The YouTube video "Plagiarism and You(Tube)" discusses the problem of plagiarism in the gaming community and how it can have devastating consequences for content creators. The excerpt covers several cases of plagiarism and its impact, ranging from fired editors to lost YouTube channels and reputations. The video highlights the importance of treating plagiarism seriously and taking steps to prevent it from happening.
Firstly, the video discusses the case of Nintendo's new editor, Philip Mu, who was fired from IGN after it was discovered that he had plagiarized reviews of Dead Cells. IGN conducted an investigation and later confirmed that Mu had been let go. The excerpt also mentions the "My Response Not an Apology" video that Mu made, but his answers were deemed poorly thought out, and he was heavily criticized.
Next, the video discusses the phenomenon of plagiarism in internet videos and its effects on the quality of the content being produced. The excerpt also mentions several examples of copied content, including a significant portion of a script for a Monster Madness video, which was taken directly from an existing source without proper attribution or modification.
Additionally, the video highlights the cases of plagiarism involving Blair Williams and the Food and Drug Administration's lawsuit against Brian Deer for his claims about vaccines. These cases demonstrate how important it is to cite sources and give proper credit to original creators.
The creator of the video also discusses their experience with lazy creators on YouTube who use Wikipedia as a source and quote from other's work as their own, claiming they conducted research themselves. The creator highlights the absurdity of this behavior and the importance of understanding the source material.
Overall, the video emphasizes that plagiarism is an insult to original creators and can have severe consequences for content creators. It is essential to take plagiarism seriously and take steps to prevent it from happening. The video also highlights the importance of diligent journalism in uncovering the truth, as seen in the examples of the MMR controversy and the work of Brian Deer.
00:00:00 In this section, the excerpt begins by briefly introducing Haren Ellison, one of the most famous writers in history. It also mentions Ben Bo, who was editor of Analog magazine and won the Hugo Award for best professional editor six times. Ellison and Bo then thought the idea of a robot cop, as expounded in other fiction, had legs and decided to adapt it into a TV show. The excerpt discusses how Ellison and Bo tried their best to sell the show to different TV companies, but no one was interested. After a few rejections, Terry Keegan of ABC bought the show "Future Cop," which focused on an Android robot police officer. When the excerpt then jumps about four years later, it discusses how Ellison and Bo were eventually successful in getting "Future Cop" canceled due to plagiarism allegations, and sued Terry Keegan for damages. The jury found in favor of Ellison and Bo, awarding them 337,000 in damages, which would be equivalent to around $1.2 million today. In his deposition, Keegan had claimed that he never read the source material, but evidence later proved that he had deliberately plagiarized it, and dozens of memos were burned that proved his guilt.
00:05:00 This section of the transcript describes the incident of YouTuber Philip Mu's plagiarism and subsequent firing from IGN. Philip had been hired as Nintendo's new editor on the IGN YouTube channel and had already published a review of Dead Cells before it was discovered that he had both directly and indirectly copied from other reviews. The discovery led to IGN investigating the situation, and later confirming that Philip had been let go from the company. It is also mentioned that Philip had previously recorded a video titled "My Response Not an Apology" to address the accusations of plagiarism, but his answers were deemed poorly thought out and he was criticized heavily.
00:10:00 In this section, the speaker discusses the problem of plagiarism in the gaming community. The speaker explains that while honest mistakes are easy to explain, dishonest mistakes can leave proof behind. The speaker then cites an example of someone who tried to use language to imply that they did not plagiarize work, when in fact they did. The speaker also discusses how some gamers may use lies or dishonesty to cover up plagiarism, and how this can damage their reputation and lead to harassment and threats. The speaker emphasizes the importance of treating plagiarism seriously and taking steps to prevent it from happening.
00:15:00 In this section of the video, the viewer discusses Philip's apology video and the removal of his YouTube channel. Philip's apology was a humble and honest attempt to make amends, but it did not acknowledge the extent of the damage he caused to his original content. Many of Philip's videos were lost media, meaning they were not archived copies that could be referenced. The video discusses how plagiarism is a common tactic used by content creators to try and hide evidence, and how it can be deeply insulting to those who have their work stolen and credited without permission. The video also discusses why people plagiarize, which can include insecurities about their writing skills and a desire to meet high expectations.
