3 ms·
Despite the branding, this isn’t actually a copy: it attempts to summarize each hours-long course into a handful of bullet points. That probably changes the ex
by kd5bjo 6y ago
Despite the branding, this isn’t actually a copy: it attempts to summarize each hours-long course into a handful of bullet points. That probably changes the expression enough that it’s original in the eyes of copyright law, and the underlying ideas are not subject to copyright.
IANAL, but I suspect they’d have a larger issue with using all of these celebrities’ names and likenesses without permission.
- monoideism 6y agoMaybe, but the fact that they attributed the pieces to those celebrities suggests they weren't very careful about legal boundaries. To say the least.
- mittermayr 6y agoIt's odd, because the content itself isn't actually very useful or any sort of "good" summary like a true cliffnotes type of thing — which should give them enough leeway to stay up and be fine. Yet, they're putting themselves right back in front of the gun: "We stole MasterClass' content..." Props to whoever drew all those illustrations, they really took the time, that's probably 99% of the effort there.
- lapinot 6y ago> Props to whoever drew all those illustrations, they really took the time, that's probably 99% of the effort there. Most likely the same freelance contractors as wikihow. https://onezero.medium.com/we-finally-figured-out-who-makes-wikihows-bizarre-art-6c5d69b71347 https://onezero.medium.com/we-finally-figured-out-who-makes-...
- tibbetts 6y agoSounds like a law school exam question about when it stops being parody and starts being deliberately confusing to consumers. Like if I sell Jock Doniels whiskey that’s only 10% alcohol, is that really a parody? Or the South Butt clothing brand.