 Hello people of the internet, my name is Johnny and welcome back to another reaction video today We're gonna be looking at part two of Matt Pat's latest FNAF seven a.k.a. Five Nights at Freddy's VR a.k.a. FNAF help-wanted theory What do you want Riley I'm recording go away I'll cut that out don't worry So I actually missed the part in his last theory talking about the second Theory part two to it, so I missed that but thanks to you guys I know about it now, and even if I didn't it's here So I'm gonna be reacting to that My problem with the theory last time was that it didn't fit the timeline he created because FNAF help-wanted in my opinion the gameplay is not gonna be canon anyways Because we're going to location to location with all the animatronics in my mind It's kind of like custom night where the gameplay is not canon and it will never be canon because you can't have all the characters in location all at the same time But it'll have a lore sprinkled into it for obviously the theorizers of the FNAF community and even if it is canon it wouldn't fit the Timeline because we see FNAF 3 Take place in the game FNAF 3 is like near the end of the timeline Well sister location which has the technicians then map at thinks is gonna be there were pair men in this game It's like one of the first locations and they die in sister location, so That was my problem with his theory last time I didn't address it because I wanted to make sure that that my idea was right and it is so Yeah, that's why I'm just teeny bit confused, but hopefully this theory is going to Make I don't know maybe it'll change my mind Maybe I'll agree with Matt Pat and just because I disagree with him doesn't mean I hate him It's my reaction. It's my opinion. That's kind of the reason why I'm doing this and For me at least when I watch reactions I'm looking for their reaction and for the person's opinion on the video rather than You know all you with them like oh, well, you can't disagree with Matt Pat. He's like the smartest guy ever It's my opinion guys, so calm down All right. Anyways, let's just let's just react to it. I've been talking a lot Scott's problem with fan art We cover a lot of scary stuff on this show, but today is no clickbait the scariest topic of all Copyrights with a little dose of FNAF all my favorite topics in one episode. I love 2019 Ha ha look it's the pew news intro, but it's game theory Pat news Hello internet welcome to game theory where today call me gloria Volga because our top Is an oopsie one big oopsie made by one big man. Actually. I don't know what his relative size is He's just big in the gaming space that man's name is Scott coffin now if you're not familiar with what happened Let me catch you up last episode. We analyzed a teaser image for Scott's new VR. So I'm Still I'm slightly confused about where this thing is heading I should probably just watch it and find out what it's about But is this a continuation of the last one or is it a separate one talking about copyright? I Don't know. Let's watch game FNAF help wanted what I didn't mention in that video though Was that it was only online for just a couple of hours In fact by the time I had gotten to check out this thing It had been wiped clean from the internet only preserved thanks to some dedicated redditors specifically GB aura Recharged now Scott is no stranger to posting things only to rip them off the internet later He's done it with comments on my videos He did it with version one of FNAF world his contents of the infamous FNAF 4 box Yep, those got changed heck even the script for his new movie was written Approved and ready to shoot it's gonna want to make it out Like this community deserves better, but this time it was different this time It was because the team working on the VR game steel wool had unintentionally used fan art as he said on reddit quote My first teaser in more than half a year was made using questionable choices at best and Traced fan models at worst. He then went on two days later to clarify Huh, so it appears Matt you do actually look at reddit Kind of strange because you missed a whole lot of things that Scott said on reddit in the last theory Just just saying Further quote again as you all remember the artwork that I teased for the game Which was actually a portion of the cover artwork included characters that had used fan art and fan models as references When I learned about that I was obviously pretty upset and took down the teaser the person working on the artwork used images that he thought were mine If anything everyone who had one of their models referenced should pat themselves on the back because your models look like they were cannon I think it's a testament to the fan community that the fan models rival mine many of them looked identical And some of them look better So the TLDR of this whole thing is that he pulled down the teaser because it used recolored re-skinned models made by a fan of Characters that Scott Cawthon himself created that looked so close to the original creation that his own team couldn't tell him apart from the originals and This sparked a really interesting question in my head. Did Scott legally have to do this? These are his characters after all and the fan made models were so close that they probably wouldn't have been seen as any sort of transformative use now obviously he cares