#toyguru

[clarenecessities]

He-man.org will close in 5 days.

He-man.org has been a staple of the Masters of the Universe community since the early days, originating as an email list that worked to document episodes before anything (not footage, not lists, nothing) was available online. It grew into a sprawling, multi-faceted beast of a thing, including an encyclopedia (an in-house wiki), merch lists, a marketplace, forums, anything you could think of.

Several years ago now, the main site went down for updates/maintenance. For a few weeks, we were told, maybe months. The forums remained open for fans to communicate, and barring a period of downtime earlier this year things were going smoothly.

Yesterday, the owner of the site, Val Staples, announced the site would be closed on November 14th, 2023. Six days later. We are currently attempting to contact him, to see if he’s interested in selling, and if he means closed as in “no new posts” or closed as in deleted entirely. Regardless of its eventual fate, the archiving of these forums is essential to preserving the history of the franchise, the fandom, and the brand.

TO SHE-RA (and MotU) FANS SPECIFICALLY: I have personally used these forums to answer questions that could be answered nowhere else. Had I not had access to them, I would never have been able to prove that Purrsia was fake, or found so much unpublished concept art, or discovered that Scott “Toyguru” Neitlich personally wrote Catra’s MOTUC bio (even if he’s put off answering my questions about it for over a year now). Forum members have conducted interviews with the likes of Jon Seisa, Cathy Larson, Janice Varney-Hamlin—essential figures in the very foundations of POP, and those interviews revealed and recorded priceless information for future generations (me! you! us!) to find. Did you know Cathy Larson named Adora? That she originally pushed for “Dorian”, after her own daughter? We cannot let this treasure trove disappear into the ether(ia).

TO THE UNAFFILIATED: Please help. Pretty please. If you’ve ever liked my art or my writing or my haphazard blogging, ever, at all, consider archiving just one board. Just one page. Literally anything helps. I am spiraling into madness & this is my library of Alexandria. The mythical one that was totally unique and persevered nowhere else and was destroyed in a single cataclysmic event. Pretty pretty please help.

HOW TO HELP:

Archive.org has several ways to upload shit but most of them are longer term than “a few days” so we’re focusing on two (which can be run simultaneously): Save Page Now, and browser extensions. From their help page:

1. Save Page Now

Put a URL into the form, press the button, and we save the page. You will instantly have a permanent URL for your page. Please note, this method only saves a single page, not the whole site.

We want to keep outlinks and screenshots wherever possible. The Archive does not keep your IP address, so your submission is anonymous.

2. Browser extensions and add-ons

Install the Wayback Machine Chrome extension in your browser. Go to a page you want to archive, click the icon in your toolbar, and select Save Page Now. We will save the page and give you a permanent URL.

One plus to installing the extension is that as you surf around, when you run into a missing page they will alert you if we have a saved copy.

More extensions, apps, and add-ons:

Firefox add-on

Safari Extension

iOS app

Android app

I strongly encourage you to use these tools even if you aren’t helping with this project/after it ends. Documenting and preserving information is essential in this day and age & The Internet Archive is at the heart of it. Please support them however you can.

I’m serious about paying you, though I may need more communication with folks I don’t know so we can coordinate/verify shit gets done. I think this is a worthwhile pursuit in itself but I recognize your time is valuable & like, people gotta eat. DM me if you’re interested and we’ll talk. I may need to adjust pay depending how many people bite but I’ll do what I can

[birindale]

Hi I just wanted to double check something I am pretty sure I read on this blog. Is the origin of C'yra of D'riluth iii from the original cannon or was it a later addition? Also what does "of D'riluth iii" actually mean? I remember there being some vagueness to what it means

Okay there's a long version and a short version of this story.

Short version: It was a later addition. In 2008 Mattel launched a toy line called Masters of the Universe Classics, which could only be ordered through their website and was aimed at the collector market. One of the things they did was include "character bios" in a sort of homage to the G.I. Joe toys of the 80s, which featured 'personnel files' that gave specializations and a brief character history, including their real names (e.g. Duke was actually named Conrad S. Hauser).

Catra's figure was released in 2011 for about $65 USD. Her bio (which I've lifted from a Poe Ghostal review) is as follows:

We (I, and my friends whom I've pestered for opinions) are pretty sure D'Riluth III is the name of her planet, even though another planet in the same solar system (from the New Adventures of He-Man in the 90s) has the Arabic numeral 7, so including Roman numerals is a strange choice.

Long version: There was a fellow working for Mattel at the time named Scott "Toyguru" Neitlich, and he was (and remains to this day) exceptionally bad at things like 'writing' and 'creativity'. He was never very interested in She-Ra, though he loves to tell the story of stealing his sister's doll one year, so to him Catra is simply an agent of the Horde... which, in order to adhere to the 2002-2003 tv show, was now 5,000 years old. This bio directly contradicts the Filmation canon of Catra's mask having belonged to the Magicat queen, for instance, and introduces a number of confusing details.

One of the least popular was Adora being Hordak's "step-daughter" instead of his "adopted daughter", which was already kind of a gray area since he didn't exactly raise her. Scott digging in his heels on the matter was actually how I learned he'd written the thing in the first place:

Now you may be wondering, jeez, it's pretty confusing and the writing isn't great but aren't you being kind of harsh? Surely the push-back from the He-Fans was bad enough. Well give me a minute, dang. This is the long version!

I reached out to him about a year and half ago to ask 1. How it's pronounced, 2. If he could confirm that D'Riluth III is the planet, and 3. If he remembered how he came up with it. He told me the following:

Some backstory here--Scott runs a bit of a one-man content farm, in an effort to avoid paying hosting fees for advertisements or actually engaging in SEO. He is a marketing consultant.

He used to upload a 5-10 minute video every day, but shortly after I contacted him that dropped to only five a week, and his weekly "Director's Commentary" videos about MOTUC figures that he worked on (largely just explaining who the character even is in an unedited stream of consciousness, as his videos became slideshows of google images) moved to bi-weekly.

I was like, okay, he left Mattel in 2014 right? So surely once he's through that year he'll get to this new series.

Nope! He's doing 2015 too! So I reached out again in January, just to like. See if he was still intending to cover the 'real names', which imo should have been part of his commentary to begin with, but...

He had forgotten <3 I explained no, I was asking about these specific questions that I had outlined in my first email (I had replied to his last message in the chain for simplicity's sake), and he just said he'd be doing it soon. So I was like oh, cool, do you know if you'll be doing one a week still? since that would put a Catra video about 4 years out as he does them in release order, and he then promised he'd get to it soon and didn't answer the question.

