When the decision came out, many observers were perhaps a little too quick to hail this as a big decision: “ YouTube Content Creator Can Use Viral Video Without License,” blared one headline. The judge decided it “is akin to using news footage without adding anything transformative to what made the footage valuable.” Equals Three tried to argue it was making two points - “don’t be first at shit” and Apple’s method of packaging iPhones at the top of the box is absurd - but Wilson said these “general, broad points” not directly aimed at criticizing or commenting on the video didn’t give Equals Three a pass from copyright liability. That person dropped it amid a throng of reporters. Wilson noted a Jukin video featuring the first person to buy an iPhone 6. Thus, the jokes, narration, graphics, editing and other elements that Equals Three adds to Jukin’s videos add something new to Jukin’s videos with a different purpose or character.”Įquals Three wasn’t entirely successful. In coming to a fair-use conclusion, Wilson explained, “Whether or not Equals Three’s episodes criticize Jukin’s videos, the events depicted in Jukin’s videos are the butt of Equals Three’s jokes.
Wilson considered the Jukin videos, including the one of a groom dropping his bride - and how Johnson’s show commented, “Shit, he literally body-slammed his new bride” with some extra talk of how this is an example of why you shouldn’t wait to have sex until marriage because you get “way too excited.” It’s not often when a judge gets to write something like, “The Court finds Equals Three’s episodes (except Sheep to Balls) highly transformative,” but that’s exactly what happened this past October when Jukin asked for summary judgment on its copyright infringement counterclaims. Equals Three believes it is parodying Jukin videos, while Jukin asserts that at most, what’s shown is a satire of society or some other subject in general. The two sides have a major disagreement about the nature of Johnson’s YouTube channel. In November 2014, Equals Three sued Jukin Media, seeking a judgment that its exploitation of Jukin’s videos is “fair use,” and that Jukin acted in bad faith by telling YouTube of infringements without first considering whether its videos added something original. When Johnson’s programs began using Jukin videos, Jukin registered a takedown pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ( DMCA). But it has no licensing agreement with a company called Equals Three.Įquals Three is a YouTube channel run by Ray William Johnson featuring humorous programs where viral videos are shown and hosts remark about the events and people presented in the clips. Jukin makes revenue-sharing agreements with the creators of viral videos and then licenses their clips to NBC, Fox, CNN, TBS, BBC, the Weather Channel and other distributors.
One of the main players at this trial is Jukin Media, a company that’s backed financially by Disney’s Maker Studios, Bertelsmann Digital Media and others.