about this community a lot and pulling the teaser was Absolutely the correct decision from a good will standpoint, but what would the law say about this after doing the research? It's a lot so this is about copyright and interesting and you might think to get there We're going on a twisted copyright journey that'll show us why Naughty Dog lives up to its name Why your photographs of the Eiffel Tower are probably illegal and why everyone's in at least that night right about rule 34 Oh boy, welcome online copyright law don't know what's hitting it. That's a terrible last line. Oh boy copyright law Doesn't know what's hitting it copyright law don't have a In indicator just gonna segue over to the next paragraph Oh and before we dive into this episode you might have noticed that I actually released another video alongside this one today I did notice that that upload I specifically talk about this channel and a lot of our own personal issues that we've had with Fan art in the past as well as a way to protect yourself if you're a fan artist who's working online right now It's actually a really important video for me touching on a topic that I have stayed really quiet about for quite a long time So before you go down into the comments and start laying into me for not being allowed to cover this issue because I supposedly Stole fan art in the past. Please go watch that video too. That's actually Really decide which one made more sense to go first because really the two compliment each other they comment off of each other, so Just please watch Good plug Oh, I've been I so that was something I got called out upon in the last video, but Can you blame MatPat for doing this and I know it seems mean to say but you know I know he knows that his fan art videos get a lot of attention Heck his last one was number one on trending for like the day for like one day So he knows they get a lot of attention So plugging things like his merch his other videos his channel and all that stuff in the fan art video That's getting a lot of attention is pretty clever It'll do me a favor it'll save me a lot of grief when I read the comments in this Save my save myself esteem a lot of grief as well Oh, the other disclaimer that I should mention at the beginning of this episode is that there's a lot of fan work out There that is transformative that is not considered to be a copy of anyone else's work This episode actually isn't about that today We are purely focused on fan art that's intended to closely represent a character that already exists and all the Basic legal mumbo jumbo that's around that so we all on the same page. We all good. Hopefully wait Let's get into it Now Scott is far from the only game maker that's had a conversation when it comes to teasing a new game case in point The original version of the trailer for Uncharted 4 of thief send was released containing a painting that took images from Assassin's Creed black flags concept art the one with the pirate I gotta give credit where credit's do here guys that is incredibly on brand dealing artwork to promote a game That has the word thief in the title very smart You be soft wasn't appreciating that level of meta commentary though And Sony was quick to pull the video and replace the asset Boopsies like this also aren't just limited to marketing materials and teasers either back in 2013 a graphic designer named Cameron booze made a post announcing that he was effing furious with the fact that the game the last of us featured a map that he had made of Boston Metro first off I'd like to point out that the last of us just like Uncharted is a naughty dog game Guess we know what the naughty is referring to in their name But after what I assume was a swift apology and a fairly decent payoff Cameron quickly dialed back his language in a later public post saying it seems as if matters will be resolved to everyone's Satisfaction shortly great. I'm so happy for you guys money truly heals all wounds But this case already starts to reveal some weird nuances of the copyright world because well the graphic designer who made the picture owns the Copyright to his map and was absolutely in his right to complain about the improper usage He actually doesn't have the copyright the Boston Metro itself. Does that sound dumb you bet it does So dumb that it can't be anything Ads other than real real world pieces of architecture are subject to their own copyright Just like one musician can't copy the song of another musician so to an architect can't copy the building design created by another Architect things get even weirder though when you start thinking about what this means for pictures that people are taking in front of buildings Those pictures technically are violating copyrights or at least they would be if it wasn't for this idea of freedom of panorama You see most countries have some law or general understanding in place that says you won't get sued if you decide to create an Instagram story showing yourself posing in front of some famous landmarks notice though that I said most countries Most does not equal all case in point You heard it here folks First I'm not first most does not equal all Amazing I'm so so happy that that was cleared up and France doesn't have freedom of panorama as a result technically speaking you legally shouldn't be able to post photographs of the Eiffel