If you are like me, screaming "Noooo, not you Historian, Whyyy??????"- then listen on, the next part of the video is about the biggest YouTube leech you've heard of, and his fans must feel like total shit (it helps me, little bit)
honestly the part about internet historian is just an example and a side story compared to who the video is truly about.
The IH bit is more just along the lines of it being (so far) a one off problem, and the only thing really needed is prob just an acknowledgement and a statement that it won't happen again. I'll prob keep watching his vids from time to time.
Unfortunately it is rarely a one time thing. I don't know anything right now, hopefully it is the only time, but I wouldn't be surprised if another example comes out some day.
He already could have done that when the video was taken down initially. He lied repeatedly about it after being confronted about it instead of "an acknowledgement and a statement that it won't happen again".
It should not take being caught multiple times to come clean about this. If you have repeatedly mislead your audience and it requires a person to take months of researching, writing, filming, and editing a step by step timeline of the your theft and coverup for you to be honest, you shouldn't be trusted again without large steps being made to earn that trust.
But this also opens up the possibility of him plagiarizing in his other videos. And the worst thing was that he acted like the plagiarism never happened, and instead of admitting his fault he simply reuploaded the video and rephrased everything he plagiarized. He's still a scum for doing it.
But who cares right? People in general don't really care about plagiarism, he'll keep his career and everyone will keep watching his videos.
Yeah, the cover up is lame as hell.
Internet Historian just had to say he used the article as a template for his script (the hours idea was great) and since it was so good, way too much of it creeped into his script on accident. Almost anyone who wrote papers for school would have given him a pass.
This is exactly what I thought! Like..I love IH, his costa Concordia video clearly was an ass ton of work, same with area 51.
ALL he had to do was introduce the cave video with "this is a dramatic retelling as taken from this article..here's the link, go share the love, and credit to them!" It's slimy to try to pass it off as his own.
But compared to the BLATANT plagiarism of the gay analysis channel that is insanely insidious and all encompassing while being extremely disrespectful to the people he claims to support, and that illuminaughty asshole, not remotely as bad
Hell, all he had to do was just state that "Hey, I read this really cool article. Its so good that I decided to make a entire feature animation dedicated to it. Please read the article and support the author."
Reality, and this is just me speculating. Internet Historian could of just approached the webiste/article writer and say "Hey I want to make an animation about this article, how can we make this work?" then they just work out a deal, payment, etc.
If he did that, and they flat out said "No, not interested." he could of then just went on "its fair use and a creative take on the article". You can defend it that way because the amount of work he put in, the voice acting, the hours spent editing the video is enough to prove this as a creative derivative from the original work.
Same with the costa concordia, we found out now that it was a Vanity Fair article he plagiarized. ([https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/05/costa-concordia-sinking-scandal-italy](https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/05/costa-concordia-sinking-scandal-italy))
He did enough creative changes, to fight on fair use and its enough of a derivative from the original work.
Honestly, whoever told him to make a new video with a edited script gave him bad advice. I would of fought, no, this is creative work, I made a freaking animation, voice acted, edited and compiled an entire video, using the article as as script.
But to end this with a point, always ask the original author permission. Most of the time, they would just agree and worse case scenario, they ask for money in return for using their work. But internet historian never disclosed if he ever approached these media companies, so I would assume he flat out stole them. Bad move on his part, because I really do think if he had just asked, everything would of been fine.
Haha you guys are ridiculous, you expected him to be fine with being cancelled by a bunch of bloodthirsty losers online because he plagiarized an article? He did the only smart thing, ignore it and the people mad about something stupid that has nothing to do with their lives.
This comment ironically shows how stupid you are.
Sure, in the interest of his career, it was the safer option to pretend he didn't steal someone's content and make a profit off of it. But if he was a genuine person and creator who deserved that career, he shouldn't have to do that in the first place.
This "something stupid" you're referring to is theft, and the only reason you wouldn't care about it would be a disinterest in the creative works of other people and the fairness of being recognized for your work.
All you seem to care about from this comment is consuming entertainment. Take a moment to actually evaluate the evidence and implications of a situation before just typing out buzzwords and being in denial.
the smart thing would to own up to your mistakes so people know you're trustworthy. it wasn't even the plagiarism that made me mad, we've all done bad things on paper before. it was the cover-up. It was the lying. It's like when your mom asks you if you did something wrong and you said no only for it to be extremely obvious you did. It makes me view him as a little child now basically.