Annoying, certainly, but whatever. Unless one of us dies horribly I can wait it out, right?

WRONG.

Scott, being an idiot, has not credited a single one of the images he lifted from google over his four years of mostly-daily slideshows. And recently, somebody fucking noticed!

So this guy--Ethan Wilson, a very talented toy photographer and reviewer--was informed that Scott (in his capacity as Spector Creative, the name of his YouTube channel/consulting business) had been using his pictures in videos. Actually, let me use Ethan's own words here:

I decided to dig a little deeper into Spector’s channel, and found 81 instances of my photos being used in 68 of the channels videos.  None of these featured credit to me for use of the photos, and 48 of the 81 instances removed or obstructed my watermarks.

-About This Spector Creative Thing

I very strongly encourage you to read through this linked post, as it gets worse! Somehow!!

Scott, not noticing these as they came in over the course of 10 days, logged in to discover his channel had been taken down. He emailed Ethan in something of a panic to ask that Ethan reverse the claims as a 'professional favor', as Scott got all his clients through his channel's "advertising".

Now you're never gonna believe this... but when he and Ethan came to an understanding, suddenly Scott didn't give a shit.

He released a libelous video claiming Ethan had no rights to the images (he does) and that Scott could use them all he wanted because of Fair Use (he can't) and emailed Ethan the following.

First of all: this is bullshit. Copyright is automatic in the US, trademark wouldn't apply regardless, and as Scott should fucking know by now Ethan doesn't have a 'channel', he has a blog.

Second, he shot himself in the foot with the Fair Use defense by outright stating that his channel is his exclusive advertisement for his business and that he depends on his content to make a living. He said in his first video that it was "educational" 🙄

So Ethan realized Scott was a Fucking Liar and decided he should just copyright claim the rest of Scott's shit, in order to protect his images and rights thereto. YouTube can't take the channel down again unless Ethan is willing to pursue legal action--which he isn't, because he has a full time job and two kids and even though he'd probably win, it's a lot of time and energy.

I and a few others were trying to convince him that it would be worth it anyway, and looking into identifying and contacting the other artists Scott's stolen from over the years, when... Scott released a book. His first-ever graphic novel [looks into the camera like i'm on the office]

drawn entirely by AI.

So we have a frankenstein's monster of copyright infringement masquerading as illustrations (with all the uncanny valley that implies), Scott's technically and practically terrible writing, and the plot is Greek mythology. There are four and a half typos just in the free sample, and that's not including the words in images like his map or logo. He claims the title is a registered trademark but it certainly isn't registered in his state, or federally, and it's already in use by several other brands, so I wouldn't believe him even if he hadn't demonstrated a lack of understanding of copyright & trademark as recently as last week.

So I'm kinda fucking done waiting for answers! I can't trust a thing out of this guy's mouth! And he's pretty stupid, so do I even care what he thinks? I have decided that no. No I do not. I'll check back in 2028 and if he's survived + actually followed through then maybe I'll give his video a watch but until then it is simply pissing me off to remember this guy exists.

Sorry this turned into a rant I'm just really starting to loathe the guy. It's been an infuriating week or two. But uh... No, it's only canon to this one action figure line that ran for a little over a decade. We're certainly not beholden to it, it's more of a fun little in-joke for the fandom these days. You see someone use C'yra and you're like haha I know her! It's fun :3 Regardless of Scott's bullshit I enjoy seeing it around, and it's not like he owns or benefits from it in any way when maybe 1% of the people using it know where it comes from (and the people who know it was him specifically may be limited to the followers that have watched me complain about it).

Thank you for asking, I really do love asks even if the answer isn't what I want it to be lol. I'm happy to verify or explain anything I can!

[ozilanddesign]

Crochet Macaroni the rat toy Pattern: @ozilanddesign #remy #rat #mousetoy #mouse #toymaker #toyforkids #toyguru #ratatouille #toy#ratatouilletoy #amigurumi #craftastherapy #crochetaddict #crochetpattern #dropsfan #ooakdoll #toyshop #safetytoy #ganchillo #giftideas #diy #diytoy #diycrafts #diydecor #art #toyforsale #toys4sale #hendmade #häkeln #hekle (at Vilnius, Lithuania) https://www.instagram.com/p/BvtYRTRBb65/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=1gcfxuavwt2nf

[o-haw-clan]

‘Twas all the Mighty Spector . Hundo Rando: The Final Countdown, 10, Episode 91, Volume 1, 2022 . . #hundorando #themightyspector #toyguru #motuclassics #mastersoftheuniverseclassics #heman #fourhorsementoydesign #mastersoftheuniverse #motu #actionfigurephotography #acba #acbaglobal #toyartistry #toyphotography #actionfiguresasart #ohawclan #acemarkenphotography #acemarken #thefinalcountdown https://www.instagram.com/p/CklHMmPueku/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

[dillen-danger]

Ok... Soo here is something Very different from my usual posts. I was at @fivepointsfest last weekend and picked this up at a vendor that had a bunch of #kaiju and #robot toys, both #bootleg and legit. Now I LOVE bootleg toys so I grabbed this guy and asked if he had anymore #Transformer #knockOffs, he then replies that's not a knockoff. I was amazed. . That's pretty much all I know about this #leoConvoy / #LeoPrime figure. . Articulation is what you expect from the Lil guy, Not a lot. . But look at how cute and goofy he is. . I am Soo happy I stumbled across this guy but am sad I didn't get the vendor's card so I could give him a shout out. . If any of you #ToyGurus out there have any info or stories of your own with this figure I would love to hear from you :D . . #morethanmeetstheeye #takaratomy #chunkyboy #autobots #autobotsrollout #transformers #hasbro #HasbroToys #ko #3rdparty #3rdpartytransformers #robot #plasticrobots #toy #actionfigures #actionfigurephotography #toyphotography #marvel #semitruck #convoy #deskbot #toycollector #beastwars #beastformers #leo #beast (at Prospect Heights, Brooklyn) https://www.instagram.com/p/ByWj-FUAt3j/?igshid=19nlxmf7hixo8

[actionfigureinsider]

Super Rare @Mattel Toys from #ToyGuru 's Collection Part 1 - DC Comics

Super Rare @Mattel Toys from #ToyGuru ‘s Collection Part 1 – DC Comics

Our old friend Scott “ToyGuru” Neitlich has started vlogging of late and posting some interesting stuff.  In this first video Scott takes us on a tour of some of his unreleased and employee exclusive figures from some of the various DC Comics action figure lines that he worked on:

  I’ve had the opportunity to see most of these in person and it’s always a kick to see what might have been. Thank…

[3dkitbash]

New blog post up at #3DKitbash.com! Features #3DPrinted work and mods by #ClumsyBlasters! #3dprint #3dprinted #3dprinting #3dmodeling #Afinia #bjd #ToyDesign #ToyGuru @clumsyblasterspix (at 3DKitbash.com HQ)

[doomkick]

The best Christmas present a Star Wars Black collector who turned his back on MOTUC could get! #toyguru #nothasbro for Jakks to offer him enough to leave Mattel he must not have been paid very well #indenturedservant ? #workingforhemantoys ?