Tower But only the night photographs you see because the Eiffel Tower without lights was built in 1989 that one is old enough to have entered the public domain But the lights that go on at night were installed in 1985 thereby making this an artistic work with live copyright making posting photos of it Illegal that means that anything you find in a regular Google image search under Eiffel Tower at night was Probably taken by fearless outlaws who are flouting the law throwing caution to the wind and posting their tourist photos of the Eiffel Tower In the evening probably a bunch of developers at Naughty Dog being like whatever we don't care We still aren't work all the time. We're not a dog. We're dogs who are naughty So what does the Eiffel Tower have to do with FNAF fan art? Well, obviously people are I mean we are about Nearly halfway through the video so tell us Matt picking photos of the Eiffel Tower and are getting thrown in little Crystal I actually didn't learn the word for prison And that's because these crazy laws don't matter for people who are only using the image for personal consumption You put an image on your fridge or you're slapping on the desk in your office You're fine, but the second you publish that image it becomes a different story Just take a look at any stock image website like Getty Images Which is a business built on legally owning the rights to every image in their archive And you'll notice that most of the images of the Eiffel Tower Even the ones with low light don't feature the lights on the building turned on and this is where things get tricky As if they weren't overly complicated enough You see if you publish a piece of artwork that features a character like Mangle or Mario or Mewtwo or heck Elsa and you don't own the copyright to that character Then publishing that fan work is technically a copyright violation Which merits a huge question. What counts as publishing now? Obviously publishing includes things like putting it in a book that ends up in Barnes and Noble But publishing actually has a much broader definition in the legal sense Publishing in the broadest sense of the word just means Causing something to become public or making it publicly known That means everything from printing up and handing out a bunch of flyers on the street You guessed it posting it online is covered It doesn't even matter if it's a non-commercial type of posting posting fan art non-commercially on your blog or a site like Tumblr or Instagram or Twitter all count as publishing that image and if you're thinking to yourself Wow That affects a lot of people Yeah, it does. You're absolutely right Technically speaking every fan artist on Tumblr and DeviantArt and Pinterest and Pixiv and their own independent blog They are never violating copyright every time they post a new sketch of an existing character That's not transformative enough to be considered fair use. I know I know that sounds unbelievable And that every fan artist out there is lighting their torch and rummaging for their proverbial pitchfork to come after me right now But first off don't kill the messenger here guys Legally, this is the truth based on the lawyers that I've spoken with and the legal papers that we've read That is the letter of the law, but the letter is obviously only half the story Considering of course that the prisons. It's also half the video Across the country aren't filled with rainbow-dash fan artists and bendy bottlers Though it'd be pretty funny if they were what are you in for killed a guy you I drew a pink pony very accurately Inactual practice the situation favors fan artists a lot more than you might first think as you can see pretty much Everywhere on the internet It's really rare for copyright holders to try and enforce their copyright The only instances where you see this actually happen tend to be when a brand feels that the art that's being made Really mis-represents their IP one really convenient example of this in the gaming world is Blizzard who issued DMCA takedowns across a bunch of different fan art in efforts to stop people from making How do I put this nicely yeah renditions of overwatch characters in Compromising situations loving each other just a bit much for their liking for those of you who have the foreign tongue images of their characters in The carnal embrace tranquility basically Blizzard wanted people to skip from rule 33 to rule 35 of the internet handbook if you catch my drift and you can imagine just how effective Blizzard was at accomplishing that goal Not that I would know personally. I'm just doing research For a friend anyway according to the guidelines from Blizzard's policy and shower creations They cracked down in order to quote maintain and protect the image of their games They also said Blizzard requires that productions maintain the t rating that has been given to its products by the esrb And I get that right it makes sense Well, it might have been kind of a futile effort to remove sexy time from the internet legally speaking They're entirely within their legal right to protect their brand But speaking of legal rights it is a two-way street even though a company owns the rights to its characters You as the fan artist own the right to your individual piece of fan art So going all the way back to our example of fnaf fan art There's a lot out there if you