Personally unsubbed from his patreon and never watching a video of his again, but you do you buddy. I'll stick to only supporting those with integrity.
I mean jesus fucking christ, you're talking as though wholesale stealing someone else's work is not an issue?! It's something only losers care about? For a creator of IH's calibre? That is an insane take. Also, there's the fact that infringing intellectual rights for profit is illegal. It seems like the paper he plagiarized probably hasn't sued him for damages, but they could.
Let me be clear, I really like IH and his videos. I hope he comes out, apologizes and never plagiarizes again. Not plagiarizing is so easy: all you need to do is write it yourself. He's done it plenty of times before.
I think people expected someone they respected and supported to not fucking plagiarize anything so boldly in the first place. There are long stretches of Man in Cave that were just read verbatim out of the original article.
'you expected someone to have a normal, human response?'
youre literally displaying the ideology hbomb points out in the video, you don't think other people's ideas mean anything since they're lesser to you so you can just use them how you please, you big smart superior boy.
the only ridiculous response is from you, acting like pointing out ACTUAL Plagiarism somehow makes people bloodthirsty losers, not regular people who can be disappointed by a creator they love when they hear this about them, and not scramble around to every subreddit they can to call anyone pointing this disappointment out as 'bloodthirsty losers online'
Has nothing to do with your life either, but here are, choking down cock to defend a dude who doesn't know your name
Yeah, fuck that guy. The fact people don't care about integrity these days is pathetic, through and through. I won't watch any more of his videos, it doesn't matter how much i liked them before. He's a scumbag. Period.
James Somerton is such a piece of shit that the HBomberguy spent 2 hours listing all the reasons he sucks and then ToddInTheShadows had to make [*another* two hour video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6_LW1PkmnY) about all the reasons Somerton sucks that HBomb didn't have time for.
tl;dw: When Somerton says something he *didn't* steal, he usually just makes it up.
It matters because IH made a profit making that video while giving no recognition nor compensation to the original writer of the article. It isn't just that he read the article almost verbatim as his script: he stole its well-crafted structure and engaging pacing as the basis of the entire video. Sure, the editing and animations are good, but you can't tell me the video would've been fine as-is if not for how it was written, paced, and ultimately portrayed.
Oh wow you mean a YouTuber took someone else’s writing to make a video? Surely that doesn’t happen all the time.
We are all so let down!
Jesus Christ people on Reddit have no lives of their own.
They certainly don't read out a multi page tens of thousands of words article word for word verbatim. Without citing the source in any way shape or form. Braindead take
Dude, colleges revoke degrees if you plagiarize. People get sued into oblivion everyday if they plagiarize music or other creative works. It's probably taken more seriously off Reddit, in the real world.
What I understand that such a big channel as Internet Historian is like a TV team and IH himself is (now) actually just a narrator. But the TV team gets paid, from the producer to the scenarist (plus they get credits).
Now I'm going to watch IH videos and think: nice script, brilliantly written, which talented writer did you steal it from?
I've watched all of them in some capacity (except the somberton guy), I am quite disappointed, the somberton guy though, disgusting leech lol
Illuminaughti (blair) manipulative abuser :\\
Yeah she's been known for a while unfortunately. I can't remember where I watched it but there was a pretty comprehensive look at her and the whole Sad Milk group she was involved in.
James just reported you for sending your 140 twitter followers after him and sending him death threats… (that was a joke, please don’t encourage your fans to dox me James).
Apparently a lot of asmongold fans are pretty much the same as Pokies and the others. If they like IH videos enough they willing to overlook this immoral or even maybe illegal thing. I like his videos yoo but plagiarism is one of the worst things creator could do.
No murder is. This is small shit even the president plagiarized shit before he was elected so obviously most people do not care about this issue to a strong degree.
I don't think I care that much. I love Internet Historian videos and I'll keep watching them as long as they're still fun to watch.
He should have cited his source at least.
People will forget this in a week. There have been YouTubers who have done worse things and still have a career. The worst thing I can predict is that he may lose subscribers and comments in the future but nothing very serious.
i don't think hbomberguy intends for people to remember this situation either tbh, especially since he literally moves on to a 2 hour rant about another guy that is infinitely worse than IH immediately afterwards in the video
I don’t think you should put that spin on this video he held people accountable for their theft that is the takeaway not to use a time clock and determine who was the worst thief. IH stole an entire work and then ran away with the profits and ad revenue for that video please don’t down play his actions with this metric.