00:20:00 In this section, the speaker discusses the YouTube channel Phishlips Gaming and his early videos. Phishlips started by creating content about the upcoming Nintendo Switch, such as news and reviews of accessories. He later branched out into more egregious audience growth tactics, which included offering giveaways for subscribers. Some of his videos were copied from other successful channels, and he passed them off as his own. The speaker points out that this is not plagiarism, but derivative content. Phishlips did not have the knowledge or skills to create unique content, so he borrowed from successful channels. The speaker also discusses the negativity surrounding Phishlips Gaming, with many people accusing him of plagiarism and being a thief and liar. Despite these accusations, the speaker believes that it is possible to reverse engineer Phishlips' falsehood and arrive at the truth.
00:25:00 In this section, the speaker argues that plagiarism is an insult and that people love to insult their enemies. They also discuss the reaction of others when they were accused of plagiarizing, and how they felt superior to the accuser. The speaker then uses the example of H bombs to illustrate how social elements have been added to theft, and how it affects others' faith in institutions that produce content with poor quality or that is perceived as being stolen. They then talk about their experience with James Rolf's Monster Madness video series, where Screenwave Media came in and altered the editing and production of AVGN videos, turning them into a sponsored content-focused product.
00:30:00 In this section of the transcript excerpt, Wallen from Screenwave is particularly highlighted as the enthusiastic writer who penned 20 of the 31 videos for Monster Madness. However, it was later revealed that the entire script for the first new video, "28 Days Later," was taken directly from an existing script. This was confirmed when a Reddit user, zb123, posted a thread showing that a significant portion of the video's script matched a review in Film Comment magazine. In this instance, plagiarism is clearly evident when a script is lifted from an existing source without proper attribution or modification.
00:35:00 In this section, the video explains how Monster Madness plagiarized material from other sources such as movies, TV shows, and jokes. Several examples of copied content are given, including a Gilbert Gottfried roast, a Jimmy Carr standup joke, a joke from The Angry Video Game Nerd, and even in-character tweets from the TV show Game of Thrones. The video also highlights the dangers of not giving proper credit for the work of others and the importance of originality in creative pursuits. It emphasizes that writing is a valuable skill that requires effort and practice to improve.
00:40:00 In this section, the speaker discusses the phenomenon of plagiarism in internet videos and its effects on the quality of the content being produced. They argue that while larger operations may see monetary benefits from cutting corners and churning out content, it ultimately undermines the authenticity and integrity of the medium. The speaker also takes a critical stance on the exploitation of work in these money-making endeavors and calls for greater attention to be paid to the issue. Additionally, the speaker draws parallels between the MMR controversy and the work of Brian Deer, emphasizing the importance of diligent journalism in uncovering the truth.
00:45:00 In this section of the video, the speaker discusses the plagiarism scandal involving Blair Williams, who used footage from Dewer's documentary in her video and claimed it as her own. It is revealed that Brian Deere and his book were credited for the information presented in the video. It is also noted that the Illuminati video sounded familiar to the speaker as they had recently rewatched Dewer's documentary. The speaker highlights the importance of citing sources and giving proper credit to the original creators when using their work. They also share a rule they follow for quoting other creators, which is that if someone were to watch a clip of their video out of context, it should be possible for them to tell where the quote is from.
00:50:00 In this section, the speaker discusses a case involving the Food and Drug Administration's lawsuit against Brian Deer and his claims about vaccines. The speaker mentions that some of what Deer's claims appear in quotes attributed to the lawsuit, but acknowledges that these quotes were in fact taken from elsewhere, including Brian de's Youtube upload of a documentary. The speaker argues that Deer's use of unlabeled sources and his attempts to create plausible deniability is actually an example of plagiarism. They also mention that Deer frequently plagiarizes, yet rarely cites his sources or acknowledges that they exist in his video.
