Disney doesn't own "The Little Mermaid"... it's public domain, originally from Hans Christian Andersen's story written in the 1800's.

Disney might have a trademark on their graphic for "The Little Mermaid", which probably always has "Disney's" in it.

Welp, real or fan made.. There's no way in hell disney is going to let them get away with the title.

Pretty sure that's trademark infringement, and being as Disney is making a billion live action remakes of all their old films (..including the lion king) I can only assume that this is going to be renamed insanely quickly.

I was not aware that anything but borosilicate glass was labeled "pyrex". Pure trademark vandalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrex

*backup and replaced ded video with version 2.0. Changes include more factual accuracy, more exterior shots, and more non-trademark-holding airlines. -yt

Seems like Fine Bros. got the message. They are giving up the trademarks it seems, and no more 'react world'. https://medium.com/@FineBrothersEnt/a-message-from-the-fine-brothers-a18ef9b31777#.ls973n5ff

Isn't that what they did though? As long as you have a set demographic reacting to videos, couldn't it be argued that you're infringing on their trademark?

Trademarks are much more broad and powerful protection than copyright. They protect your brand and/or logos and slogans. They also protect against things “confusingly similar,” so it’s possible you could be sued for naming your video “Kids have emotions.”

Source:
http://ryanmorrisonlaw.com/attorneys-react-the-fine-bros-react-trademark/

So please explain to me why this lawyer is wrong. And you might want to tone it down a little - you're sounding on par with the worst that reddit has to offer, and disproving the notion that the videosift community is more mature and capable of having a civil conversation.

Not at all from my read.
To me, it's like trademarking the word "news!", forcibly removing any videos labeled "news!", and insisting anyone that posts one pay them 1/2 the revenue they might make...and probably taking it too far and going after those making 'news' claiming they're also infringing and forcing them to pay or defend themselves in court.
It's not at all as specific as you claim.
I see the difference in your analogy, but I totally disagree with your characterization. It's far more like trademarking 'news!' than trademarking 'news filmed and broadcast from a window of a bathysphere sitting in your swimming pool'. If it were that specific, there would be no outrage.
If they didn't come up with it, it's not their idea...and 'humans react to' videos is NOT distinctive enough by far, IMO, and in the opinion of MOST people. If they actually limited it to videos with the exact format of people watching unseen videos at an angle, and the exact same title of "Kids React!" they're still over reaching to control something they did not invent and should not own. Kids reacting was a genre of video/photograph LONG before they started making them, and if the reaction is exciting, using an exclamation point is normal English, as is capitalization of all words in a title.

They have no right to 'protect' something they didn't invent by taking other people's money, first that's not protection, it's simple extortion, second, it's theft, since it's not even their idea in the first place.
They don't have to be the first, possibly, but they certainly shouldn't be able to trademark a common phrase that existed before their company, or a format that existed long before their company, which is what they did.
If they want to 'protect their brand', they need to re-name it something that's not already a common phrase, otherwise they're trying to co-opt a commonly used phrase (that they didn't come up with in the first place) and extort money from those who commonly use it under threat of lawsuit. They also need to steer FAR away from attempting to enforce it against ANY video not in their EXACT format, including font, capitalization, punctuation, stated video format, content, etc. It a video doesn't meet EVERY standard there, they should leave it alone. I'm fairly certain that's NOT their intent, as it would make it impossible for them to extort money and make this move useless.


EDIT: Can we at least agree that, if a company is going to do something like this that COULD be a huge over reach and could easily be abused to both extort money and remove any competition, and their spokes people do such a piss poor job of explaining what they're doing that it sounds like they're using the law to steal property and money from actual content creators and erase those they can't control, while creating absolutely nothing themselves, and offering nothing for the money they forcibly take, that that company deserves ALL the ridicule and losses that follow, and their best move left would be to drop the entire thing rather than continuing and making numerous failed attempts to explain themselves?

That's the thing, they did not trademark the concept of react videos!
They trademarked a very specific format of their shows.
It's not like trademarking 'news programs'.
It's more trademarking 'news programs filmed and broadcast from a window of a bathysphere sitting in your swimming pool'.
See the difference?
They don't have to be the first to do it. But if their content and ideas are distinctive enough, they have every right to protect it.

Once again you do not understand the fucking difference between COPYRIGHT and TRADEMARK.

They shut down that guy's video for a COPYRIGHT violation because he used their videos wholesale without permission from them.

Whereas you can bet your ass that fine bros get all the legal permissions necessary from all the videos, items and people before they run any of their episodes. They are too big of a target and too much money at stake not to do it!

They shut down that guys video for COPYRIGHT violation, not TRADEMARK violation. They got a trademark for the logos and the exact format of their shows!
They did not trademark the concept of a "react" video!

Ahhh....now THAT'S finally an explanation that makes sense. You should post that.

The Fine Brothers explanation is TERRIBLE, confusing, and rambling....and I think that's probably on purpose because if they just said 'we just seized control of ALL "react!' videos and you have to give us 1/2 your YouTube/internet money if you make any' would probably get them lynched pretty quick.

It's all about exerting control over other people's content and taking 1/2 their money....and offering absolutely nothing for it.
This will be (already has been) abused to steal money from others under the threat of 'trademark infringement' where they didn't even create the thing they trademarked.

Even worse than it sounded at the onset.

Fuck the Fine Brothers. From now on, any "'X'- reacts!" videos are getting my downvote until the Fine Bro's are out of business and their trademark removed.

Well, from my read that's much worse.

I'm sorry, that's apparently wrong, it's been reported that they did go around the internet shutting down videos.

If you're correct (I note that on their video they use the word copyright time and again to explain exactly what they DIDN'T copyright, leading to the inference that they have a copyright), then they got a permanent trademark for a format of show that they didn't create, a format that's quite popular and ubiquitous.
React videos are something that's been around since the 60's. Ever hear of Candid Camera? It's a bit like trademarking 'news programs' and anyone who makes 'news' or calls their video 'news' now has to beg for permission-or like trademarking 'talks' videos. They didn't invent this format, they aren't the only creators of this content, they are simply trying to grasp control over this content. Eventually they'll likely require payment for that permission and they'll claim it's to cover costs until it's clear that it's not.

No matter what the reality of the situation is, they screwed up and killed their company with this internet power grab...and I think they deserve go out of business. What a terrible, unnecessary idea to boost their youtube channel.

Yeah I watched it. Did you watch it? Do you even understand why people are upset?

The point is the Fine brothers built their empire reacting to other people's content, but are now preventing other people from using their own derivative content. It shows just how much "good will" they have about people building a "community" with this trademark of theirs.

A good video from a copyright attorney explaining how he sees the situation and talks about trademark and copyright law in general. https://youtu.be/74ykxzNGspg

I don't know enough about law to know who's right, but here is a perspective from an actual attorney:

http://ryanmorrisonlaw.com/attorneys-react-the-fine-bros-react-trademark/

And judging from all the reports of the Fine bros bullying other youtubers with cease and desists, I don't think the situation is quite as harmless as you paint it.

They did go around the internet shutting down other videos.
Here's a video from one of many youtubers who've they've blocked:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfc_HE8dJ5k

Also, regarding the trademark vs copywrite issue, here's an attorney's perspective.

http://ryanmorrisonlaw.com/attorneys-react-the-fine-bros-react-trademark/

In the end, you may be right. But calling people retards and writing in all caps like some youtube troll doesn't help your case.