[harbingermine]

TBT - Me, the Mighty Spector & Scott Neitlich at the Mattycollector booth, 2nd annual Power-Con

[clarenecessities]

why toyguru's an idiot pt. 2

Okay, let's try this again. This is the second part of my little breakdown of the situation, and I'm actually going to lead with a video I reference midway through bc like... well, it's a good video. No sense burying it under a readmore. It's about 40 minutes, but it's got very concrete examples of just how much copyright infringement we've all been committing like, daily.

This is the part where I addressed some of the arguments I saw while picking fights in YouTube comment sections, like a well-adjusted adult does. Mostly the common ones, but a few special exceptions. Looking at this now I think I may have been a little too vague in some of my answers, but Part Three is shaping up to be a fucking doozy so I guess that'll be remedied eventually.

Alright, before I get into the YouTube Comments Arguments section I wanna go over a couple other things I found that I (still not a lawyer) think show precedent for Scott's use being infringement rather than fair use. Haven't looked into too many individual cases yet, but I've been flipping through Title 17 and I've found a few interesting caveats which may or may not be supported by the cases I haven't gotten around to reading yet (guess we'll see). Let's start with Brammer v. Violent Hues Productions, LLC No. 18-1763 (4th Cir. Apr. 26, 2019). A film festival, Violent Hues, used a photograph by Russell Brammer which showed the Adams Morgan neighborhood in DC. Brammer reached out to ask for compensation, and while Violent Hues removed the infringing content from their website, they refused to compensate the plaintiff.

The court found the first factor, the purpose and character of the use, weighed against fair use because the use was not transformative. Unlike technological or documentary uses that involve contextual change, Violent Hues used the photograph precisely for its content, that is, to depict Adams Morgan. Although Violent Hues claimed that its use provided film festival attendees with “information” regarding Adams Morgan, this use “would not be hindered if it had to comply with Brammer’s copyright.” Further, using the photograph to illustrate a website promoting a for-profit festival without paying for a license was commercial use. In addition, because the defendant, at best, acted negligently, the panel rejected the district court’s finding that Violent Hues’ use was in “good faith.” - Copyright Office Index's summary of the case

Scott's use of Ethan's (and, remember, others') images, as I outlined in my first post, is not transformative in any way. While he may be offering commentary, it is not on the photographs themselves, and the purpose of the pictures he uses is the same as the photographers' (at least in Ethan's case)—an artistic, clear, and aesthetically pleasing depiction of the figures. As Violent Hues claimed its use of the picture provided "information", Scott's representative claimed that the "images used are instrumental in illustrating these subjects more effectively", which would be a function even less hindered by complying with copyright. In a parallel to Brammer v. Violent Hues, the pictures were instead being used to illustrate a channel promoting a for-profit company. I concur with the court's finding that negligence is incompatible with good faith, because the only 'good faith' argument to be made is directly laid out in 17 U.S.C. § 504(2) (bear with me), and Scott did not have reasonable cause to believe that his usage was protected. He made assumptions, didn't question them, and then told his subscribers he was totally protected, like a ninny. Further,

[...] the court concluded that “the copying here fails the ‘ultimate test’ of fair use: Violent Hues’ online display of Brammer’s photo does not serve the interest of copyright law.” Indeed, while some content “sharing” online may be fair, “If the ordinary commercial use of stock photography constituted fair use, professional photographers would have little financial incentive to produce their work.” - still the Copyright Office IndexWhich is a heck of a mic drop, if you ask me, but I'd like to return briefly to Scott's unreasonable belief in his protected usage. See, 17 U.S.C. § 504(2) imposes limits on the penalties of such infringement, specifically that if an "infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright" then they pay less per infringement. So should Scott be aware, or have reason to believe that his acts constituted copyright infringement?

I'd argue that any reasonable person, when accused of a crime—especially a malum prohibitum situation, where there may be statutes you're unfamiliar with—would and should look inwards and say, "wait, I'm innocent, right?" and then try to prove it. Scott's not a 'lay down and die' kind of dude, he's been fighting these accusations the whole time, often to his own detriment, but did he actually do any research? He clearly googled "Fair Use Doctrine", if his little "YOUTUBERS BEWARE!" video is any indication, but frankly I don't believe he made any effort to understand Fair Use beyond, at most, seeing 'education' in there and seizing upon it as his excuse retroactively. There are oodles and oodles of articles, videos, essays, so much out there breaking it down into easily digestible formats that Scott either didn't consume or didn't comprehend, and certainly didn't have anyone explain to him. Actually, a brief aside—I found a pretty solid YouTube video breaking Fair Use down that I recommend to anybody who prefers videos to text. Its information on YouTube's strike system and the CASE act are slightly out of date, as it was published about 4 years ago, but it's examples of Fair Use are spot on [[refer to beginning of post or click here]]

