Original photographer's video fwiw: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BSI3aKtvXk

He's a good guy and it's kinda sad his work is blowing up on other people's channels while he has 115 subs.

Arguable music but it has bonus cows you don't get in the rip-offs.

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?

I wonder how this would go with a male photographer -- quite differently I believe, especially with the generally patriarchal society we live in.

What I loved about this video is even the people who one could argue weren't so attractive, when they smiled and when you took a moment to look at them in the right light, they were quite beautiful.

I agree that that one woman probably had some sort of traumatic experience that gave her such skepticism. I also found it really interesting that there were a handful who you could tell were really, really skeptical, but just not to the point of profanity. Poor people -- they don't believe anyone could find them beautiful.

Lastly, I'm curious as to how objectively beautiful Shea is. If she's a very attractive woman, I could see why some of the people were skeptical. They assumed it was some sort of joke or prank. I could easily see this being a joke or prank and Shea posting this on youtube saying, 'LOLZ LOOK AT THESE UGLY PPL HOO THINK THEIR BEUTIFUL! LULZ!!!!'

...and can we stop with the selfie sticks? The guy asks for a group photo, then stands off to the side while they fumble with that shit stick. Get a real photographer.

What is a photo-grapher? I know photographers...

yea, can you imagine what Attenborough's 'Life on Earth' would be like with 6 paparazzi photographers hovering around each and every one of his nature subjects

Pretty amazing fish though

Why is shit like this presented with such reverence? For all the ceremony and posh suits these are criminal thugs. They aren't just some other culture that does things it's own way and has finally accepted the guy as one of their own, they know exactly what they are and what they're doing.

I'm sure he got a very interesting look at the way a very secretive society is run. There will be a lot that he's seen and photographed that the rest of the world won't know about or have seen before. It's interesting, I get that, but I think it would be all the more interesting if juxtaposed with the bad stuff. Show the photos of them there, all solemn in their suits, but don't forget the kids who are starving to death as their parents rot in prison or are killing themselves slowly in some disgusting drug den somewhere, paying for everything the Yakuza have.

Everything they have is built on death, pain and suffering of others.

Fascinating. *promote

I just wish he would explain why they allowed him in and why they felt so keen to invite him back to photograph inside the coffin.

Those all seem like things they'd never ever have any reason to allow.

I've kept some of my favourite examples of my kids' art from when they were little, but really these days there's no reason not to photograph all of it and file it away for future reference, prior to putting the less fun ones in the recycling.

Hmmmm. I buy some of that, but not all of it. Or rather it's true in some cases but not all. Some art, like the two lovers/clocks has meaning beyond it's own form and that's important to appreciate it. But there are certainly some abstract works out there that are just too lost in art.

I'm on the edge of the art world as an illustrator and photographer and completely get the 'go do it' angle though. Just saying 'I could do that' is missing the point entirely. Anyone who looks at a simple bit of art with a high value and thinks it must be simple to just paint a few squares and put a thousand pound price on it can't honestly believe it, otherwise we'd be up to our eyeballs in shitty paintings with huge price tags.

If a bit of artwork needs an artist's name to be worth something then consider what it took for the artist to get to that place. They didn't just wake up one morning a famous artist. The name gives context and can be important. Not every time, some 'artists' are just way too into their circlejerks and mutual bigging up that the only skill an artist might need is to be just weird enough and in the right place at the right time to be one of the 'in crowd', but to be fair this isn't the case with the vast majority of abstract art.

The rozzers arrested a single (!) person during those clashes that saw 34 cops injured. One person. One. They arrested some 200 folks during a peaceful protest against open pit coal mining in Garzweiler last week.

But wait, it gets better. The only person they arrested in Heidenau was... this journalist/photographer.

Any cinematographers/photographers here who can explain the artifact produced by her necklace at ~0:35?
I figured it must be a reaction of old film or lenses not being able to capture extreme brightness after already being set for a range of exposure, but that's just a half-informed guess.

When I got to the party
They gave me a 40
And I must have been thirsty
'Cuz I drank it so quickly

When I got to the bedroom
There was somebody waiting
And it isn't my fault
That the barbarian raped me

When I went to get tested
I brought along my best friend
Melissa Mahoney
who had once been molested
And she knew how to get there
She knew all the nurses
They were all really friendly
But the test came up positive

(Chorus)
Uh-oh
I've seen better days
But I don't care
Oh I just sent a letter in the mail

When I got my abortion
I brought along my boyfriend
We got there an hour
Before the appointment
And outside the building
Were all these annoying fundamentalist Christians
We tried to ignore them

(Chorus)
Uh-oh
I've had better days
But I don't care
Oasis got my letter in the mail

(Up-Beat Break)

When vacation was over
The word was all over
That I was a crack whore
Melissa had told them
And do now we're not talking
Except we have tickets to see 'Blue in October'
And I think we're still going

(Chorus)
Uh-Oh
I've seen better days
But I don't care
Oh I just got a letter in the mail
Oasis and a photograph
It's autographed and everything
Melissa's gonna wet herself I swear

How about here for the UK http://www.comedycentral.co.uk/the-daily-show/videos/amy-schumer-hates-being-photographed-with-jennifer-lawrence