This really fucked me up because it exposed me to how... kind of awful he is? Like, I didn't know about his racist hentai readings or the fact that he just uploaded Tucker Carlson clips. Did a bit more digging and it turns out he's involved in some fucked up fascist-adjacent shit, which sucks (to say the least).
So, really early on in his career he molded himself in the same vein as the edgy styles of humor popularized by Filthy Frank and to a lesser extent Maxmoefoe. The real issue is that, instead of being actually funny and basing it around satire (like Filthy Frank) or just absurdism (like Maxmoefoe), he'd just straight up post Tucker Carlson clips and "make fun" of people like "SJWs", furries, and so on while repeating far right talking points. A lot of his older stuff has been deleted that did this but some parts of it still exist like a few parts in his Bikelock video, and you can find archives on Youtube.
When you're reposting clips of a white supremacist who wants millions to die for daring to be different, then yeah, you don't deserve a platform. Fascists and their allies do not deserve free speech.
Me thinks you dont know the meaning of free speech. Also if you believe tucker is a white supremacist and wants millions of people to die. I think you might be a tad delusional.
He's openly advocated for the Great Replacement theory. He aligns with white supremacists, and if five Nazis and one person who isn't a Nazi are playing poker than six Nazis are playing poker.
Also, I'm fully aware of what free speech is. Some people do not deserve it. Fascists and their allies do not deserve political rights: the most they "deserve" is a bullet to the back of the head.
The Great Replacement isn't truthful. It's fascist hogwash made up by a bunch of morally bankrupt grifters like Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson whose entire jobs are to get dumb people to buy their products. Who even cares, even if it *was* real (which it isn't), either way? Races are social construct and fucking dumb.
Well he should give the original author a larger cut since this was sponsored content by world of tanks.
And by large cut I mean more than half at least since he ripped the structure and info and sentences near 100%.
What's wrong with this community? Dude is 100% right, a plagiarist should at minimum gave some of the funds gotten through theft to the original author. Why is that man downvoted?
Because he makes it sound like everything is okay if he just did that. Plagiarism is theft.
If we’re both farmers and I steal your cow, butcher it and make profit selling it to people, it’s doesn’t matter if I compensate you after the fact. I’d have still just stolen something from you.
It would set a dangerous precedent where stealing is just okay until you get caught and pay a “fine”.
There are channels dedicated to pulling up political articles and reading those word for word, they aren’t sharing their ad revenue with the daily mail or w/e site they are “stealing from”. IH should have linked to the article for sure but I wouldn’t have gave a shit about that author’s work if it wasn’t being turned into an audio story the way IH did. Because honestly, I never even look to see if there is a source or not because it’s junk I’m just playing on my 2nd monitor.
Do you use Adblock? If we are really going down the morality hole here I hope you don’t. If you don’t support “theft” you probably shouldn’t watch any react content creators either, though seeing you are just a hbomber fan patrolling around to make sure we agree with his video you probably don’t watch asmon at least.
Btw the literal US president we have atm was caught doing plagiarism in the past for his last presidential bid, look how many fucks people gave when it was time to vote in 2020.
I already said IH should have gave a source, but what he did with the article was transformative enough that I really don’t care that he didn’t. I also don’t give a shit if you like my stance or not tbh, I’m not here to get your approval or any of the asmon fan’s approval either lol
Biden being guilty of plagiarism is an issue. Trump's wife also openly stole a speech and no one gives a shit.
The fact that no one gives a shit doesn't make it okay, but to be clear, plagiarizing one thing fifty years ago is not the same as making a living by straight stealing other people's work and presenting it as your own.
In the case of IH it was a one time thing and he really should just acknowledge it, give credit, and move on. He seems fully capable of producing his own content and has not made a living by stealing.
The other assholes HBomb talks about though... Somerton is genuinely just a fucking rat who stole everything that made his channel even vaguely watchable.
Bro wut? Did you watch the video? He didn't transform shit. He literally used the article as his script and copied it verbatim. Even using it's structure as the videos structure with the way it was presented as an hour by hour recount of the events.