I mean heck, in his latest counterclaim he explicitly refers to 17 U.S. Code § 107. Or, sorry, to "applicable provisions of the DMCA, including the Fair Use Doctrine under Section 107 of the Copyright Act", never mind that the DMCA doesn't even amend § 107. But this, beyond his earlier references to the 'fair use doctrine', proves he has direct knowledge of § 107's text, and should therefore know his argument for its application is flimsier than a house of cards. He has, once again, shot his own argument in the foot, and 17 U.S.C. § 504(2) doesn't play around. But he wants to talk about provisions of the DMCA? Let's talk about provisions of the DMCA. Now, while flipping through 17 U.S.C. I stumbled upon (okay, sought out) 17 U.S. Code § 1202(b)(1), which covers the removal or alteration of "Copyright Management Information" (hereafter CMI) that can be used to identify the copyright holder. It's kinda poorly defined, but 17 U.S. Code § 1202(c)(7) includes under the definition of CMI "Identifying numbers or symbols referring to such information or links to such information." which I think applies pretty indisputably to watermarks, but as I've said (and will keep saying so that nobody gets complacent), I'm not a lawyer. I'm just a vindictive little nerd with internet access and a love of research. I don't actually know that this would be admissible before the CCB, despite being part of Title 17, but statutory damages for §1202 violations are $2,500-$250,000 per violation. So with 48 removed/obscured watermarks just as of Ethan's initial blog post, that's $120,000 minimum, more than 4 times the max damages allowed by the CCB (which is capped at 30k). 17 U.S.C. § 504(2), which I mentioned above, provides that any infringement is subject to $750-$30,000 per instance, and if willful infringement is found it bumps the max up to $150,000 per instance. So if we once again limit it to Ethan's initial findings (81 of his photos), that's an additional $60,750-$12,150,000. Twelve million dollars, dude. Now I don't think any judge in their right mind would award that, or frankly that Ethan would seek that much in the first place, but when I say Ethan could come down on Scott a lot harder I fuckin' mean it. Scott is out here complaining that he's being blackmailed and harassed? It could be so much worse for him. And you know what? I think that's a good point to segue into the arguments I saw out in the YouTube trenches, and why I think those arguments are weak and/or dumb. ARGUMENT:Ethan is being petty. How could you take someone's YouTube channel over some pictures of toys? COUNTERARGUMENT: I'm being petty. Ethan is protecting his copyright. Nobody seems to appreciate that a valid copyright claim is a courtesy, a notice to the infringing party that they're violating copyright law. It's more like a cease and desist than the death sentence people seem to believe it to be. Let's take a moment to define some terms. Per YouTube Help:

A copyright claim refers to either a copyright removal request or a Content ID claim, which are 2 different ways to assert copyright ownership on YouTube. [...] If any copyright owner finds their copyright-protected content on YouTube without their authorization, they can submit a copyright removal request, also known as a "takedown notice" or simply a "takedown". It is a legal request to remove content from YouTube due to alleged copyright infringement. [...] When your content is removed due to a copyright removal request, a copyright strike is applied to your channel.

This ties into another argument, "Submitting three strikes at a time is a dick move" or something to that effect. Ethan, as a copyright owner, cannot apply a strike. All he can do is submit a claim. If ContentID finds a match to its database, it's a strike. If the accused does not contest the claim, it's a strike. Strikes expire after 90 days, and after your first one you have to complete a little training course on copyright, which I assume Scott did after his first strike for using copyrighted music, but I guess that didn't stick. You get three strikes, and then, you're out. This comes with an important caveat:

If your channel is part of the YouTube Partner Program, you're eligible for a 7 day courtesy period. After 3 copyright strikes, you'll have 7 additional days to act before your channel is disabled. During this period, your copyright strikes won’t expire and you can't upload new videos. Your channel will remain live and you can access it to seek a resolution for your strikes. If you submit a counter notification, your channel won't be disabled while the counter notification is unresolved. If the counter notification is resolved in your favor, or the claim is retracted, your channel won't be impacted.

The reason Scott's channel was initially deleted is because he failed to log into his YouTube account for (at least) ten days to dispute the claims. After it was returned to him, he tried to wriggle out of changing anything & jumped on the defamation train, so Ethan filed more claims, we entered the purgatorial 'courtesy period', and we've stayed there to this day.

ARGUMENT: YouTube dismissed 101 claims as invalid, so there was no infringement. COUNTERARGUMENT: That is very obviously not how any of this works. YouTube is not a court of law, does not have lawyers reviewing each individual copyright claim, and has always been extremely up front about these facts. Here's another place Scott has shot his ability to plead ignorance in the foot. In one of his community posts, he said, "I and my attorney firmly believe all of my videos are protected by Section 512(g)". That is, and I can't stress this enough, the section which allows YouTube to take his content down without liability. He keeps saying YouTube has a "guilty until proven innocent" policy, but they're acting pursuant to the section which he cites. YouTube is subject to the provisions of the DMCA, right? So what does that mean? Essentially, so long as YouTube complies with the DMCA's rules, they're in a "safe harbor" where they cannot be held liable for the activity of their users. If some guy uploads the entire Disney catalog one day, YouTube can't be sued for copyright infringement, because they've provided a method for copyright holders to issue immediate takedowns, a sort of stopgap to allow holders time to bring court proceedings against infringing parties. Furthermore, there was a little case (well, a series of cases merged into one Big case) called Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc. which precipitated the development of ContentID. By adding their copyrighted material to the ContentID database, copyright holders can protect against the unauthorized upload of their material. The catch, of course, is that ContentID is primarily for catching infringing videos and songs, and does very little to protect against small-time infringements like lifting photos off the internet for your YouTube videos. YouTube found no copyright infringement because ContentID doesn't have all of Ethan's photos uploaded. Why would it? Literally why would it. But Scott seems to be under the impression that YouTube manually reviewed these claims, or would ever in a million years accept liability for declaring something infringement or not. Or at least, so he'd have us believe. All you have to do to defeat a copyright claim/avoid a strike is swear under penalty of perjury that there was a mistake or misidentification. That's it. That's all. And Scott, believing there was a mistake and that his work was totally fair use, so swore. So YouTube accepted the counterclaims, and told Ethan if he wanted the content taken down again, he'd need to take it to court. It's not a judgment by YouTube, and it in no way exonerates Scott. ARGUMENT: Ethan doesn't even own the copyright for these photos. They're protected IPs, they belong to (Company)! COUNTERARGUMENT: This is probably the most common argument I saw, which Scott didn't help by repeating ad nauseam. Someone called it "the same as NFTs" which… astounds me on multiple levels. Somebody else said "A copyright is a piece of paper giving someone ownership over an intangible through government offices." which is both really specific and really wrong. There isn't necessarily a piece of paper, and the copyrighted work doesn't have to be intangible. Like dude, what? If I do an oil painting, you're telling me I can't copyright it because it exists in the physical plane? Yeesh. But hey, enough kicking around. Let's take a trip to the third edition of the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, which is the "governing administrative manual for registration and recordations issued by the U.S. Copyright Office on or after" January 28th, 2021. (Please believe me when I say you want me to use the short form citation on the quotes from this).