00:55:00 In this section of the YouTube video titled "Plagiarism and You(Tube)", the creator discusses their experience with lazy creators on YouTube who use Wikipedia as a source and quote from others' work as their own, claiming they conducted research themselves. The creator mentions how obvious it is when someone else's work is being passed off as their own, especially if the individual does not have an understanding of the source material. The creator provides an example of a video they watched on the Bahamas' Fire Festival, which seemed well researched and credible at first but proved to be a combination of quotes and photoshopped footage. The creator highlights the absurdity of quoting documentaries for 30 minutes while pretending to be someone else and using disparaging language towards people who are trying to do better.
The YouTube video titled "Plagiarism and You(Tube)" explores various aspects of plagiarism in the platform's content creation. The speaker first discusses the difference between plagiarism and copyright infringement, and specifically discusses a YouTube video that copied footage and quotes from other sources without proper credit. They also highlight the importance of research and quality in creating content. In the next section, the speaker talks about the rise of content creation on the platform, the incentive for creators to prioritize popularity and profit over originality and authenticity, and the downsides of this approach. The speaker uses specific examples of popular YouTubers and content to illustrate their points.
In a subsequent section, the speaker discusses a situation where a creator accused another YouTuber of stealing her work, which was labeled as false and attributed to the creator's unfavorable attitude towards sharing among creatives. The speaker also talks about how plagiarism can affect appreciation for a work and how it is even more harmful when the author is not credited. Later, the speaker discusses the plagiarism issue surrounding the video "Man in Cave," which was a true historical event that garnered a large following and attracted commercial sponsorships, despite copyright claims by Prosparity Limited. Ultimately, the speaker encourages viewers to recognize the destructive and damaging nature of plagiarism, emphasizing the importance of respecting other people's work and avoiding it altogether.
The video then continues with discussions on the use of copyrighted images and footage, particularly in reaction videos and other copied content. The speaker highlights the rise of plagiarism in the "content mill" of Drama YouTube, where video creators focus on stealing ideas rather than originality. The speaker also talks about the unlisted YouTube video "The Talented Mr. Riley," which was taken down for plagiarism and resulted in confusion for its fans. The speaker emphasizes that plagiarism has significant consequences for both the plagiarizer and the victim, and can have a serious impact on one's reputation and career in various fields.
01:00:00 In this section, the video discusses the difference between plagiarism and copyright infringement. It points out that using someone else's work without credit is still plagiarism, even if it is copyrighted. The video specifically discusses a YouTube video that steals footage and quotes from other sources without giving proper credit. The video also discusses the importance of research and quality in creating content.
01:05:00 In this section of the YouTube video titled "Plagiarism and You(Tube)", the speaker discusses the rise of content creation on the platform,, particularly in the form of reaction videos, video recaps, and other forms of copied content. The speaker also talks about the incentive for content creators to prioritize popularity and profit over originality and authenticity. The speaker points to specific examples of popular YouTubers and content, including Blair's Illuminati channel, who have achieved success by repackaging and selling other people's work as their own. The speaker also discusses the downsides of this approach, including the loss of trust and the risk of legal penalties for copyright infringement.
01:10:00 in this section of a YouTube video, the speaker discusses a situation where a creator accused another YouTuber of stealing her work. They mention that this accusation from the creator was false, as all YouTubers typically learn and share techniques through asking questions and talking shop. They also mention a personal history with the creator's videos, and how unfavorable the creator's attitude was towards sharing among creatives. The speaker also touches upon the aspect of plagiarism and how the legal community tend to see it differently. They mention the concept of tacit knowledge that is never put into written forms or spoken words, but known and understood between professionals in a certain industry.
01:15:00 In this section, the speaker continues to discuss the negative impact of plagiarism. They argue that even if someone likes an idea or work, it can still be difficult to truly appreciate it if they realize that it may have been stolen from someone else. The speaker then brings up examples of people who have been accused of plagiarism, including Blair. They mention how cites the many dictionary definitions of plagiarism, but then redefines the word to fit their own perspective, making it central to their argument about plagiarism in their response.
