit in which they've already admitted fault?
@@kaingates It's common for people to take down content that uses content from other creators even if it's fair use if the other creator asks. Nothing new or damning there.
@@karthis5911 What people are missing here is Fanto IS his brand and you can have Business Branded Accounts.(googled) My guess is he upload that using a Business Brand Account which doesn't seem to have the same Term of serve that's probably why he was able to get those amounts from other companies. Activision either knew of little of him or did and just didn't want to fit a collab bill and just decided to steal the meme for the ad cause they knew it'd get taken down LATER after hour or days and by then the ad time is over since they probably paid for it to be pushed up and all that on the frontend (as many eyes on it at launch) would be over by the time it would be taken down at backend (when that money to upsell the ad timeframe ends). Plus why didn't Activision Connect with Fanto he's a big enough creator NOT to try to get into connect first or at least you'd think NOPE, They just sent the ad and now making like He's the bad guy, yet if your seeing him on Twitter or YT or FB or TicToc those are ALL definitely Business Brands, nothing personal, so when he twits or threads or post on YT or TicToc THEY ARE ALL business brands accounts. So if he uploaded the meme from his Business Brand Account I doubt they same term of service apply especially when sharing. Otherwise why would Celebrities or Musician use TicToc if they themselves or anyone else puts them in the music library well now your likenss and vioce could then be claimed fair use and/or obliviousness to use for a time being. So every celebrity and musicians' voice and likeness as well are fair game when? Well I bet TicToc thought of that with branded business accounts that way those types of people or companies don't have to have their voices sampled or likeness used in commercial ways they wouldn't want or shared without their approval.
I wonder if activison used the ad on a different platform. If they did it’s possible that he has a claim to damages for nontiktok ads since he (allegedly) only agreed to have his sound bite used on TikTok
the thing is, the "tiktok music critic" forgot one thing. Their a multi million dollar company, even if they where to lose the case, they could postpone the case as long as they want, and lawyers are payed by the hour, so they could technically make him lose all his money and all his savings to win this case. They are loaded, so they don't care about spending.
Nah, companies have money but it’s not just sitting around waiting to be flushed down the drain. They likely have a budget for this operation, much more than the creator does, but especially in this case where they can easily win there’s no reason for them to stall.
@@sebastianriz4703 yes... done multiple times every year by big companys against people... the lawyers will always find something to prolong cases, push courtdates back and file motions about everythig... they simply bleed you out
If Anthony didn’t upload the audio, then another point of contention will be the duration of time Anthony has spent not actively attempting to remove the audio from the library. If he knew about it, but only to action selectively to big companies while not taking any action to remove it from the library, it could look bad for him still.
@@Jaywin228 While screwing everyone else if he ever does tho. This is beyond "bad publicity", but he's literally claiming he doesn't care if he needs to harm every other creator out there for some money.
TikTok Sounds for Business has apparently only been launched less than six months ago. Could be that TikTok failed to obtain consent for old content and accidentally cleared it for commercial use without having an appropriate license in place. That would explain why other companies have apparently previously settled similar cases.
No he might legitimately not know in which case he, the copy right holder, would not have consented to putting his copyrighted produce into the library so it would be legally invalid. Idk if he'd get much out of Activision for that though since there's no way to show they knew that.
@@user-jl7xj5iz9k aside from this lawsuit (which he absolutely is in the wrong with), there's not much reason to hate him outside of some misinformed people who dont actually watch his reviews and just scroll down to see the score on his most controversial ones. Even if he has a weird opinion, he usually justifies it pretty well outside of a few odd cases. he's very overhated
Fair use of a copyrighted work applies to teaching, comment or criticism, and has to be changed enough from the original work such that it is a distinctly different thing. They’re not right because they’re using a copyrighted work under fair use (spoiler, they’re not), its that it was in the commercial sounds library so copyright law doesn’t apply the same way.
It's not about fair use though. You can't (especially commercially) exploit IP owned by another party without an appropriate right to use usually obtained via a license. That's literally why IPR exists in the first place.
@@MultresMusicChannel If that's the case, then Anthony shouldn't have uploaded his sound bite to TikTok's CML. Doing so revokes any rights he retained to the content and allows others (including brands) to use it for commercial purposes, as stated in TikTok's ToS.
@@TheHuskyK9 True, if Fantano has in fact reuploaded the sound bite to the CML or otherwise consented to the right of use of third parties. TikTok's Sounds for Business segment of CML was apparently launched last February whereas the sound bite has been originally uploaded to the platform years ago. There is a possibility that TikTok hasn't cleared old content appropriately for commercial use in SfB which would explain why other companies have apparently settled similar claims.
@@theo6741 US Copyright Law doesn't apply for Public Domain Works. You don't own the art nor can you claim copyright over it. Situations like this, new artists should know. Creative Commons is like this too. And TOS in America is not legally upheld. Since US Copyright Law exceeds it and you need a proper contract for Contract Law to be legally enforced. Especially when "free labor" is simply daylight robbery in a form of TOS... Illegal but not unexpected for corporations to do.
@@sownheard ok, and? I didn't say they were technically wrong. Why are you defending a multi billion dollar company that started this whole thing by stealing someone else's content and using it for a promotion to make money? Why are you trying to minimise the fact that they're one of the greediest, morally corrupt video game companies that exist? Context matters
@@kwoni3337Lil bro losing his mind over a corporation that will never change nor give him any mind lmao. I don’t like Activision but this comment is so corny. Like did you even watch the video ☠️they didn’t steal nothing and was under fair use. It’s cool to hate corps but don’t start crying over nothing 🤣
That goes to show that not only big companies can be scummy. A lot of the times people do shit like this, it just doesn't get publicized. Stay on the side of what is fair and just, not just against companies just because.