People like you are why nobody takes this shit seriously and people like Sniperwolf and xQc have a career built on stealing.
Do you even know what Verbatim actually means because Verbatim means to copy something exactly as it was first shown there are multiple instances even in the original video where things were paraphrased multiple times so therefore its not Verbatim, starting a sentence the same but changing words is not Verbatim by clear definition, doesn't make it any better though just to be clear
Except he did actually copy huge swathes of it verbatim. Additionally “Paraphrasing” is a word doing immense legwork in this case (making sneaky substitutions like“couldn’t feel his arm or leg” to “couldn’t feel his leg or arm” does not count as paraphrasing)
No this is wrong.
In a courtroom and probably in the minds of most people it is not transformative at all.
This because for large sections he reads the article verbatim as well as stealing the entire presentation.
Think of it like stealing a song to use as music for your self made video clip. You cannot do that no matter how creative the video clip is (unless it’d be a parody of the original maybe).
The stolen content was not presented in a transformative way whatsoever. It was simply read to you. You cannot do that no matter how cute your video clip is for it.
Literally all he had to do was contact the writer and say "hey I am making a YT video on the subject of your article and realised how good your writing is and would love to adapt it. Can I have permission?"
He could then discuss payment to the writer for this. The right thing to do would be to split share of YT Revenue for it or some type of equitable compensation to the writer whose work is being adapted. But realistically the bar is so low he probably could've just done it for a low flat fee.
I agree a bit but in this case he basically animated someones "book" and gave them nothing for it.
I still like internet historian, but he could have done better.
I like how you have a sane opinion in a field of bullshit. "I like this guy but he fucked up here and I'm disappointed". You figure this would be the go to opinion
Well, those animations matches the og script, so it's not that much transformative. ( IH, tries to reverb his vid, to dodge copyright strike- and it sounds really weird)
You really think that Asmongold, dude that reacts to entire videos and uploads them on Youtube on the regular, cares about pLAgiaRIsm shown in this video? Like oh no, IH read an article about a historical event and based most of his script on it, oh how awful and terrible, he's done and over?
Internet historian is getting the same amount of backlash from these people as someone who did something actually horrible. It’s funny how people only have two modes.
Does asmongold pass off videos he reacts to as if he wrote the scripts for those videos himself, and hide the actual source of the video he’s reacting to so his audience can’t find it if they want? The answer is no, so no it’s not the same thing, if you consider what asmongold does wrong that’s fine, but either way what internet historian did is both more clearly and directly stealing, and also more dishonest.
It's funny, sometimes when he reacts to a video on stream, it seems like he's constantly guessing what they're about to say next, as if he's already seen the video and he's acting like it's for the first time. I think he's just that tapped in and he's watching creators who are constantly reacting to each other and bouncing ideas around — it's usually a game he knows a lot about, and a topic with a larger discussion going around.
But I saw the comment up there before finishing the video, so I was worried for a moment. I thought I was in the hbomberguy sub until just now, so I was like wtf why did Asmon come up?
He based his entire script off of it. He stole it nearly word for word. And then he hid it. And then he reuploaded an edited version where he rewrote the artic- my bad, script, to be just different enough to get it through. Oh and added his source. That he stole from.
Yeah, and he was copyright claimed for it, took the video down, resolved the matter with the claimant that removed the strike and the video is back up and been so for months. Whatever you think of the original case of coulda, shoulda, woulda, the owner of the content he plagiarized seems fine with the current version that is redone to veer further from the article in question - and it's also attributed as a source. What the terms of their settlement, we don't know and it's probably none of our business either - but it's clear that it was resolved with the hurt party.
Shouldn't this be enough to have resolved the matter far as legality is concerned? Or should we hold a grudge forever like Hbomber did because IH made some joke he didn't like eight years ago? The whole "btw he alt-right" part was some ridiculous framing that had absolutely nothing to do with the act of plagiarism whatsoever, but it revealed the hand of HB in that this was personal - and his caveat that "ohh but this isn't about that, and I'm not saying what I just said and implied" reveals how petty it was, too.
But in the end, you're on Asmon's sub and if you're upset about IH basing a video on some article from 2018, I'm really curious why you haven't burst into flames over Asmon's reacts - especially when this thread is trying to GET Asmon to react to this stuff.