As with all copyrighted works, a photograph must have a sufficient amount of creative expression to be eligible for registration. The creativity in a photograph may include the photographer’s artistic choices in creating the image, such as the selection of the subject matter, the lighting, any positioning of subjects, the selection of camera lens, the placement of the camera, the angle of the image, and the timing of the image. Example: The Office receives ten applications, one from each member of a local photography club. All of the photographs depict the Washington Monument and all of them were taken on the same afternoon. Although some of the photographs are remarkably similar in perspective, the registration specialist will register all of the claims, because each photographer selected the angle and positioning of his or her photograph, among other creative choices. - Compendium (Third) § 909.1

Compendium (Third) § 909.2 goes on to clarify that the subject matter of the photograph need not be copyrightable itself, although more in the sense of 'you can't copyright a mountain, but you can copyright your picture of it'. And it stands to reason, doesn't it? A photographer owns the photos they take and develop, not the subject matter, so only the usage has the potential to infringe copyright, barring extenuating circumstances.

The only area where this gets thorny is in the commercialization of photographs. Let's consider Gaylord v. United States, 595 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2010), concerning the Post Office turning a photo of a copyrighted Korean War monument into a stamp. They altered the colors and added snow, but the court found it insufficiently transformative to outweigh the commercial gain (over $17 million dollars) and the fact that the sculpture and stamp served a common purpose: honoring Korean War veterans. On the other hand, there's Mattel Inc. v. Walking Mountain Prods., 353 F.3d 792 (9th Cir. 2003), which was about toy photography specifically (we know her!). The defendant, Thomas Forsythe, took a bunch of pictures of (generally nude) barbies in compromising positions with kitchen appliances and food, as a commentary on society's objectification of women. He sold prints, and publicly displayed the works in galleries and a few shows—ultimately he made $3,659 (though Mattel investigators comprised half of his total sales) off the series.

The "purpose and character of use" factor in the fair use inquiry asks "to what extent the new work is transformative" and does not simply "supplant" the original work and whether the work's purpose was for- or not-for-profit. Campbell, 510 U.S. at 579, 584, 114 S.Ct. 1164. A work must add "something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message." Id. at 579, 114 S.Ct. 1164. [...] In assessing whether Forsythe's photographs parody Barbie, Mattel urges us to ignore context — both the social context of Forsythe's work and the actual context in which Mattel's copyrighted works are placed in Forsythe's photographs. However, "In parody, as in news reporting, context is everything." Id. at 588, 114 S.Ct. 1164 (citations omitted). We conclude that Forsythe's work may reasonably be perceived as a parody of Barbie.

Which is to say, so long as your use is Fair Use, you can take pictures of copyrighted and trademarked IP.

And, as you may recall, Ethan's pictures are part of his reviews. So even if we were to suppose that (Toy Company)'s copyright superseded Ethan's as the photographer, and his works were ruled insufficiently transformative (which would be very difficult to prove without contradicting decades of law and centuries of common-law), there's a precedent for findings of Fair Use in such cases, even against giants like Mattel. Trademark is a stronger disincentive for the sale of toy photographs, but so long as you aren't attempting to benefit financially from an association with the trademark holder or their product, you're probably fine. I don't have citations for this bit because I haven't done any research into trademark law beyond the Wikipedia page, 'cause it doesn't really feel applicable to any of this, and it's a stupid argument for other reasons. ARGUMENT: Retroblasting is behind this!/Ethan must be a fan of Retroblasting! COUNTERARGUMENT: So many people blamed this on Retroblasting, a guy I'd never heard of, that I actually looked him up and watched his video on Scott. Wasn't crazy about it, myself. Didn't do much to materially support his claims and (sorry) he's got a terrible reading voice. I have no idea why so many folks seem so convinced that he orchestrated this somehow, let alone how he would have done so. By messaging Ethan and telling him "Hey, Toyguru stole your pictures"? Ethan says it was a real life friend that tipped him off, and I believe it, but why does it even matter? The point is that Scott stole his pictures. I'm still considering hitting up some of the other folks he's stolen from, as a professional courtesy. Are they gonna claim I'm an agent of Retroblasting? Is the Copyright Office itself an agent of Retroblasting, for writing and managing copyright law in the first place? Nobody had to orchestrate anything, man. Scott used people's work without credit or permission, and while he got away with it for a long time, he could hardly do it forever. ARGUMENT (direct quote): just because it originated from his website doesn't mean it as his copyright violated. I informed Scott on multiple occasions he was in violation of The LEGO Group's Fair Use Policy by displaying his logo on a minifig. See below:

We can't allow the use of LEGO copyright materials such as brand names, logos and trademarks like the 2x4 brick or the LEGO minifigure for commercial purposes such as promotional campaigns, marketing and PR. This also applies to items such as building instructions and parts. For more details, see our Fair Play policy.

So, every single video that opened with the pirate ship, displaying the minifig not in the background, but displaying his brand logo prominently. This is a copyright infringement. COUNTERARGUMENT: Uh oh! This one's 100% true! 😬 Perhaps I was too hasty in suggesting he do stop motion with his LEGOsona to avoid further infringement. He couldn't have just used a spadille torso?? They must make those. He made like three toys of himself, why did he go with the LEGOsona? ARGUMENT (direct quote): I know squat about this takedown, but looking at The Figure in Question's site he has his logo on his pics and pretty clearly states that his pics aren't to be used without permission of attribution. Is it really that hard to ask for permission? It's probably less work that cropping the pics to remove Ethan's info. COUNTERARGUMENT: It's definitely less work than cropping the pics to remove Ethan's info. A one-time, "hey man, do you mind if I use your photos in my videos?" could not have gone astray, and including a credit that just links back to FiQ takes about 8 seconds. I timed myself doing it just now, it is precisely 8 seconds. Now. To wrap up I'd like to address a few things Scott himself said that weren't part of a specific argument but were materially incorrect enough that I think they merit correction.

"There is also a thing called the doctrine of fair use, which is why none of the claims made by it--by this particular person were found to be in violation by YouTube's standards. Fair use is what allows YouTube creators to do things like this [plays copyrighted clip from Austin powers without commentary] or like this [shows a screenshot of Fox News, including photos] I just took a snapshot from a news site this morning, like literally just whatever was on the top. You can do that! It's called fair use, you're allowed to show images from online and videos, as long as it is within the fair use doctrine." -Scott in his "YOUTUBERS BEWARE!" video

Those examples aren't even kind of within the fair use doctrine <3 hope this helps In one of his community posts:

Once again Ethan Wilson from figureinquestion.com has put false copyright strikes against my channel. All images I use are approved by the Fair Use Doctrine and the Digital Millennium Act and my videos are all educational in nature. I have had 101/104 of his false claims dismissed so far because it is all in legal fair use, but the final 3 are still "undecided/under review" which is what is keeping me from posting new videos.