Surface Mount Device (SMD): An electronic component that mounts on the surface of a printed circuit board (as opposed to "through-hole" components which have pins that are inserted into holes). SMDs typically allow more components per square centimeter of PC board, but their scale is such that hand assembly and prototyping may be difficult. I think this is what he meant idk.
Just to specify, there are two different sound libraries on TikTok; commercial sounds and the standard sounds. The average TikToker won’t be affected either way by this court case. Activision’s framing is intellectually dishonest. That being said, if Fantano did add the sound itself to the commercial sounds library, it’s an open-and-shut case. But it’s also entirely possible that another TikToker copied his sound (which happens all the time) and opted into the commercial sounds library.
yeah, but I think Anthony Fantano put his own video in the library sound. plus, I think Activision lawyers can try to argue no matter if it's in the commercial library for fair use as a parody or something.
Well it does change it because if fantano wins that means any person that used sounds on the PUBLIC commercial sounds can be taken to court and sued by the original creator witch is bad for everyone.
Been trying to tell that to people If the avg normie is seeing it it's a Fanto Business Account you're seeing his private stuff is way smaller for family and friends. With all his dealings in music I'd call him idiot too if it wasn't posted in someway by him through the Business Brand TicToc then onto the commercial sounds library by that Business Brand TicToc. Sounds like Activsion was just being a scum company and pushed out an ad with hot meme for the insights and didn't either know enough about Fanto or care enough they got the ad out and probably pushed it with extra analytics for most eyes instead messaging him about a collab or they did he quoted them that big price and they said screw it what's he going to do force the takedown that's only ONCE he see's it oh well then we'll get our money worth while it's up before it gets taken down the MANY hours or DAYS later. My guess Fanto lets normie post and use it but when he see's a company especially ones that don't reach out to him, he gets pissed has every right if he posted as a business brand TicToc and was entered by him into the Commercial Library too by his business brand TicToc. For companys to steal and use for there own ads.
@@oliverbs0417 your getting it confused there are literally two library... Would you agree if Charlie made a business brand account TicToc made a TicToc he then added that mp3 to the COMMERCIAL SOUNDS LIBRARY which is DIFFERENT from the just Public SOUNDS Library which is more for like for normies share....You don't see celebrity or there voices being sampled or used for ADs or Products because being a meme doesn't entail the company to use the celebrities or musician voice or likeness to be used for ADs for companies they don't endorse and cats out of the bag even on Fanto even if taken down. Just like any other say Celebrity Meme companies aren't using those willy-nilly why should should Fantos be any different. Would you tell Charlie his singular only TicToc ever (say it's him talking about something he likes) so now his voice can be sampled on TicToc by anyone for anyone to use? That's fair use in your mind his likeness should be able to be used for commercial venture for ADs with no say because oh it's a meme now?? NO And no Activision KNEW what they were doing BEFORE they sent the meme it was just cheaper the way they did it....
I'm at the exact point as everyone else where I live Fantano and despise corporations that act like Activision does, but it's ridiculous to tell someone to pay someone after doing something they didn't know was wrong. Reminds me of a popular scam in India where someone will drop paint on your shoe a few steps from a shoe cleaner they're in cahoots with.
I think a lot of newer creators are confused about copyright as it is and the intricacies of it. So to have, what should be, a safe place and suddenly that is not to be safe anymore, just adds to the confusion and also adds to the ways scammers can try to make money off unsuspecting people. Sometimes the bad guy is in the right.
Yea he’s not a bad guy for doing what companies do ever my day. It’s just activision paying sheep’s to be mad because they don’t want to lose va Anthony. Even though he’s in the right
It is annoying to have a company who you may or may not agree with use your videos or clips. However if he submitted it and allowed it to be used by anyone then he really has no say in it. If you put something in what is essentially the public domain then anyone should be able to use it despite you not agreeing with them.
POSTING 👏ONLINE👏IS👏NOT👏PUBLIC👏DOMAIN. Even lots of declared "free" content online is still licensed. Like royalty free music, or Creative Commons media, or GPL/MIT/freeware/shareware licensed software that might say stuff like "hey you can distribute this software but you can't charge money for it"
@@chatboss000bruh he didn't say its public domain. He said its ESSENTIALLY that. Meaning not that, but with similar attributes. You need to work on your reading comprehension
If Fantano loses, then if you ever put your face or voice on that library it basically means they can use your voice for anything they want. Is that really reasonable?
the amount of people actually supporting activision because they think fantano has bad takes on music 💀 like y’all know his views on Kanye’s album doesn’t count as court evidence right
Should ActiBlizard be praised for not being Evil in this case? Yes, absolutely. It's called positive reinforcement, we want to encourage the behaviour we like, and discourage the behaviour we don't.
They're a company, not a person, positive reinforcement doesn't apply to a faceless conglomerate that's just trying to make money, especially since this lawsuit was done in their own self-interest, and not for the good of other creators and users, it just so happens that preventing abuse of copyright claims here benefits other people in addition to themselves, but let's not pretend like they're doing this for the good of others.
@@kingkami1739 To my knowledge Fantano didn't actully sue ActiBlizzard, he sent legal threats, and ActiBlizzard sued him in response, this isn't a counter-suit it's a pre-emptive suit.
As someone who has brown eyes, i hate having brown eyes. They aren't even good looking. My parents said if i get 2k followers they'll get me an eye color surgery 🥺🙏