01:20:00 In this section of the YouTube video, the speaker discusses the practice of plagiarism in the content mill of Drama YouTube. The speaker explains that instead of looking at the original content, YouTube video creators usually steal ideas and create their own versions. The irony is that when the YouTuber in question gets accused of plagiarism, he or she sits down to defend themselves, only to use an image that is not even from the original content. People are less likely to watch the original video and more likely to watch manipulatively framed images, leading to negative commentary about the plagiarism. The speaker goes on to say that the less important the original content becomes in the face of industrial-quantity content creation, the less attention is paid to its creator.
01:25:00 In this section, the speaker discusses the video "Man in Cave" that gained popularity on YouTube. The video is about Floyd Collins, a cave explorer who got trapped in a cave in 1925. The video was uploaded on September 29th, 2022, and became extremely successful, garnering 10 million views. However, in March of the same year, the video disappeared and became unavailable due to a copyright claim by Prosparity Limited, a publisher of digital content. The claim was related to the use of copyrighted images or footage from their YouTube channel. The speaker concludes that the video was a true historical event and that both the article and the video tell the same story, but the video copies the narrative and visuals more closely.
01:30:00 In this section, the YouTuber discusses the mistakes made by an internet historian in their video about World War II and Floyd Collins's cave discovery. The historian gets several key details wrong, including the weight of a rock pinning Collins's leg down, the cost of a cave that Collins discovered, and the name of the cave where Collins met his death. The YouTuber argues that these mistakes make it unclear whether the historian was purposely misrepresenting the facts or if they simply made a mistake in their research. The YouTuber also points out that the historian often uses a picture from a nearby cave system in Kentucky to represent part of the Mammoth Cave System, which raises questions about their credibility as a source. Despite these issues, the YouTuber acknowledges that the historian has done a good job with their animation and research, and wonders why they didn't give credit to Riley, the article's editor for Mental Floss, who also contributed to the video. The YouTuber concludes that while the historian's mistakes do not necessarily render their video invalid, it is important to be mindful of their credibility as a source of historical information.
01:35:00 In this section, the speaker discusses a YouTube video that was taken down for alleged plagiarism. They explain that the video was a style of video in which someone took content from multiple sources and combined it, but when they took content from one specific source, it was considered plagiarism. They go on to explain the consequences of not citing sources, including receiving a copyright claim or being removed from the platform altogether. The speaker also mentions that some YouTubers may not fight back against copyright claims, while others may continually fight them in the public eye to bring attention to the issue. They emphasize the importance of respecting other people's content and avoiding plagiarism in order to maintain a positive reputation on the platform.
01:40:00 In this section of the video, the speaker discusses changes made to a story about someone trapped in a cave. The original story had a vivid and compelling description of the person's struggles, which was later reproduced in a tedious and ineffective manner. The speaker also highlights the challenges of making major changes to a story after the original version has already been created and the animations completed. The group was forced to leave the story alone and continue their exploration after being shaken by the experience.
01:45:00 In this section, the speaker discusses the plagiarism issue surrounding the unlisted and not public YouTube video titled "The Talented Mr. Riley" by Philip Cavy. The original video was enjoyed by many and had important quotes from an article by Riley. However, Cavy changed the video without informing the community and did not provide explanations for his actions. As a result, fans were confused and started asking questions about why the new version was different.
The new version of the video only cited the source, removed some important parts, and added thanks to Boomstick Gaming in the description. This led to many fans not noticing the changes, and Cavy's actions were seen as a clever move to avoid detection. Cavy also released the video again several weeks later, leading viewers to focus on the new content.
The speaker suggests that these actions were doing damage to Cavy's reputation and that he was trying to delay the inevitable wider discovery of his actions. The speaker also emphasizes that this is not the first or only plagiarism issue, and that it has significant consequences for both the plagiarizer and the victim. The speaker points to examples of plagiarism in different forms and the challenges for plagiarism in research and journalism.
In conclusion, the speaker urges the audience to understand the wrongdoing and destructive nature of plagiarism, particularly when it involves marginalized groups or deceased individuals. The speaker suggests that education and work backward efforts can help prevent and combat plagiarism, and that it is crucial for individuals in all fields to recognize its value and consequences.