As I've said, the fair use doctrine can't "approve" anything. The DMCA—wait, he forgot the 'Copyright'. The "DMA" cannot "approve" anything. His videos' educational quality is, at best, subjective, and as we addressed above YouTube's dismissal of claims was simply because he submitted a counterclaim in the first place, not because it was all "in legal fair use". Here's another community post:

To Ethan Wilson who has put 104 claims against my channel for copyright infringement, please know I never intentionally used any of your images. If your images were used inadvertently, it is only because they were nice images I liked with no idea they could potentially be yours.

You can't accidentally upload a picture to a video program. Like sure, maybe you grabbed it while dragging a bunch of pictures, but that means you failed in your duty as a videographer to ensure you had the rights to all images, and you applied effects/transitions. The images were absolutely used intentionally, and their quality—far from the compressed thumbnails displayed on Google Images—indicates that he downloaded them directly from the source: Ethan's blog. He could perhaps claim he downloaded them from someone else that had already appropriated Ethan's work, but A. you can track that kinda thing on someone's hardware, so it wouldn't hold up in court, and B. that would just demonstrate further negligence! What part of 'watermark' does he not understand?

All of this work will now be erased forever in a few hours because I may or may not have inadvertently used an image you believe is your copyright. [...] All you need to do is ask and I will gladly edit out the 5 seconds of my video you have a legal copyright to with documentation.

Scott does this thing where he like… okay, look at his language here. "May or may not", "inadvertently", "an image you believe is your copyright". It's like he read a blurb about the passive voice and only retained 30% of it. He writes like a marketing agent and it makes my skin crawl. "All you need to do is ask" and then shoehorning in "[that] you have a legal copyright to" and "with documentation" to make himself seem so reasonable and like he just needs one little thing. Bah. There's no legal argument associated with this part, it just irritates me. If you're gonna lie to my face, at least do it well.

Finally, please note that while this channel is for educational and humor purposes, 80% of my consultant clients have come from them finding one of my videos and then reaching out to my via SpectorCreative.com for my consulting business. Without my channel I will lose out on my main source of marketing for my company and my living. Losing this channel will be like losing 80% of my income all due to three videos with a still image nd my narration that lasts less than 10 seconds on screen.

Back to factual stuff. He's contradicted his later representation's message, that his channel is strictly educational ("humor" isn't covered under fair use) and further underlined his financial dependence on the use of others' work. In conclusion: Scott's really bad at pretending to be smart, and maybe people in YouTube comment sections aren't the ideal of the advocatus diaboli I had hoped for. It turns out mostly they're kinda dumb. Darn.

[clarenecessities]

Toyguru’s channel got suspended because he stole a bunch of images and got 91 consecutive copyright strikes <3

The follies of content farming eh Scott? Maybe you should focus on quality over quantity for a while. answer my riddles three perhaps

[clarenecessities]

why toyguru's an idiot pt. 1

and i mean, any lawyers feel free to weigh in on this, 'twas the work of an afternoon and a few spats in YouTube comment sections. transposing it here from a he-man forum bc i wanted to break shit down in an easier-to-digest format. there'll be a few supplementary arguments addressed in a later post, i'm just getting all my ducks in a row for efficiency's sake first. backstory to the situation (through me) is here and you can read ethan's post here. yes i capitalize Fair Use all the time, i mostly managed to type like a normal person but i'm never gonna be 100% Normal okay

Glossary

Copyright Infringement: "As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner." - copyright.gov

Defamation: Any communication to a third party which may injure someone's reputation. There are certain exceptions which are protected—'mere vulgar abuse', for example, so insults are still A-okay. Typically, a defamation suit must prove that actual injury was done to the plaintiff, e.g. losing sales, somebody egged your house, that kind of thing, but defamation per se ('in itself') waives that for certain kinds of statements. Such as accusing someone of a crime, say, blackmail or harassment. Truth is an absolute defense for defamation: If you can prove it's true, it's not defamation, even if it injures that person's reputation. 

Libel: If the defamation is published/written down, it's libel. This includes publishing things on the internet. 

Bad Faith: While Good Faith is well-defined in law (the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealings, which governs all contract law), there's no consensus on Bad Faith. It's generally understood to mean ill will, dishonesty, deception—especially in order to gain an advantage. A good example is "surface bargaining" in organized labor, where one party goes through the motions of negotiation but has no intention of compromise.  

Fair Use: The doctrine of Fair Use is an exception to standard copyright law, which provides for the use of copyrighted material under certain circumstances. Typically, it's what you cite when you've been brought to court for copyright infringement if you admit to the infringement (an affirmative defense), basically saying "Yes, okay, I did it, BUT here's why I think it doesn't matter." Officially it's no longer an affirmative defense, since (when correctly applied) Fair Use isn't copyright infringement, but—well. Its application is subjective. 

Which brings us out of the glossary and into the meat of the matter. 

Did Scott commit copyright infringement or was it fair use?

First, let's establish that yes, Ethan owns the copyright to his photos. In the US, copyright of photographs is granted from the moment of fixation. One may choose to register their photos with the Copyright Office, but it is not required unless they intend to bring alleged copyright infringement to court. There is a bulk rate that comes out to about 7¢ a photo, but it's a long and tedious process which is genuinely unnecessary without prospective court proceedings. Should Ethan and/or other artists whose work Scott has appropriated choose to pursue legal action, it's the method I'd recommend for registration with the Copyright Office, but again, not necessary. 

Now then. Ethan's photographs (and indeed, the photographs of many other artists) were undeniably reproduced, publicly displayed, and made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright holder. So, if it wasn't Fair Use, Scott (to use the legal jargon) super duper infringed that shit. 

Let's take a look at Fair Use!

Title 17 of the United States Code (hereafter 17 U.S.C.) outlines copyright law in the US. Scott's 'representation' mentioned "the Copyright Act" because (well, I assume because) the Copyright Act of 1976, specifically, was the codification of Fair Use. We're concerned with section (§) 107:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

So, point by point—actually before we get to the determination factors, let's take a look at Scott's counterclaims (Ignoring the parts asserting that Ethan doesn't own his own photos, because nuh-uh):

"[...] this video is 100% Educational in nature and is eligible to use still images of consumer products as examples in a documentary as fair use."