drew a picture of freddy and the cupcake What are the actual rights for that image? Well scott owns the copyright to the character But you you own the copyright to that specific image So you can't publish it. You don't own the rights to the character But scott also can't publish that image because he doesn't have the rights to your art You are both caught as it turns out No one really has the rights to publish that image unless of course you both agree to it But good luck there scott doesn't talk to anyone Hey scott it's mad except for docco Yeah, probably a secret son. I don't know docks docker like all the time That's true Now what would have happened if scott hadn't owned up to his oopsie and the situation had actually escalated What could the fan artist who created those character models have done to him? Turns out a very similar issue has come up and was settled in a fairly famous case with the iconic Obama hope image from that election artist of the famous obama image shepherd fairy Who is actually one of my favorite street artists created the artwork, but he wouldn't know the image from a photograph Oh my god Lag Don't worry. I am back of obama that he quote found on the Obama image shepherd fairy who is actually one of my favorite street artists created the artwork But he copied the image from a photograph of obama that he quote found on the internet But it was owned by an independent photographer from the associated press in court The ruling was that the hope artwork infringed on the copyright of the original photograph The original owner of the photograph now Participates in all money that's earned by the rights to that image This is also the one case where i'll actually mention fair use because shepherd fairy actually tried to make the argument that his work here was Transformative, but the court didn't buy it. In fact, he almost went to jail The upshot of this whole thing is that in theory if a legal fight like this one would have happened in scott's case It could have very easily landed both parties in court And it would have actually been pretty hard for scott to win Luckily no that happened and i think a lot of that is because scott holds himself to a higher standard And wouldn't have wanted to do a disservice to his fans as he said in his apology quote The only thing i care about is doing right by this community. Good on you, man But there is another compelling reason for scott to take that teaser down Money you see the other big complicating factor in all of this isn't whether someone is really infringing on their copyright I think he's talking about the thing he's trying to get from this video That was a joke don't get mad This means that when you post your fan art online, you're not going to face any criminal liability fan artists You are good to go sketchy nerd t-shirt companies that are selling unlicensed nintendo merch though You might not be so safe. Stop. You violated the law pay the court a fine or serve your sentence Likewise, if you're selling your own posters of your fan art images Well that could land you in some legal hot water as well And i know that this is the most sensitive subject around fan art because of all the commission that artists earn By doing fan art made to order for other members of their fan communities I'm not condemning anyone. I'm not passing any sort of judgment on anyone else's online business As someone who uses a lot of online images of other people's ip I'm kind of digging my own grave here as well. This whole topic just makes me uncomfortable Especially since that's still not the end of this whole story Because we still have like five minutes left A couple of ways that you could actually be sued even if you did commercialize your fan art The company would need to show in court that your art had damaged their company in some way Using the naughty overwatch picture example again if i can if blizzard took the fan artist's court They would need to prove that somehow this adult only content had damaged their brand in some way in their case Blizzard is trying to market their game overwatch as a family friendly experience for all players ages 13 and over And so the brand may actually get heard if the first thing that comes up when mom starts googling orisa is a bunch of this Very family unfriendly images. How much though? It's actually hard to tell Well, it seems like they would actually have a good case It's still really hard to quantify how much their brand would get hurt by stuff like this Which is blurry behind me for your safety. I swear your safety is my primary concern And that's a pretty clear cut case here in most instances fan art doesn't compete with the official images from the game So what does all of this mean for you the fan artist? Well, it means that you probably don't have to worry about getting sued and even if you are getting close to getting sued You're probably going to know that you're doing something wrong long before anything happens Like in 2015 the pokemon company went after a cafe that ran a pokemon party It unofficially impacts that promoted itself using pgp posters and charged an entry fee or in another case A woman was threatened legal action from 20th century fox because she was selling a firefly themed hat on her etsy store So long story short just don't charge admission to your next pokemon themed birthday