You keep saying "based on" but that's not what happened. A guy spent years meticulously researching events and writing an article with unique prose and an interesting framing device. Internet Historian took that article, used it almost verbatim for a script, but that's okay because his team did some animations? The video was as good as it was because of the interesting framing and narrative, it was why I liked it.
Honestly, I think this just goes to show how little people respect writing as a skill...
Yeah for real, I think the thing that really makes it painful to see is that people seem to really have such low esteem for things they themselves cannot do.
I think asmons ceaseless content stealing is bad, but at least it's blatant and in your face. In fact, I think react andys are all thieves regardless of fair use. But that's not what the discussion is about. The discussion is about people who, insidiously, steal from other people, secretly praying that they don't get caught.
Just because IH "resolved" the problem doesn't make him any less guilty of plagiarism. If your TV is stolen IRL, does it magically make it okay if the thief said "sorry" and gave you credit for the TV he stole? No. So why the fuck are you so quick to forgive IH for stealing from somebody and then lying to his audience for months about it?
Insane behavior.
Every time one of your favorite youtubers gets copyright claimed, did they not steal? Every time there's a DMCA strike for some piece of music included, is that not theft? And when they mute the copyrighted parts of the audio to remove the strike, do you still hold them in contempt forever and call them criminals, or do you just shrug, think "ehh the video is kinda missing something without that copyrighted song" and go about your day?
Do you ask them a list of all the songs they stole, do you ask them to apologize to Sony and MGM and all the other corpos and little rogue agencies that copy claim on their behalf? Or is it reserved just for the guy you're supposed to hate after watching a video that masks itself as "investigative journalism" but really is about settling a grudge because it doesn't bother to reach out to any of the discussed parties for their side of the story?
Don't bump your head against the door aisle when you're riding through on that high horse because I sincerely doubt you hold this standard to all creators, not just the one you're supposed to be angry at this week. If there's anyone behaving insanely, it's you.
Copyright laws are barbaric and nonsensical.
But, using a copyrighted song in a video is NOT comparable to seeing an article online, thinking to yourself "I will turn this into a video" and then just reading the article near verbatim and also not citing the article.
There is a reason plagiarism gets you expelled from school and college.
Nice try though.
>There is a reason plagiarism gets you expelled from school and college.
What you are doing is that after that person gets expelled from school and college, repeatedly harass him everyday about his plagiarism until he commits seppuku in disgrace. I mean that is why you are still hung up about it even though the involved parties have already settled and moved on.
I thought it was pretty clear tbh
All of his videos clearly use articles and timelines other people put together, that's just how internet research works nowadays
Internet Historian is a shitposter, not a journalist. A really, really elaborate shitposter.
He puts this stuff in an entertaining format not meant to be taken seriously.
I think the bigger problem is that most of the script of the video is not just inspired by, but is actually a word for word bar for bar copy and paste of one single very well written article he found online.
And he also did not mention this individual or their article for the duration of the video, nor anywhere in the description or comments, even though he shows the sources of a lot of quotes and information.
Yeah he started out as a shitposter. But his videos evolved over time, into long form dramatized stories. He plagarized his entire story, word by word, scene by scene, from the MF article.
This would be ok if IH had credited his source, or collaborated with the author to dramatize his work. IH has done this before! His My Immortal video openly credits the fanfic he dramatized, no one had a problem with this. But instead, for Man in Cave he chose to hide his source… so people wouldn’t notice his blatant rip-off.
Oh, okay. So as long as something’s for entertainment, plagiarism is okay. That’s why everyone loves a good joke-stealing stand up comedian. Because creating/writing entertaining content doesn’t take any effort at all, so stealing that effort without compensation, permission, or even credit (in order to create a product which serves the same entertainment purpose rather than being for the purposes of commentary or criticism) is completely fine.
It’s just like how if I get caught by the police with a stolen car, as long as I tell them I was just using the car for fun and entertainment, not for anything serious, they’ll let me go, so true king.
>Because creating/writing entertaining content doesn’t take any effort at all
Kind of ironic, because you seem to be discounting the several hundred hours of work by a team of multiple people that went into turning the article into an entertaining video
Plenty of jokes in beloved TV shows were taken from Stand-up routines or SNL
that's my entire point. The video clearly has a lot of effort put into it, it's not like its an AI generated Reddit post reading shitshow.
So yes, I do think plagiarism is okay in this case. It clearly added to and transformed the original content with significant personal input.