Alright, first, a documentary is just a (typically) nonfictional film/movie composed of interviews, on-site footage, and reenactments. It's not someone talking over a slideshow. Even if Scott's work were a documentary, documentaries are not automatically protected by Fair Use. Just because there are pragmatic connotations of documentaries being educational, that doesn't change their semantic definition. Do you remember at the beginning of the pandemic when everyone was really into Tiger King? And then it turned out they lied and fabricated a bunch of stuff? Tiger King is a documentary. 

Second. Please note that by calling it "a still image of a consumer product", in addition to dismissing Ethan's copyright a little more obliquely than usual, Scott is still materially wrong about his own rights as a (supposed) videographer. A still image of a consumer product is not, in itself, fair game. I can't just yammer on about, like, my politics or something and have a bunch of Mickey Mouse figurine pictures in the background, Disney would eat me alive. To claim Fair Use, the images must be utilized in one of the manners described by the doctrine. It's not that complicated! It's one paragraph! 

Third, and most significantly: Scott is here claiming that his videos are "100% Educational". So why's all his stuff monetized? Why did he tell Ethan he uses these videos to "feed his family"? Let's segue briefly into 17 U.S.C. § 107(1), which considers if the usage is commercial, or for nonprofit educational purposes. Nonprofit. Perhaps I'm biased, having only ever worked for nonprofits (and my college's gym, which I don't think counts despite never actually turning a profit), but to me nonprofit means any profits made will be invested back into the organization. Spector Creative, LLC is not a nonprofit. Scott Neitlich, the individual, is profiting from these videos. And while he could claim the proceeds were going into future video production, he'd need to demonstrate that through an audit—and like, we've all seen his videos lately. If the proceeds went anywhere, they could go to a camera. Or perhaps, a photography setup so he could take his own 'still images of consumer products'. He simply wouldn't be able to demonstrate that his expenses were business ones. 

Un-segue. Counterclaim narrative 2:

"images are used under fair use doctrine. [...] I depend on this channel as my sole source of clients and am actively losing business due to his unjust and constant harassment."

You can't "use something under" the Fair Use doctrine, you're permitted to do something because of it. This is pedantic of me but whatever, I think we can intuit from all this that I'm a pedantic little freak in general. Anyway. He says he 'depends' on this channel, which he formerly implied contained only educational videos, and it's costing him 'business', which further undercuts his claims that his usage of Ethan's work is educational, and, as his "representation" has now said, that his channel is 'designed to educate, inform, and engage [his] audience on topics that are of significant educational value'. A channel cannot be a source of profit (and by Scott's own account, the SOLE source for referral of clients to generate further profit) and a nonprofit educational venture simultaneously. Actually, let me show you something he said in one of those YouTube comment sections rq, because he is A Fucking Idiot:

So more succinctly, it started out as being for fun (not even for education? I guess education can be pretty fun) before "evolving" into a mechanism for profit. This is also how I learned 'rainmaker' is a business colloquialism and not exclusively a reference to the conmen who would go around during droughts, but that's neither here nor there. Scott's representation also stated (in the same message):

"The images used are instrumental in illustrating these subjects more effectively and are used in a transformative manner that does not infringe upon or substitute the market for the original works."

I definitely prefer dealing with his representation's language, I must say. A coherent argument, if still flimsy, poorly researched, and somewhat disingenuous, is way more fun to disprove. Let's turn our attention back to those factors for consideration, specifically 17 U.S.C. § 107(1) and (2): 

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

Okay, so: We've established that Scott's work is of a commercial nature. Its educational value is dubious, though I suppose that's subjective (frankly all I've learned from him is that Mattel didn't own the copyright to the name Double Trouble when they made her in MOTUC, and I suppose obliquely that he's really fucking bad at picking names), but its use of Ethan's photos is far from 'instrumental'. Scott's use of vaguely-associated images has little to nothing to do with the actual words coming out of his mouth. How many times recently has he used screenshots of dictionary entries? Rather, the images (at least, Ethan's images) are serving their original purpose, showcasing the figures in question (heh) in an artistic composition and expression. Further, the videos I know to have been claimed are absolutely not transformative of the images themselves. I'm going to get technical for a second but bear with me—

Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, Inc., 126 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 1997) found that the inclusion of a poster in the background of a TV shot which held the camera's focus was enough to determine infringement, as the accused had not obtained license from the copyright holder or her agent (the museum that sold the poster which reproduced her work). Because the poster was a deliberate set dressing to establish the location of the shot, and thus being used in its original capacity (as decorative artwork), it was not transformative enough to warrant Fair Use. 

The Supreme Court actually addressed what qualifies something as transformative very recently, in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, 143 S. Ct. 1258 (May 18, 2023), which I recommend reading at least the Wikipedia page for if you want a crash course in where we're at like, as a society regarding transformative use—but I digress. If an Andy Warhol print isn't transformative enough to find non-infringement in a commercial work, surely Scott's unaltered reproduction of copyrighted images isn't either. 

Onto 17 U.S.C. § 107(3)

the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; 

This one is where I take a more subjective approach. The substantiality of the copyrighted work is often referred to as its "heart"; does the infringement take that which makes the copyrighted work unique or valuable? Los Angeles News Service v. KCAL-TV Channel 9, 108 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 1997) is the best example I could find offhand to demonstrate this, and frankly I think the court's finding is relevant, so I'm just going to post an excerpt of the Copyright Office's Index:

"The court found that while defendant’s use of the tape was arguably in the public interest because it was footage of a newsworthy event, the use was still commercial because defendant was in the business of gathering and selling news and competed with other stations for advertising dollars. Additionally, the court found that defendant’s airing of the footage with a voiceover failed to add anything new or transformative, and that although only thirty seconds of a four-minute video were used, it was still the “heart” of the work. Finally, the court found that defendant’s use of the footage could also potentially have a negative impact on plaintiff’s primary market, especially in light of defendant’s initial request to license the work."

So I bring it up because, to me—consumer of reviews—a good picture is a huge draw. It affects my decision to consume a review, because if I see a high quality photo, I know that the reviewer is invested in the process, and therefore more likely to have opinions I'll value. Also, pretty picture yay! Therefore a strong argument could be made that Ethan's photographs constitute the "heart" of his work, even though he also provides review and commentary on the figures. And as the court found above, a voiceover was not new or transformative enough to negate its commercial purpose, despite its purported Fair Use exemption of news reporting, because the competition between news stations for ad revenue provided a financial incentive for the appropriation of copyrighted works. Much like Scott's (monetized) channel is in competition with others, and is representative of his company and its interests, which is an entity in competition with other consultants and consulting firms. Like he didn't name it 'Toyguru', he named it Spector Creative. It's a company channel.