01:50:00 The section features a video by James summon, a gay YouTube personality who frequently refers to himself as a marketing expert and film school graduate. The video focuses on queer characters in media and LGBT film history, but the video has mysteriously disappeared. Summerton is known for his highly successful channel, which boasts views, ad revenue, sponsorships, patreon income, and donations on live streams. But the channel, in reality, is financially problematic, with cases such as Disney's relationship with the queer community misrepresented. James's Yuri on Ice video also contains errors, demonstrating that he has not done enough research to support his claims. Despite repeated accusations of plagiarism, James claims he never rips off anyone, but it is unclear whether this is entirely true.
01:55:00 In this section, the speaker discusses the content of a video related to Disney's history with the queer community. The original video, uploaded by someone named James, was about Disney being bad about LGBTQ+ content on their platforms, but it was later deleted for reasons unknown. The speaker reveals that the video was largely taken word-for-word from a book by Shawn P Griffin and that James used the language and content of the book to make his own assertions about Disney's intentions. This is demonstrated through multiple examples of quotes from the book being incorporated into the video, with only minor changes made. The speaker believes that James' behavior was deliberate and that he was stealing credit for the work of other authors in order to make his own content appear original.
The speaker in this YouTube video discusses a situation in which YouTuber James Charles was accused of plagiarism in several videos. The source of the plagiarism was discovered to be a book written by Disney author Lewis Griffin, and Charles failed to give any credit to the author in his videos. The speaker also mentions a situation where someone accused him of plagiarism and threatened to kill him. The speaker discusses the issue of plagiarism in YouTube videos and specifically talks about several instances of James' plagiarism. They used content from other sources without giving proper attribution and failed to mention the authors of those sources. In some cases, the speaker argues that James' laziness was evident in the lack of originality in his content. The speaker argues that plagiarism is wrong and harmful, and it reduces the original content creator's value. It emphasizes the importance of always crediting the original author and being respectful and ethical in using other people's work.
02:00:00 In this section of the video, the speaker discusses a situation in which YouTuber James Charles was accused of plagiarism in several videos. The source of the plagiarism was discovered to be a book written by Disney author Lewis Griffin, but Charles failed to give any credit to the author in his videos. When the issue was raised on Twitter, the author of the thread compared the writing in Charles' videos to Griffin's book and shared many examples of the similarities. Charles initially denied any wrongdoing but eventually added a reference to the book to the video description. However, the author of the thread was not satisfied with this and accused Charles of deception by hiding the reference in the description. Charles responded by blocking the author and denying the accusations, but he eventually hid two videos that had also been accused of plagiarism after the author of the thread noticed that he had again copied from a documentary without giving credit to the author.
02:05:00 In this section, the speaker discusses a situation where someone accused him of plagiarism and threatened to kill him. The accused recorded a video apologizing for the plagiarism and the controversy that arose from it. He explains that he had forgotten to give proper credit to the source of the quotes, and that he was unaware of permission requirements for adapting books into documentaries. The speaker also points out that while the person claiming plagiarism had asked to be credited, the new version of the video that he uploaded ignored that request and instead added a reference to the source at the beginning. The speaker criticizes the accused for his dishonest behavior and wonders why the accused seems to be lying when given the opportunity to explain.
02:10:00 In this section of the video, the speaker discusses the concept of plagiarism in YouTube content. They argue that many creators, including the speaker themselves, have been guilty of plagiarizing content from books or other sources without proper attribution. The speaker acknowledges that this behavior is not only unethical but also reduces the original content creator's value. They provide an example of a video they made about Disney's Mulan, which they claim was based on a book they obtained permission to use. However, the speaker admits that they changed quotes and other elements to make the content seem original. The speaker then discusses the popular film, Mulan, which they claim is not as widely understood or appreciated as it is often described. They argue that the film is not just about a woman becoming empowered by masculinity but also explores gender identity and sexual orientation. The speaker then compares their own experience with Mulan to that of trans and non-binary individuals. They argue that James' behavior with offering no credit to the original sources of his content devalues their work and reduces their importance to both society and future creators.
