The "Team Four Star" actors were blacklisted by Funi and Toei rumor

[WittyUsername]

TFS has been making merch off of DBZA at least since 2009 or 2010. I assume that’s a large part of why Toei doesn’t like them. Aside from that, as LoganForkHands73 mentioned, the later episodes of DBZA feel less like a wacky parody of DBZ, and more like a sincere attempt at telling the story, which probably didn’t help. Granted, fair use in general is a complex and messy issue, especially in the age of the Internet, but when you compare the early episodes of DBZA to the later ones, the parody aspect of the series gets less obvious as time goes on.

Of course, there do seem to be some inherent double standards to the way in which fair use is enforced, at least in the United States. A good example is this (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-e ... utt-334786).

[Adamant]

Of course, there do seem to be some inherent double standards to the way in which fair use is enforced, at least in the United States. A good example is this (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-e ... utt-334786).

There's a CONSIDERABLE difference between parodying someone else's work through material 100% created by yourself as a minor part of a single episode of your own show and making a show that consists of literally nothing BUT your dub of video footage that belongs to someone else.

[MasenkoHA]

Of course, there do seem to be some inherent double standards to the way in which fair use is enforced, at least in the United States. A good example is this (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-e ... utt-334786).

There's a CONSIDERABLE difference between parodying someone else's work through material 100% created by yourself as a minor part of a single episode of your own show and making a show that consists of literally nothing BUT your dub of video footage that belongs to someone else.

This. It’s not even close to a double standard. What South Park did is actually protected by Fair Use.

The logic that DBZA that should be protected by Fair Use would also suggest that Funimation should have been protected by Fair Use back in the Saban days and not have to pay Toei for the footage because they too truncated the original footage and added additional humor that wasn’t there on top of using their own original music via Saban

There’s also the fact that DBZA used a combination of Kikuchi and Yamamoto music on top of the occasional actual song.

[JulieYBM]

Scott being a true king and being gay and doing crimes.

I personally don't mind them profiting off of Dragon Ball Z Abridged but I'm also not really surprised the capitalist twats at Toei Animation decided to blackball them, that's just how corporations are and everything the poor do is a risk.

[WittyUsername]

Of course, there do seem to be some inherent double standards to the way in which fair use is enforced, at least in the United States. A good example is this (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-e ... utt-334786).

There's a CONSIDERABLE difference between parodying someone else's work through material 100% created by yourself as a minor part of a single episode of your own show and making a show that consists of literally nothing BUT your dub of video footage that belongs to someone else.

There is a difference for sure between those two cases. I was more referring to how the YouTube copyright system works in general. It seems like content creators can get copyright claimed for doing things that aren’t too far off from what South Park did.

[Adamant]

Of course, there do seem to be some inherent double standards to the way in which fair use is enforced, at least in the United States. A good example is this (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-e ... utt-334786).

There's a CONSIDERABLE difference between parodying someone else's work through material 100% created by yourself as a minor part of a single episode of your own show and making a show that consists of literally nothing BUT your dub of video footage that belongs to someone else.

There is a difference for sure between those two cases. I was more referring to how the YouTube copyright system works in general. It seems like content creators can get copyright claimed for doing things that aren’t too far off from what South Park did.

Can you point to any Youtuber that got in legal trouble for making a parody of someone else's work that did not include any actual material from said original work? Can't say I'm aware of any.

[Soppa Saia People]

yeah, i don't have a problem with the tfs guy's profiting off of dbz:a and i definitely wouldn't criticize them for not working a Real Job instead (lol), but yeah it's absolutely foolish to act like they were anywhere within the legal claims of fair use lol. youtube's somewhat broken copyright stuff has no relation to them really ?

[WittyUsername]

There's a CONSIDERABLE difference between parodying someone else's work through material 100% created by yourself as a minor part of a single episode of your own show and making a show that consists of literally nothing BUT your dub of video footage that belongs to someone else.

There is a difference for sure between those two cases. I was more referring to how the YouTube copyright system works in general. It seems like content creators can get copyright claimed for doing things that aren’t too far off from what South Park did.

Can you point to any Youtuber that got in legal trouble for making a parody of someone else's work that did not include any actual material from said original work? Can't say I'm aware of any.

There’s this (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=enRM2TifKls). The original video in question was a Bugs Bunny parody that did not use footage from any Looney Tunes cartoons, yet it got copyright claimed, and was taken down.

[Adamant]

There is a difference for sure between those two cases. I was more referring to how the YouTube copyright system works in general. It seems like content creators can get copyright claimed for doing things that aren’t too far off from what South Park did.

