Rick & Morty v. Tiarawhy: Georgia v. Denver Fenton Allen Taken Down #WTFU

Share this video on

What's Hot

What's New

Top Grossing

Top of the Chart

Recommend

Higgins2001 : Oh shoot, you hit 100k! Not sure how I missed that, but congrats!!!

tiarawhy : Hey thanks for the great breakdown of the video! From an earlier thread on reddit I pretty much understood that the videos I made were derivative and not a parody of any kind (and in the original upload of my explanation I stated derivative as well albeit I wasn’t 100% sure at that point). I’m not mad at Turner or anything about it as this was a fan work by the fans for the fans, and they are within their rights to do whatever with these videos. The videos were seen by Justin both in when it was being made and on release (in fact he tweeted these videos himself on release and was super happy about it). The reason I made those videos were to update my fans as to where that content went, and what I’d be working on. The strange thing is as you said, they were up for 2+ years and all of a sudden were blocked. The videos weren’t monetized as turner had a “tracked” policy on them. What I think happened is this: some people were taking this and the ice cream animation and reuploading it themselves on youtube titled “R&M season 4 teaser/trailer/etc”, and many people were being fooled that it were the real thing and thus confusing the market. The ice cream animation was the first one blocked worldwide, and then about a week later so did the court case one. Thanks again for the video and telling people to sub!

Romantic Outlaw : taking down fanworks is an ugly look. I have to believe that this came down from the corporate machine, not roiland, since creators like him tend to love cool fan projects

That one dude who posts stuff : Why do porn artists make the best animations?

ankhi3 : Oh shit! That wasn't official? If I was working PR at AS I'd probably want to contact the guy to see if he'd be okay with moving the content to the AS official channel. Call it something like:"Fanimated: insert title of the skit". Would make more sense to reward the fandom that way. Instead of cease-and-desisting it. It seems to me like someone new at AS got a little too eager.

Lo Wang : Man people are going to find some interesting stuff when they look Tiarawhy up

ALJustice0 : This is a very Council move. Rick can't stand for this

Gumba Masta : Remember how the creator of the show changed it from Doc and Marty to avoid copyright issues caused by the Back of Future Stuff... Ironic

Vinesauce Obscurities : I've actually seen Tiarawhy producing that animation during his weeks of streaming using rigs and backgrounds that he no doubt had to create from scratch. He's got a knack for attention to detail and replication, but it also skirts the line on copyright. I'm more surprised it took AS this long to respond. He's known to hone has skills for years with My Little Pony porn videos with show-accurate vectors that he had to have to create himself. However, the fact that he was producing underground content for an underground audience meant he flew under the radar of Hasbro lawyers who did issue C&Ds on MLP animators who were producing much less explicit animations using similarly show-accurate rigs. The fact that Tiarawhy decided to produce a more audience-accessible production is probably what got him in trouble here. The art style and animation were so uncanny that it managed to fool a lot of people (despite the fact that he decided to stuff in some out-of-place Futurama characters in the background), and AS figured it could be misleading to their target audience. They must had received a lot of messages from fans who wrongly attributed that animation to AS.

Dave Marx : Oh wow. Adult Swim has some dumb lawyers. This feels like hypocrisy

Whoofian Brony : Nothing good in the world of derivative works lasts for long without being struck down by our copyright overlords.

Michael Harbach : Tiarawhy's animation brought a lot of eyes and new fans to Rick & Morty. It might not be technically fair use, but it caused no harm and did lots of good. What kind legal system allows for laws to be enforced in a manner that causes more damage for everyone?

Worgen33 : The brony fandom saw a decent amount of this also. Most notably the takedown of the MLP Fighting is Magic and the videos from AsktheCutieMarkCrusaders. Both of those were professional grade fan works.

M D J : They ought to hire the individual.

RyGull : I actually thought that was a real skit.. i figured it was just some promo that was never in the series.

Jesse W : Ok, but explain DBZ Abridged. And Hellsing Abridged. Both use the original animations with edits and voice over. Does that qualify as transformative work? It's the same animation, characters, and basically the same story. I do not understand fair use. It seems arbitrary to me.

Baron von Quiply : I watched that animation and have to say they did a great job with it, it looked like a R&M short. Credit to the animator, regardless of the outcome.

Strelok Audio Design : Mah man Tiara!

Adam Rasmussen : It fooled me. I thought it was made by A.S.

Joshua Blackman : where is the "I disagree with the takedown but not the content of the law or leonard's explanation" button

jb03hf : So a show... developed based on Back to the Future and which was edited on grounds of it being too close... Now takes down a video based on it. That is some hypocritical BS.

dankdreamz : How interesting. Justin Roiland caught a C&D for his Bill Cosby animation. Now the company who bought the rights to his creative works is dulling out C&D. I don't know if it's ironic but it is interesting.

Lord Fluffypants : Can the original non-animation even be counted as copyright material though? (aside from being voiced from Justin Roiland, and using the characters Rick and Morty which are copyright) My understanding was the original skit didn't create any new dialogue and just read from a public transcript of the actual court case. So is it just a copyright of the voice-over of the transcript then? like an audio-book of a non copyright book type of situation, except now the audio-book has animation without permission?

SouthendLad600 : There’s also a colourised version of this. That’s been up 2 years.