02:15:00 In this section, the speaker discusses a video that pretends to be a scholarly analysis of film history, but is actually a remake of the documentary "The Celluloid Closet." The speaker points out that the video uses footage from the original documentary, renames interviews, and misrepresents the information presented in the original work. The speaker also notes that the video's creator, James, insists that he did his own work, but the speaker questions the authenticity of this new material. The speaker compares James's new section on Rebel Without a Cause to the original documentary, and notes that James copied Peter Howell's article on the film line-for-line, without giving credit to the original author.
02:20:00 In this section of a YouTube video titled "Plagiarism and You(Tube)", the speaker discusses the issue of plagiarism and specifically talks about the YouTube creator James Summerton. They explain how it is easy to spot plagiarism by looking at the source material and verifying if it was used. They also mention that James seems to have used plagiarized material as a loophole to avoid detection. The speaker goes on to mention that Philip James maintains that he changed one thing Plato said in "The Symposium", and they also talk about the use of LGBT word-swapping in James' article. They conclude by stating that the issue of plagiarism in YouTube videos is becoming more prevalent and needs to be taken more seriously.
02:25:00 In this section of the YouTube video "Plagiarism and You(Tube)", the speaker discusses the issue of plagiarism in relation to James Park's video titled "Evil Rules". The speaker mentions several instances where the video used content from other sources without proper attribution, including quotes from essayists such as Bart Bishop and David Grevin. They also discuss the creative twists that James put on the
content, such as rewording it in a way that seemed more original. However, the speaker argues that these attempts to make the video his own were ultimately unsuccessful, as he ended up using too much content from other sources without giving proper credit. The speaker concludes that James' failure to properly cite his sources and his focus on making the content seem more unique led to his plagiarism issues.
02:30:00 This excerpt from a YouTube video titled "Plagiarism and You(Tube)" describes Somerton's video dedicated to the "romance" between Richie and Eddie in Stephen King's "It". The writer notes that the video was getting thousands from Patreon and advertising revenue from the ads, Deadline honoring King and that Somerton make millions with this one video and one ad, but the person Summerton never compensated for her contributions to his work and successful content. The video also highlights the theme of making use of other author's content without crediting the original author, this excerpt is warning that plagiarism is wrong and harmful, it will not only harm the author, but also to the all the people that have contributed to the project, including writers and publishers, it is essential to always credit the original author, and to use one's work in a way that is respectful and ethical.
02:35:00 In this section of the YouTube video titled "Plagiarism and You(Tube)", the speaker discusses the issue of plagiarism in YouTube videos, specifically referring to videos that use clips from other sources as backing for a voiceover. The speaker argues that this is a lazy and unoriginal form of content creation, as it lacks the effort and creativity required to produce original content. The speaker also notes that some YouTubers use copyrighted material without obtaining permission or giving credit to the original creators, which can lead to legal issues and harm to both the creator and the YouTuber.
02:40:00 in this section, the video creator buys parts from a third party and has a co-writer for the rest of the article, even though it's filled with plagiarism. The video was posted several months before the creator started working on it and despite the unethical nature of the content, it's still popular. The creator also uses this as an opportunity to rant about women who are attracted to serial killers like Dharma and Bundy, making no sense since the original content does not have these rants in it. The creator is obsessed with not coming up with his own ideas and the audience finds this behavior creepy.
02:45:00 In this section of the video, the speaker discusses James Charles's attitude towards female queers and his misgendering of two showrunners in his video attempting to argue that queer women have it better than men in Hollywood. The speaker points out that Charles ignores the experiences of other queer individuals who don't fit his own narrow definition of identity, and even goes so far as to assume that straight women wrote certain media. The speaker also discusses Charles's position on Love Simon, a film based on a book by Becky Albertal, which he accused of being written by a straight woman without experiencing queerness herself. The speaker criticizes Charles for his lack of awareness and understanding of the experiences of people outside of his own identity, and calls his behavior misogynistic.