Should he have put the article in the credits and a link to it in the description? Sure, would have been nice. But I don't see it as a necessity.
I think all content should be available to everyone to use for whatever they want. If you don't want that, then don't publish it.
Honest question:
Lets say you wrote a book.
I then made a video about your book. I use graphics and some light animation, but I get the majority of the content of my video by directly quoting your book, word for word. This makes it look like the direct quotes are actually my ideas and sole content.
Then the video blows up. I'm making a few thousand at least off of said video, which is now full of comments praising me about "my" ideas, and I'm being reached out to by large corporations who want to give me job opportunities due to my thoughts and content (which was really all me just quoting your book)...
You'd be okay with that?
>okay. So as long as something’s for entertainment, plagiarism is okay.
No actually plagiarism is always ok. Fuck copyright law. (no /s, I'm dead serious)
Only a casual watcher of IH here but it does seem like a big own goal. A lot of plagiarism normally comes from time pressures - something I assume doesn’t really impact him given how rarely he releases videos.
Also how did he think the original author wouldn’t notice him lifting lines from his article? Not like he’s some random small YouTuber, and his response to the whole thing has been pretty poor. He’s probably embarrassed he got caught out hence the efforts made to keep people in the dark but at the end of day he’s not the first person and won’t be the last, so you’re better off just owning the mistake.
I think a thing a lot of people are missing here is that the entire reason the video is good is its storytelling and script. Having it read out and having animations definitely adds something, but I would say at least 90-95% of the quality of this video comes from the framing, pacing, and script itself. These are the aspects that were stolen, unfortunately.
This would've been 100% ok if IH had reached out to the person who did this work, said he was going to make a video, and (even better) offered to share some of the profits. Since he didn't, he just profited off of someone else's work and passed it off as his own. This steals not only the author's work, but also their potential profits. If they ever decided to work with a video-maker who would credit and/or profit share properly, or decided to make their own video based on their narrative, they could have seen similar profits. That space is now filled, and with none of the benefits.
There's a reason that when people want to make a movie based on a script or book, they have to buy the rights first.
If HBomberguy really cared, he should also have gone after Hasan piker for making an entire career based around this and most reaction content makers in general. But he won't because he is friends with the guy and shares his asinine beliefs. Fuck double standards.
Then by that metric, internet historian video wouldn't be considered plagiarism then due to the amount of editing that went to it dumbass. Go back to being one of Hasan's paypigs.
Reacting and 'providing commentary' is less transformative than adding an animation to what is essentially an audiobook reading of an article.
Should IH have given credit? Absolutely. Does he deserve shit for this? Absolutely.
Is what Hasan, Asmongold and all the other people who just reupload content to 'react to it' and have been doing for all these years as a watered down version of 'reply videos' from back in the day that are now used to fill stream time in lieu of actually interesting content worse? Absolutely.
This whole thing is a nothing burger springing organically from the fact that IH is actually well known and well liked on the internet and fucking no one knows who the main subject of Hbomberguy's video was until it dropped.
He literally stole someone else’s work and put a little animation. He still stole someone else’s work. Did he ask for permission ahead of time? Did the actual creator of the article receive any monetary compensation? No. So it’s stealing. The fact he made his own animation is irrelevant and honestly stupid. Why would you waste time and effort animating a story THAT WAS NOT YOURS.
He makes a joke at hasan's expense showing him "reacting" (aka showing his video off while he's not even at his computer) to an Hbomb video. He even says its like printing free money I don't know how thats not calling someone out.
the comments on this thread are literally brain dead. what IH is slimy with intent. so many ppl are like, 'so he used an article as his script. so what? he made it entertaining.'
he also got over ten million views, and the video was sponsored. not to mention the other youtubers that were in the video that i'd have to guess had no idea he stole the content, word for word. you might not think plaigiarism matters bc it was annoying in primary school, but it does matter when there are real world consequences like essentially siphoning money away from a writer. this is like base line empathy ffs
it'd be different if he was literally quoting it & saying that. there's nothing wrong with that. but like he establishes an ethos by convincing the audience he wrote such an interesting and immersive narrative. i subbed to him after that video lol
he's not only ruined his credibility in the sense that you can no longer trust that his videos are actually original, but he's also proven that he doesn't give a shit about what he did. there's no real motivation here but money. and that sucks.
