• fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    3 days ago

    Interesting. Lots of craziness here, but the plaintiff used a DCMA to strike the defendant’s videos because of “likeness”. Just for that, I’m pro-defendant, will be interesting to see what happens.

    • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      I was pro-defendant before the end of the first paragraph. Someone suing someone else for ‘stealing’ their ‘minimalist aesthetic’ deserves to lose and get a lesson from the ol’ clue by four.

        • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          Yes. “I was pro-defendant before the end of the first paragraph.” = “I agreed with this position before the end of the first section of words”

          Without something to negate that statement, the statement’s meaning is exactly what it says.

    • atrielienz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 days ago

      Yeah. I’m not sure it matters much that their content is similar. Using the DMCA system for something it clearly wasn’t intended for and then furthering that with what is ultimately a frivolous lawsuit (when you’re both copying a rich and famous influencer yourselves) is ridiculous especially with the Amazon algorithm giving them similar or the same items to schill to the public. This lawsuit is dumb (regardless of the minutiae). But it highlights how much of the algorithm builds these people’s “brands”.