02:50:00 The section deals with plagiarism and the issue of James, a YouTuber, who steals content from others without proper attribution. The speaker mentions that James tends to delete or change his videos when he is caught stealing, but his audience, primarily younger queer people, may not recognize the misogynistic content as such as long as it is directed towards white women. The speaker also notes that James latterly becomes defensive when he is accused of plagiarism, which results him hiding his videos and some other content. Talking about a particular incident, in September 2022, a blog post published on Attack on Titan's theme had accused James of stealing from a blog about Attack on Titan published in 2013. However, James did not link the post or quote it anywhere, and he was copied only by one sentence that was a part of a tirade by the speaker. The speaker mentions James uses quotes from other YouTubers; however, he does not properly credit them. The speaker also notes that James paraphrased someone else's work as if he wrote it himself. The speaker concludes that James lacks imagination and research, and his laziness is evident in the lack of originality in his content.
02:55:00 In this section of the video, the host discusses James, a YouTuber who plagiarizes from other sources in order to gain attention and followers. According to the host, James had a Discord server where fans asked about the status of one of his videos that was taken down for featuring text from a blog post. James gave an explanation that it was coming back up and had to be taken down because of a "missing source". However, after uploading a new version of the video, James removed the section that he had copied directly from the blog post. The new version of the video was more stilted and poorly written than the original. The host points out that James likely removed the section in order to hide his plagiarism and to get credit for the content himself. The new video does not include a citation. It is unclear what triggered this behavior, but the host notes that James has a history of taking videos down to cover up any mistakes he made.
The video "Plagiarism and You(Tube)" discusses the prevalence of using someone else's work without proper acknowledgement or permission in popular culture. The video uses the example of the video "Attack on Titan," which was published in Shonen magazine and written by James. The video creator Nick Труч borrowed several words from James's work without understanding the context or purpose, and then accidentally showed those pieces of the script to others, assuming James had written them himself. The video argues that this situation highlights the dangers and negative consequences of plagiarism, and criticizes the creator for using Nick as a shield against accusations of plagiarism. The video also discusses a crowdfunding campaign for a horror short film series called "Telos," which raised over $86,000 Canadian dollars ($63,000 USD) but was not successful. The video accuses James of stealing content from other creators and using it for his own gain.
03:00:00 In this section of the video, the speaker discusses the issue of plagiarism and the prevalence of using someone else's work without proper acknowledgement or permission in popular culture. The example they use is from the video "Attack on Titan," which was published in Shonen magazine and written by James. The speaker explains how the video creator Nick Труч borrowed several words from James's work without understanding the context or purpose, and then accidentally showed those pieces of the script to others, assuming James had written them himself. The speaker argues that this situation highlights the dangers and negative consequences of plagiarism, and criticizes the creator for using Nick as a shield against accusations of plagiarism. Moreover, they bring into light James's previous plagiarism controversies and how he utilizes Nick's talent and hard work to take the fall. In addition, the speaker briefly talks about another Indiegogo project by James Summerton, Telos Pictures, to produce films focusing on LGBT characters and stories. However, the video goes into detail in a more rude, angry and dishonest way, it clearly hints that James is hiding something and trying to hide his true self from his audience.
03:05:00 In this section, the video discusses the failure of a crowdfunding campaign for a horror short film series called "Telos". Despite raising over $86,000 Canadian dollars ($63,000 USD), the series was not successful. The creator, James, has continually promised new projects but has not delivered on them. The video also accused James of stealing content from other creators and using it for his own gain.
03:10:00 In this section of the video, the speaker discusses a case of plagiarism where a YouTuber named Summer reused a video essay by another YouTuber named Aila, without giving proper credit to the original creator. Summer's version of the video had several similar-looking sequences that were copied and pasted from Aila's work. Aila reached out to Summer and asked for credit, and Summer eventually apologized for using Aila's work without asking, claiming that he had been in a rush to finish the video. However, he later reuploaded a new version of the video without Aila's credit, and continued to deny any wrongdoing. The speaker finds this behavior to be reprehensible and a clear indication of a lack of care for the queer community.