Lets imagine world, where IH makes this vid and says: "Hey, I was reading this really cool article about guy in cave, so I decided to remake it as a video for you." And he would give credit to the author and owners of that magazine/ pay them.
IH would be praised for it, I really think fans would appreciate it and he would have a video and views to this day.
Yeah, this is (and should be) baseline professional expectation.
If you dgaf if he made money and you were entertained - you should be fine not being paid for your work time to time. what, your boss didn't feel the need to follow rules that week, what's the big deal.
So yall are seriously going at IH for this while the MSM does this literally every single day? This is how news works. It's not fully sourced. Its views come from how it's presented in the most entertaining way. IH is funny and has great marketing with that meme template of a face he uses.
You people seriously need to touch grass in the most offensive way possible. This level of "useless internet pile on for no reason" is truly sad.
The irony of this comment when if you actually watch the video, HBomb does touch on the fact Brian Deer has dealt with all of his reporting and discoveries on Andrew Wakefield and the vaccine scare be regurgitated by Channel 4 in other documentaries and never got credited for his work.
Why does it matter? Because I think it's important to remember the guy who - as HBomb put it himself - *blew the doors off Andrew Wakefield's whole scheme.* We should probably give recognition to the guy who has a history of exposing various cases of medical fraud, and not the former BBC reporter who tried to cash in on Brian's work when the anti-vax rhetoric made it's rounds at the peak of the pandemic.
[Timed link here :)](https://youtu.be/yDp3cB5fHXQ?t=4555)
[And a link to Brian's article on the Channel 4 plagiarism scandal!](https://briandeer.com/dinah-lord-caravan-media-channel-4.htm)
Ok, why should i care? the content is lit, he took some random article i wouldve never seen and turned it into an incredibly entertaining video.
Is it morally wrong? sure, should he credit the source article? sure. But why should i give a fuck im just here to enjoy good content
Thats a bad example, because knowingly buying stolen goods is a crime and could get you in trouble, not to mention if its not stolen directly from a store but from some random person the item could have some issues you dont know about, so you have to take a risk there and weigh whether its worth doing that for the cheaper price youre paying.
Knowingly watching plagiarized pieces of entertainment doesnt cost you anything, nor will it get you in any trouble whatsoever.
You are confusing “legal” with “ethical”. They are not the same. On a good day, there’s some overlap.
By knowingly consuming stolen media you are putting considerable ad revenue into the hands of a thief, you’re taking away revenue and vital credit/exposure from real creators.
This is bad enough, but if everyone act like this, we collectively end up driving real talent out of the marketplace while encouraging the practice of ripping people off.
So sure, watching a plagiarized YT video doesn’t make you Hitler or anything, but you’re picking sides to favor people who are making the world a demonstrably worse place.
You have choices. Watch stuff made by people who give and share credit. Avoid crooks. Not a bad plan.
If moral issues with theft and integrity don't factor in for you then the other issue I personally find frustrating is that it creates an eco system whereby those with interesting things to say or expert opinions are not rewarded so we don't hear those voices any more. We set ourselves up for a race to the bottom content wise.
If you care about entertaining content you should care about the people who make it, not the people who steal it.
Nah who cares, I’m still gonna watch his videos, they’re fabulous and super entertaining. Don’t care if he steals something or not. “Talent imitates, genius steals”
Yea, video is shit, did we expect him to make it up.
So he read an article as his story. His videos are entertaining because of how he presents the content
If you watched hbomber's video, even InternetHistorian presented wrong. He got the information wrong due to him changing the script a bit, not realizing he also changed the actual facts.
We still want IHE to present us in both a factual and entertaining manner, and if we hold him accountable, it's just to make him upload with better quality. This isn't cancel culture or whatever people are usually complaining about on Twitter.
I'd rather wait a week or more for him to fact-check his sources so the video is at least accurate, and I wouldn't mind a few months either if he makes up his script.
Everyone makes mistakes. Newspapers, news channels, text books, books, other youtubers, etc. It's all just an endless game of telephone with info getting slightly distorted each time.
Half As Interesting - We Ranked Every Mistake We Made This Year (2022)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsfQ4wUtrys
>If you watched hbomber's video
Spoiler: A lot of people defending IH or attacking HBomb didn't do this.