party and leave the firefly apparel for hot topic But to bring it all the way back around to fnaf one last time While scott doesn't stand to gain a whole lot by suing his fans over their creations He does stand to lose A whole lot if he uses a fan made model in the box art for a vr game that is for profit It could potentially make millions of dollars See if he kept those fan models in his box art It would in theory open him up to a much bigger legal problem where he might have to pay thousands Or even tens of thousands of dollars in royalties simply for using those two pieces of artwork So scott's decision to take down the teaser image was certainly the right thing to do from a moral perspective But it's also the correct thing to do from a business perspective. I mean don't get me wrong Scott is all about giving back to the fnaf community, but maybe he's not interested in giving that much back But hey, that's Just a theory and certainly not legal advice. Consider this your official legal disclaimer that I am not a lawyer Even though we talked to a lot of lawyers for this episode And if you get yourself into hot water for making your distributing fan art You can use this video as an interesting talking piece with your legal counsel, but the judge will watch it Assume that I'm at pat will be standing up for you in 14 minutes as your legal defense here Watch this youtube video about fnaf fan art now Not really gonna work. Okay. Okay. Keep farting it up out there guys and remember that is just a theory A game theory Thanks for watching Yeah, I've gotta Gotta put the logo in the fnafo house. So you may forget that this was even a fnaf theory at all this This face. This is the face that you will see in the thumbnail because that is my This is my accurate representation of how I feel right now Due to this video It barely had anything to do with fnaf I swear he talked about blizzard and overwatch more Then he talked about fnaf He very well could have made it about blizzard and overwatch And their situation But because it's fnaf It's gonna get more attention. It's gonna get a more money Isn't that the whole point of this video? He was talking about business. He was talking about money. He was actually talking about himself. That's the big plot twist of this video Yep, that was actually him all along And I know I'm leaving care that I'm gonna get hate about this This was by far one of the clickbaitiest things I've ever seen On fnaf and the worst part was that it was matpat. It was freaking matpat Like come on be haters listen, you probably clicked off the video by now, but if you're still here for some reason listen He talked about overwatch so much and how the Like the rule 34 fnaf overwatch Could ruin their company. He had some pretty good cases about that Right, and he totally could have made the video about that But because of fnaf's latest game and the stitch obviously is a perfect situation And I guess it's a good follow-up to the last theory But because it's fnaf He knows he's gonna get more attention from this And because it's scott. We're talking about he knows he's gonna get more attention it just If you think about it, it makes sense Of course, he made this video about fnaf and I hate to be again. I love matpat. I love what he does He's super smart. He's awesome. He's done Like he did a charity livestream like maybe Half a year ago. That was awesome. I watched it all the way through it was amazing. He raised a lot of money but You gotta understand He still runs a business YouTube he works on youtube. That's his job on youtube When it's your job You have to make money. That's literally the definition of a job. You work and you get money This is his job and when you know that you can do something When you know that you can do something that'll get you more attention and more money You take it you like you obviously take it I'm This isn't a stupid Like it makes sense I'm not just saying this so I can be that guy out there. That's like, oh this video is stupid It's not stupid. It's a pretty good video. It had great points and the concept was awesome I think you know, he's a great job spreading the board about copyright and all that stuff But because it's fnaf He like I'd say maybe a quarter of that video was talking about fnaf He also finally mentioned reddit and scott and his conversations on reddit. He finally mentioned that But why didn't he mention it? Because it suits the video's plot and what he's trying to get across He didn't do it in the last theory. He didn't bring up the timeline in the last theory because it doesn't make any sense But this time he brought up Because it's scott and people are worried about him People are worried. He might go to jail people are worried. He might get sued. You know all that stuff I hate to be this guy when it makes sense You welcome haters leave leave a dislike on this video I'm fine with that I you can tell that I didn't really like this video much just because He made it He made it seem like there was going to be more fnaf in it I thought this was going to be a follow-up to the last theory and have more evidence about the last theory, but nope It was barely even about fnaf Anyways I think I think I've done my point. I think I've made my point Anyways, I'm gonna go leave the haters in the comment section and I'll see you all on the flip side Goodbye