But I think the single most important argument against Fair Use is 17 U.S.C. § 107(4): 

the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

I haven't had the chance to hammer this one into people as much as I'd like to. Weirdly, it never comes up—it seems like Scott's defenders haven't even read 17 U.S.C. § 107, isn't that crazy? Isn't that wild? My time's been better served shooting down the arguments they do make. But these infringements annihilate the potential market. 

Before Scott and Ethan ever spoke, Scott perpetuated the devaluation of Ethan's product, both indirectly by encouraging the uncredited use of artists' work, and directly by, you know, stealing his art. If Ethan were to market himself as a toy photographer, there would be a significantly smaller clientele, because people will think they can just use and profit off of any old picture from Google Images if they can excuse it as "fair use". More egregiously—and this part makes me feel insane— how, in god's name, is anybody supposed to find Ethan to commission him for photographs if Scott erases his watermark like half the time. 

All of the images I've identified from Scott's videos have been because I know how to identify uncited images, and track sources, not because he is promoting their work. I think the only artist I've ever seen him credit is Axel, and that's because it made him seem important and cool and legitimate. Regular people are not going to track down the pictures from a slideshow! If I handed my sister one of Ethan's photos and told her 'find the source for this image', she would stare at me blankly and google 'toy picture'. She might remember that watermarks exist for a reason with some prompting. Failing to mention where you got a picture from in like, a personal blog post, that's inconvenient (and potentially a dick move) but not the end of the world. Not only failing to credit the artists whose work you're using in a commercial context, but removing watermarks, failing to transform or iterate on the work at all? That's copyright infringement. Indisputably. 

Ethan is fortunate enough to have a job outside his work, but if he didn't? If he decided to explore the potential market? He'd have to make his own advertisements, while Scott's company reaped in the profits for Ethan's labor and materials by using his art in their thumbnails without so much as a mention (well, a mention that wasn't accusing Ethan of a federal crime). 

It comes down to Scott no longer producing video content, just audio over slideshows of content he didn't make or even ask permission to use. I won't suggest every creator take video of themselves, bc for a number of reasons I think that'd suck pretty bad, but he could have taken his own photos (presuming he owns the toys he's discussing), or used his LEGOsona, maybe even done some low-effort stop motion with that cutesy little set he built for it. But at the end of the day it was just too much work compared to grabbing other people's pics off the internet. And his behavior towards Ethan has been reprehensible since day one—lying, moving goal posts, libeling him, now trying to intimidate him with an implied lawyer. Guess what! That weighs against Fair Use, too! 

Here's a fun little checklist that's sort of equivalent to a pro/con list for determining Fair Use, just a real basic sniff test. Take a look and see how things shake out for Scott.

[clarenecessities]

Breaking news: local shithead Scott “toyguru” Neitlich, unsatisfied with classical theft, has now graduated to an AI-illustrated graphic novel. And fellas, it looks like shit.

[clarenecessities]

watching the new hbomb video & thinking about content mills again. wondering how aggressive i can be about toyguru when i still want explanations for the c'yra of d'riluth iii shit. like can i just make a list of the .1% of his "director's commentary" videos that are new information? Is a TL;DR plagiarism if you're answering clickbait? i suppose i shall keep watching

[clarenecessities]

7/7/23

okay i keep forgetting things i was planning on doing this weekend until it’s already bed time. im making a to-do list.

post kitten pics

wash car

email toyguru do NOT call him a dumb son of a bitch even if you really really want to

edit that thing for hollis. or uh. ask hollis for link to that thing @hollis-exe hi guess what i lost

fix the tessellation in the wrapping paper from the magazine

maybe the beverly kirby illustrations while you’re at it? at least the bad cropping

clean up those other catra concepts

caption your fucking drafts it’s been months

transcribe podcast

transcribe comic

scan new book

transcribe that

refill meds

maybe look into some stronger meds

[clarenecessities]

6/18/23

it’s just kind of a huge fucking bummer when i’m all excited to learn shit and interact with people who care about motu and they keep dumping on satpop, often unprompted. like it’s been three years since i got into this stuff & i’m just now dipping my toes into the designated satpop boards because i know the general opinion among he-fans has been, shall we say, unfavorable--and it’s worse than i feared! like for a website that won’t let you say pussy they sure don’t shy away from disgusting rhetoric!

like it’s one thing for toyguru to Be An Idiot on his youtube channel, that’s on me for even trying to watch his content--idk man, this is a moderated forum where people are supposed to have genuine/good faith discussions, not complain about how unfuckable the teenagers look. i know i’m in the minority here, i’m not expecting it to be as busy as the he-man threads, but i’d like it to be as respectful at least. poor fucking Tallstar (and god bless Tallstar, fr) was out there carrying like 40% of the threads and just being swamped in miserably commentary from people who hated what they were watching.

i can’t in good conscience tell people to check out the org, because the people i interact with are satpop people first and foremost, and the org is incredibly inhospitable on that front. there’s like 19k members and nobody’s posted in the satpop boards since may 16th. i’m hesitant to post there, and i’ve been here for years. and yeah it sure doesn’t help that the main website has been down since october of 2021, but CHRIST. i know they’re doing shit behind the scenes. i know that. i have to believe that. they wouldn’t have been Entirely Down for 2 months otherwise, right? but all we have is the forums, and those don’t even indicate that SatPOP has ended. it’s just a bummer! it feels like, jesus, you cared about this for like 30 years, what changed now?

they don’t even have the ‘yeah sorry we’re down for maintenance, could be a few weeks/months’ alert up anymore, so anyone following a link to an article or something will just get redirected to the forums with no explanation.

and i still haven’t gotten my upgraded account. idek if it’s legal for them to refund me at this point because it’s been two years but i just want to change my icon. that’s all i fucking want. i’m not going to use my business email for this, i’ve had fucking four since i tried signing up. just let me in. let me in and like, actually hold people accountable for their shit, perhaps?

god. i should have just stuck with the modern shit. there’s no reason to be doing this to myself at this point. it’s nice to interact with historians and people i respect and all but christ, is it worth it? i can’t even tell someone to go fuck themselves. the censors are higher than on neopets yet the things i’ve seen people say are somehow more disgusting than twitter

whatever. fuck you, Lokus. Lokus go to hell challenge. explode x1000