03:15:00 The section of the video on plagiarism highlights the issue of plagiarism on YouTube, and specifically calls out a particular YouTuber for stealing content from others for highlight reels. The person in question, James, denies any wrongdoing, but ultimately the evidence against him was clear-cut, and he admitted to several instances of stealing content in past videos. The video shows a graphic that lists 56 plagiarized videos on the person's YouTube channel, out of a total of 84 videos. The video also mentions that James made two videos exclusively for Vimeo, which were also plagiarized. The video concludes that James is a serial plagiarist, and that there is little hope for him to turn things around.
03:20:00 In this section, the speaker discusses the issue of plagiarism in the LGBT YouTuber community, specifically involving James, who has been accused of stealing content from other YouTubers. James has become one of the most popular LGBT YouTubers, but this has come at the expense of other video essayists who have had to compete with him on volume rather than quality. The speaker points out that many of the people James has copied were paid very little or not at all for their original material, and that their good work was recognized but only by James. The speaker also discusses the impact of plagiarism on the recognition and career opportunities of the affected individuals. The speaker of this section is Steven Spin's columnist, with the video having been recorded in 2019 before the pandemic.
03:25:00 In this section of the video, the speaker discusses the issue of plagiarism and how it affects the queer community on YouTube. The speaker argues that James, a popular creator who has been accused of plagiarism, has stolen ideas from other creators. However, they mention that not all of James' ideas have been stolen, and his work also contains original content. The speaker then mentions several other queer creators on YouTube, such as Matt Bor, Kadija and B, Emily, Amazing Ricky, Verity Richie, and Alexander Revera, who create original content and provide a fresh perspective on queer issues. The speaker also highlights the importance of self-expression and building on ideas, as it is not entirely wrong or plagiarism to be inspired by someone. Overall, the speaker aims to give viewers an awareness of the issue of plagiarism and the importance of creating original content.
03:30:00 In this section, the speaker discusses the concept of the "yoink and twist" within the YouTube community. A "yoink and twist" is when someone takes inspiration from an existing video and puts their own spin on it. The speaker argues that this is a great way to create new and unique content, and that it is only wrong when someone tries to claim ownership over the idea and claim they were the original creator. The speaker also discusses the importance of being honest about where inspiration comes from and citing sources when applicable.
03:35:00 This section of the video discusses the issue of plagiarism on YouTube. It argues that while a lot of YouTubers are just casual amateurs and their videos should not be held to the same standard as attempted academic work, some of them have become extremely popular and influential and are therefore worth taking seriously as part of the next generation of media. It discusses how YouTube currently handles plagiarism, with a system for reporting and claiming infringement, but that this system can be unreliable and lead to both false accusations and disputes about who is the rightful owner of the content. The section ends with the creative, funny YouTuber discussing how he dealt with a situation where one of his jokes was taken by a celebrity, but rather than complaining and fighting a public battle, he simply accepted it and moved on with life.
03:40:00 In this section of the video "Plagiarism and You(Tube)", the topic of generative AI and its use in plagiarism is discussed. Generative AI tools like Chat GPT, Stable Diffusion, and Mid Journey can produce new art or words on command, but the process of using it is called "complicated stealing". The authors of the stolen material were not asked for permission or compensation, and they were charged a monthly subscription for its use. The use of generative AI in plagiarism enables copying a lot of text and guessing new ways of saying it, making the process of plagiarism more efficient. AI highlights how much people have been copying each other long before its existence, and copying is a human behavior that aims to find a sense of meaning and purpose in life.
03:45:00 In this section, the angriest gamer discusses the concept of completing oneself and becoming the person one truly desires to be. According to the speaker, the only person who can truly help find one's completion is the individual themselves. The speaker mentions that the mere act of trying to be someone else will not lead to a sense of completeness. He also suggests that efforts from small parts, such as pointers and inspiration from others, can assist in personal growth, but ultimately it is up to the individual to chart their own course. Additionally, the speaker speaks to the satisfaction he finds in knowing he has been able to assist others in achieving success and happiness through his work.
03:50:00 In this section, the video creator discusses the issue of plagiarism and the amount of time they spent trying to obtain footage for their YouTube video. They attempted to use a review from a magazine, but found that it was not printed and they wasted a lot of time searching for ancient magazines. The creator emphasizes the importance of doing one's own research and avoiding plagiarism.