Epic Games facing another lawsuit over Running Man emote in Fortnite - Dexerto
Entertainment

Epic Games facing another lawsuit over Running Man emote in Fortnite

Published: 27/Feb/2019 22:58 Updated: 13/Oct/2020 14:29

by Virginia Glaze

Share


Fortnite developers Epic Games are being sued, yet again – this time, for using the famed ‘Running Man’ dance an in-game emote.

Jaylen Brantley and Jared Nickens, two former basketball players for the University of Maryland, argue that Epic used their dance without permission – and claimed that the company is profiting from African American culture.

“Epic has also consistently sought to exploit African American talent, in particular in Fortnite, by copying their dances and movement,” their suit reads.

Brantley & Nickens v. E… by on Scribd

Brantley and Nickens brought the ‘Running Man’ dance to fame after creating the ‘Running Man Challenge’ in 2016, which later resulted in the two being invited onto the Ellen Show.

However, some dispute arose as to who actually owns rights to the dance, as the challenge was originally incepted by students Kevin Vincent and Jerry Hall, who likewise made an appearance on the Ellen Show.

Brantley himself admitted to gaining inspiration for the challenge from a video, which showed a Jersey native doing the ‘Running Man’ dance – which has also been credited to New Jersey club dances, at large.

This isn’t the first time Epic has been sued for using popular dances as purchasable emotes, either; the company is also facing suits from ‘Fresh Prince’ actor Alfonso Ribeiro, rappers 2 Milly and BlocBoy JB, and even ‘Orange Shirt Kid’ and ‘Backpack Kid,’ to boot.

However, Epic’s response to 2 Milly’s lawsuit could point to their stance on the matter, as their attorney stated that “no one can own a dance step.”

Entertainment

Shroud claims Twitch streamers should “unite” to overturn DMCA rules

Published: 25/Oct/2020 3:59 Updated: 25/Oct/2020 10:34

by Alex Tsiaoussidis

Share


Michael ‘shroud’ Grzesiek has claimed streamers should have taken a “united front” on the new DMCA rules to try and force Twitch to overturn them, and “could have won” if they did, after thousands of streamers deleted their old VODs to avoid being taken down, some dating back nearly a decade.

Twitch has ramped up its efforts in cracking down on streamers using licensed music. Streamers around the world have been rattled and rocked after receiving DMCA takedown notifications, with a massive wave sweeping across the platform on October 20.

It happened because most streamers play music in their streams, which means it’s also included in their library of video clips and VODs.

It’s a controversial issue that has happened in the past, but the latest ‘DMCA Bloodbath’ has been the biggest one yet. Hundreds of partnered streamers have been forced to take down and delete years worth of content, and it’s sparked a lot of outrage from streamers and viewers alike.

Michael ‘shroud’ Grzesiek mulled over the issue in his latest stream, and he came to the conclusion that streamers didn’t play their cards right. He believes they should have taken a “united front” on the issue and “hurt themselves” by not doing it sooner.

Shroud Twitch DMCA Unite
Twitch: shroud
Shroud believes Twitch streamers needed to be on a “united front” to tackle the DMCA crackdown.

The first point shroud made was that, even if streamers obtained a license to skirt around the DMCA issues and play music on their stream, it wouldn’t solve the issue. 

“If I was to get a license to play music on my stream, Twitch would not know,” he said. “Therefore, their Twitch music… algorithm that mutes VODs would still mute my VOD even though… I legally can do it.”

“So even getting a license right now doesn’t matter,” he added. “Because… you’re still going to get cucked.”

Shroud went on to describe the whole situation as “strange” because playing in silence for a moment.  Then, he had another flurry of thoughts, which brought him to his final point that streamers should have been more united.

“If we as streamers took a united front and we didn’t just make rational f**king decisions and just start deleting sh*t, we actually could have won,” he said. “But now we hurt ourselves, so that sucks, but it is what it is. We folded. We’re a bunch of bi*ches.”

Shroud is referring to the fact that practically every streamer has been outraged by the decision. However, they ultimately succumbed to Twitch’s demands and deleted their VODS to avoid potential issues.

Many people will believe his frustration is warranted. But at the same time, nobody can really blame other streamers for adhering to Twitch’s demands. After all, their livelihood depends on it.

The key takeaway, however, is that streamers could take shroud’s opinion on board in the future. If anything, partnered streamers are all pillars in the community. It couldn’t hurt for them to unite on matters when they really have to.

At the end of the day, workers in the ‘real world’ have associations, bodies, and unions to support them. So why should it be any different for streamers?