Can you point to any Youtuber that got in legal trouble for making a parody of someone else's work that did not include any actual material from said original work? Can't say I'm aware of any.

There’s this (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=enRM2TifKls). The original video in question was a Bugs Bunny parody that did not use footage from any Looney Tunes cartoons, yet it got copyright claimed, and was taken down.

Kinda hard to comment on that without seeing the original video, yo

[WittyUsername]

Can you point to any Youtuber that got in legal trouble for making a parody of someone else's work that did not include any actual material from said original work? Can't say I'm aware of any.

There’s this (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=enRM2TifKls). The original video in question was a Bugs Bunny parody that did not use footage from any Looney Tunes cartoons, yet it got copyright claimed, and was taken down.

Kinda hard to comment on that without seeing the original video, yo

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o-HmYLtnQIY

[kemuri07]

And yet, the guy that more or less did the same thing is currently the manga artist for the series. I understand it from Toei's perspective and they're clearly protective of their immensely popular property... even though they don't take care of it the way it could be taken care of. But still...

But different times and all that. AF was nowhere near as big as TFS is. I know there's that Sean Schemmel video floating around where he's sounds pretty damn annoyed when he's asked about TFS, and I think I get it. Never mind that I'm sure that he's probably been asked a wide variety of questions about TFS for years, but I think I can understand it from his perspective as both an industry veteran as well as being Goku for near thirty years. I think stuff like that gets a lot more complicated when you factor that stuff in.

It's why I prefer to see DBZA as its own thing, rather than being "better" than DBZ.

But everything related to entertainment is done to cater to its audience. If you see that a side project based on your work is so popular, why not embrace it? There might be money to be had there. I'm not naive to believe that the sole purpose of Dragon Ball -- or any project -- is to cater to fans. Obviously money is the ultimate goal no matter what it is. But fans' enjoyment is what moves the needle on earnings. I don't know, I just feel like Toei handled it a bit too aggressively.

Control, honestly. Toei wants to control and have final say on what happens with DBZ. More importantly, you honestly wouldn't want that to happen anyways because it would absolutely have affected the quality of DBZA. Imagine TFS having to go through Toei or Funimation every time they develop an episode.

[Adamant]

There’s this (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=enRM2TifKls). The original video in question was a Bugs Bunny parody that did not use footage from any Looney Tunes cartoons, yet it got copyright claimed, and was taken down.

Kinda hard to comment on that without seeing the original video, yo

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o-HmYLtnQIY

Yeah, that seems like something they could've been able to defend in court had it gone there. Had it been made by some big company, I could see them protesting and WB backing down, especially if the parody had been made for a TV show or something else big.

[WittyUsername]

Kinda hard to comment on that without seeing the original video, yo

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o-HmYLtnQIY

Yeah, that seems like something they could've been able to defend in court had it gone there. Had it been made by some big company, I could see them protesting and WB backing down, especially if the parody had been made for a TV show or something else big.

That’s my point. It seems like South Park managed to win its case because it’s owned by a big company, and the person suing them was someone who made a YouTube video.

[Adamant]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o-HmYLtnQIY

Yeah, that seems like something they could've been able to defend in court had it gone there. Had it been made by some big company, I could see them protesting and WB backing down, especially if the parody had been made for a TV show or something else big.

That’s my point. It seems like South Park managed to win its case because it’s owned by a big company, and the person suing them was someone who made a YouTube video.

But that Wabbit thing never went to court, did it? Youtube just removed it and the creator said "I don't like this but okay". Comedy Central actually fought back against the Youtube guy and challenged his claims all the way up to a courtroom where justice was served and a judge ruled in their favor.

Yes, it sucks that big companies can, and do, just say "I have a billion dollars in my money bin and am willing to put one of my thousand lawyers on this to drag this out in court for a couple dozen years, how much of your life are you willing to devote to fighting for your rights?", but it's not double standards.

[WittyUsername]

Yeah, that seems like something they could've been able to defend in court had it gone there. Had it been made by some big company, I could see them protesting and WB backing down, especially if the parody had been made for a TV show or something else big.

That’s my point. It seems like South Park managed to win its case because it’s owned by a big company, and the person suing them was someone who made a YouTube video.

But that Wabbit thing never went to court, did it? Youtube just removed it and the creator said "I don't like this but okay". Comedy Central actually fought back against the Youtube guy and challenged his claims all the way up to a courtroom where justice was served and a judge ruled in their favor.

