A CSS Toggle Animation Destroyed MrBeast's Video 😬

-- Today, I'm covering an interesting story involving our industry and YouTube's most popular creator. MrBeast had a recent video copyright struck because they used a CSS day/night toggle animation created by another individual. But the plot thickens, because the design of this animation wasn't even that user's!

The original design by Ramakrishna V:

Tsuriel's animation:

What are your thoughts?

#mrbeast #css #animation

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Subscribe for NEW VIDEOS!

^-Chat with me and others

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Come to my discord server or add me on social media and say Hi!

[DesignCourse]

What are your thoughts after watching the whole video? Justified, not justified?

[mannixmd]

So he took someone's design and just animated it (he even mentioned original creator in the description) and then proceeded to copyright strike mr. beast. He should contact og author and give half of whatever mr beast gave him as compensation tbh.

[melos]

he's not pissed or anything, he just saw an opportunity to get money lol

[RamakrishnaVUX]

Hey folks, I am that so called creator. Feels interesting to watch all this 😃

[falcon]

It isn't even a question of whether he owns it or not, because he clearly just took the oppurtunity to cash out

[envigraphy]

What I actually learned from this is just how garbage Youtube's copyright strike system is

[vladimiranusic]

People make complex software and put it out for world for free. To be pissed about 1-2s animation and file copyright complain is just attention desire IMO.. Not justified..

[thetrends]

Mr Beast probably declined his copyright strike, Mr Beast team is also aware that this is such a common animation, and probably lies under Fair Use. Mr Beast team most likely didn't compensate or took permission from him.

[CheeseWithMold]

I had no idea he didn't even make the thing. I mean, they should've still credited him, but how does he even have the right to copyright strike for this? Seems a bit ridiculous imo.

[shanthabai]

Certainly if anyone has taken from the original design creator Ramakrishna, he should compensate for copying the same, if he has gained any pecuniary nature.

[elod]

If I'm being correct, codepens are MIT license by default

[muntasirhossain]

This is too much as its not his original design 😑

[JedHurricane]

What a greedy move.. It's like taking the nike logo, make it spin. Then claim copyright for it. Absolutely ridiculous

[rafalpotasz]

Bit much. The fact it's not even his design makes this amusing.

[Jiten_dave]

Indeed, our creations often stem from the subconscious, drawing inspiration from existing sources, and rarely existing in complete uniqueness.

[hunterfivestars]

Well sadly it is actually his since he added to the image by animating it so technically by YouTube guidelines it is original piece of artwork.

[meantares]

It’s a difficult call. After all, it was the animation that was used and not the plain illustration. So, Tsuriel does have a point. But, he too needs to credit the creator of the illustration in his work.

[MStrong]

From my limited understanding of the various things that can be protected under USA copyright, it's unfortunately about who files for the idea first. Now I could be totally mistaken and would be interested in how copyright for creatives actually works especially with the advent of AI and that whole can of worms. I'm trying to figure out if it's worth doing stock photography and I know some more traditional artists that would be interested to know how copyright works for that part of the art.

[davidsponseller]

Ultimately who should receive credit for the Day, The night, the sun, moon, sky and the water cycle (clouds)! We are all copying the work of the original creator why should anyone receive the credit as it were the original?

[rdalert]

I believe that it's a bit much to have it copyrighted
but still when someone is going to use other's assets they should be asked if it's okay
it's just common courtesy