Steven M : I don’t watch Rick and Morty because my IQ isn’t high enough.😜

Blu3ManiC : I remember when they were live-streaming themselves animating this and it was so detailed and time consuming that I genuinely thought they were officially animating it for adult swim.

Dia da Vinci : This explains how there are so many movie quality fan films in the _Star Wars_ universe that don't get copyright takedowns; while some have major established characters appear in them (usually briefly), but generally they have the 4 things you listed covered - in particular the first, of whether or not its transformative, the majority of them have incredible and unique storylines. Quite a lot of them are still even around, in the post-Disney era.

BlackburnBigdragon : Hasbro has done the same thing with many of the animators who have created My Little Pony fan parody fan animations that were too similar to the show. And once again, it was a case of "Fair use", but the animators just didn't have the cash to fight a big company in a lengthy lawsuit and they wouldn't back down, on takedown requests or threats. This even happened with some animations that weren't similar to the show, would not have been confused for the show at all, were obviously parody, but under the guise of, "Hasbo having a kneejerk reaction that it had to protect it's brand". They were going after all kinds of fan content creators for a while, from what I understand, some even episode reviews.

messman10 : I can see that transformation as being funny, or maybe if the animation was instead of just the judge and defendant spouting off, was instead an animation of the real guy reacting to his case being voiced while watching the animation. But yeah, not fair use. Adult Swim should have just monetized the video for themselves and let it stay up. Monetizing it would have protected their rights as creators and not left a precedent opened, but would also keep the good will of the creative community. Then they should have offered the animator a damn job so they wouldn't say anything bad and not have hurt feelings. I mean, from a practical standpoint, it was good animation and shows talent, so snatch it up. On the other hand, you don't want the animator shouting angrily about Adult Swim so as to sour people's opinion: by giving the animator a reward that would be perceived to be greater then taking away part of the modernization of the video, you foster a good public appearance.

cyrad : This is not a Fair Use issue. This is a PR issue.

maken2003 : honestly "fair use" to me and what I see most people around me using it as, is "I have added to this" or "I have done this, there for it is mine" mentality, regardless of what they use or do to it.

Zex Maxwell : Sure. take a camera out and ask the public.

NeoAcario : The video in question has now been restored on Youtube as of 13 hours ago. Wow... that was fast.

Nathan Holt : Considering how ppl are theres probably a black market on copy's of the video already for collectors.

Ent229 : Hypothesis: I suspect the common person on the street would define "Fair Use" as "Use that is fair" with the meaning of fair being defined by their common sense. In essence the common person's imagination of what the idealized version of the law would be.

mabec : I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY

David Levy : Many people seem to believe that "fair use" means "I can use others' intellectual property in my creative works with impunity, so long as I don't charge money."

TDGFX : Absolutely not fair use- but still bummed out that it was taken down- Rick and Morty was derivative itself in the first place, the original was called Doc and Mharty after all.

Troy Richardson : I wish you would have linked the channel in the subscription, but it's okay.

Milt Nation : I thought it was AdultSwim also..I loved it.

Star Frost : Not a big fan of the premier feature. Have good monday.

Mefous : If it wasnt approved by AS then how did they get Justin Roilands voice? Am I just missing something here?

Tzisorey Tigerwuf : Imagine a world in which, instead of this lawsuit, Adult Swim had asked the animator whether Adult Swim could upload a copy of the video on a second channel dedicated to fan work, with attribution and links to the animator's personal channel. No bad press from a lawsuit, they get free quality work on their own channel, fans have a location they can go to for multiple quality fan work, and can find artists they would like to follow. Not a legal determination, or proposition, just a "what if"

Sean Peery : They brought it back, thank the non-existent God who brought this about.

TheAtheistPaladin : I saw it. It was hilarious, but I didn't know it was work of adult Swim or fan made.

TheAtheistPaladin : Oh shoot. It is back up. Monitization not allowed.

The Division 454 play's : Not first!

Mr. Baileys : So the characters can be labeled Mick and Sorty and changed the pitch of the voice, it'd be all okay is essentially what you're saying? This just seems like censorship with extra steps. Basically this is the stuff we need to change, cool, thanks.

Valentina V : I remember seeing youtube recommend the live stream of this animation happening at the time. I thought - How is this fair use and how is this allowed. He was clearly producing something that he didn't own. And I actually thought that after reading the script at the convention that the Adult Swim would produce an actual episode. I think this guy may have taken a job from someone. As someone in the industry it is really upsetting that someone took a PAID job and did it for free on youtube. Someone did the original storyboard and got PAID, meanwhile he swooped in and did the rest for free, denying the job for others without actually being hired for it

Dallen9 : It's not a fair use cause it wasn't completely a change of forum and it utilized the exact same style making. Now the only problem is there really is no way for proper permission to be granted to the freelancer who was doing a display of his quality of his animation skills. Again for Academic reasons and purposes it is a display of fair use. But you have to state that it is for Academic display of skill. Now the real Argument is where is the line for Academic execution for displaying skill and straight Comercial execution of Displaying skill. That argument hasn't been fully explored and where the biggest level of confusion lays. And there's also the argument of can something made for Entertainment reasons be copied or derived for Academic displays. Now the Argument of can a Academic portfolio be used for Commercial gain is resounding yes and that can and has created issues. Had he stated that it was for Academic purposes and posted on Youtube for the purpose Peer review and continued to not monetize it there's a high probability it would still be up.