Yes, it sucks that big companies can, and do, just say "I have a billion dollars in my money bin and am willing to put one of my thousand lawyers on this to drag this out in court for a couple dozen years, how much of your life are you willing to devote to fighting for your rights?", but it's not double standards.

If it had gone to court, it wouldn’t have surprised me if WB won the case.

[Adamant]

That’s my point. It seems like South Park managed to win its case because it’s owned by a big company, and the person suing them was someone who made a YouTube video.

But that Wabbit thing never went to court, did it? Youtube just removed it and the creator said "I don't like this but okay". Comedy Central actually fought back against the Youtube guy and challenged his claims all the way up to a courtroom where justice was served and a judge ruled in their favor.

Yes, it sucks that big companies can, and do, just say "I have a billion dollars in my money bin and am willing to put one of my thousand lawyers on this to drag this out in court for a couple dozen years, how much of your life are you willing to devote to fighting for your rights?", but it's not double standards.

If it had gone to court, it wouldn’t have surprised me if WB won the case.

It would've surprised me, and I don't think WB would've even bothered taking this any further if the Wabbit guy had challenged their claim, because this is OBVIOUSLY parody of the exact same kind MAD and the like have been doing for ages, and WB's legal team would've known they didn't have an actual case here.

But it's all hypotheticals and your point is not an actual example of double standards. If anything it's just an example of Youtube being a shitty outlet.

[WittyUsername]

But that Wabbit thing never went to court, did it? Youtube just removed it and the creator said "I don't like this but okay". Comedy Central actually fought back against the Youtube guy and challenged his claims all the way up to a courtroom where justice was served and a judge ruled in their favor.

Yes, it sucks that big companies can, and do, just say "I have a billion dollars in my money bin and am willing to put one of my thousand lawyers on this to drag this out in court for a couple dozen years, how much of your life are you willing to devote to fighting for your rights?", but it's not double standards.

If it had gone to court, it wouldn’t have surprised me if WB won the case.

It would've surprised me, and I don't think WB would've even bothered taking this any further if the Wabbit guy had challenged their claim, because this is OBVIOUSLY parody of the exact same kind MAD and the like have been doing for ages, and WB's legal team would've known they didn't have an actual case here.

But it's all hypotheticals and your point is not an actual example of double standards. If anything it's just an example of Youtube being a shitty outlet.

Perhaps double standard wasn’t the right term, but it is annoying that companies can get away with pulling crap like this, and YouTube won’t say anything about it.

[Adamant]

If it had gone to court, it wouldn’t have surprised me if WB won the case.

It would've surprised me, and I don't think WB would've even bothered taking this any further if the Wabbit guy had challenged their claim, because this is OBVIOUSLY parody of the exact same kind MAD and the like have been doing for ages, and WB's legal team would've known they didn't have an actual case here.

But it's all hypotheticals and your point is not an actual example of double standards. If anything it's just an example of Youtube being a shitty outlet.

Perhaps double standard wasn’t the right term, but it is annoying that companies can get away with pulling crap like this, and YouTube won’t say anything about it.

Sure. No disagreement there. But that's a different subject entirely.

[WittyUsername]

It would've surprised me, and I don't think WB would've even bothered taking this any further if the Wabbit guy had challenged their claim, because this is OBVIOUSLY parody of the exact same kind MAD and the like have been doing for ages, and WB's legal team would've known they didn't have an actual case here.

But it's all hypotheticals and your point is not an actual example of double standards. If anything it's just an example of Youtube being a shitty outlet.

Perhaps double standard wasn’t the right term, but it is annoying that companies can get away with pulling crap like this, and YouTube won’t say anything about it.

Sure. No disagreement there. But that's a different subject entirely.

I suppose my overall point is that fair use seems confusing as hell when it comes to something like YouTube, which makes it hard for me personally to take a stance on whether or not DBZA qualifies.

[Adamant]

Perhaps double standard wasn’t the right term, but it is annoying that companies can get away with pulling crap like this, and YouTube won’t say anything about it.

Sure. No disagreement there. But that's a different subject entirely.

To try and tie things back to my initial post, fair use seems like a really grey area when it comes to something like YouTube, which muddies the waters when it comes to the debate surrounding whether an abridged series should qualify. Then again, abridging seems to basically be dead at this point, outside of LittleKuriboh, so maybe it doesn’t really matter.

"Fair use" is a set of guidelines that can be used as defense in court (which is what Comedy Central successfully did with that South Park episode), it's not really something that applies to Youtube. And from what I understand, Youtube just pulls/monetizes everything that gets copyright claimed automatically, and it's up to the channel owner to object to that claim.

I linked this thread earlier, but give Mike's post here a read.