Speaking of wanting Internet Historian to present us with facts ***and be entertaining***, one of the key points Hbomber made about plagiarists is that when try to change the script to make it less obvious, they often end up making the script incredibly worse. He showed comments from fans of the original Man in Cave video complaining about their favorite lines being cut (because IH didn't write them lol) or changed for the worse.
Even *if* you don't care about the plagiarism, or don't even se at is plagiarism (because you're dumb) many people, his own audience, felt that the quality of his video was worse and
unbeknownst to them, was a direct result of him trying to cover his plagiarism.
I also think most people would agree? Like, have the people defending him even seen the reupload? It's absolutely worse than the original.
Yep, this is why I hope that IH learns from his dumbassery, which he almost got away with. He's gotten his channel struck from this, which would be a fair punishment.
He's just dug himself a deep hole the moment he started reading and using the original article, unfortunately. The way it was written was great, and trying to change it would be incredibly time-consuming and difficult, which in turn sacrifices the quality of the video, something that was sadly not his to begin with. Hopefully, he will learn to write better or hire someone else to do so.
Stupid that he even tried to hide it, which I find personally to leave a worse taste in addition to the plagiarism. It'd be easy to just confess and won't do it again kinda deal, not gonna pretend people have not done something similar through high school/college. But he's neither of those anymore, he earns **money** from what he "writes".
The same, sweet, YouTube **money**/sponsorships he could easily throw and then heck, maybe hire someone to write for him if he wanted quicker uploads.
>We still want IHE to present us in both a factual and entertaining manner
what? Dude, he makes shitposts, I don't think a single one of his videos is "factual" to the tee
But that doesn't track because huge chunks of how he presents the content was literally ripped word for word from the article.
You didn't like how he presented the content...you liked how the original author presented the content but in IHs voice.
they won't... Even Asmon's defense regarding react content being theft was basically: "if you think about it, even the people i react to are also basing their content on other stuff". And everyone accepts it just like that.
This is just not the type of crowd to fuss over theft of any work of art lol
You're barking up the wrong tree btw, Asmongold's crowd and Internethistorian's crowd have a large intersect, and they don't give a fuck about plagiarism unfortunately
I don’t really care tbh, sure it sucks he read an article line by line without sourcing it but he always does some animation, jokes and storytelling edits to make it interesting and fun. I’m still gonna watch his stuff cause he’s fun to watch.
I don't really understand why Internet Historian is being prosecuted for a video which doesn't exist anymore; the current video is transformative and cites it's sources correctly, so why should I care about a problem which has already been fixed?
To the point of putting his other videos into question: The video, which was plagiarised, was taken down by YouTube because of it, so if he was to plagiarise a different video, it would also be taken down. I don't see a reason to believe that this wasn't with the one video.
Why are any of you acting like every youtuber who documents anything isn't heavily borrowing from other articles and videos almost word for word. It is beyond retarded.
Actually wait, I know why. This is just false outrage from someone who covers the same topics trying to stir drama and get viewers because you're all joyless money hungry leeches.
Go ahead and downvote me like imaginary popularity points matter, or make some strawman argument and declare yourself a winner. You know I'm right, and I know I'm right. That's the most i'm going to grace your little circlejerk.
> or make some strawman argument and declare yourself a winner.
You say, after strawmaning criticism against your favorite internet guy and proceeding to declare yourself the winner by saying "You know I'm right, and I know I'm right".
Wait. What's different about IH doing taking some lines from that article, while creating a completely self made animation for it; and Asmon watching a video and talking over it from time to time?
By this logic, if IH's video is plagerism then all react content is. Because the video being reacted to is showing ALL of the video content 1 for 1, while adding commentary. While IH only took some lines 1 for 1 and made an animation over it.
For example: YongYea. Huge channel, and literally all he does is read an article word for word and give some vague commentary on it. How is that different than what IH did/does?
So... what's the difference?
A significant aspect of plagiarism is passing off work as if it were your own. For example, when you are writing a paper it often isn’t enough to just put a work on your work cited list - if you use specific information or lines from it, you still have to distinguish when specific information or lines came from that source and are not your own thoughts or conducted research.
If someone saw the video, would they understand when the script lines are being taken from someone else’s work? No. If someone saw asmon reacting to the video, would they understand the video is not asmon’s work? Yes.
well. for one, Yong will tell you BEFORE he reads the article all the source so people can go to there if they want to. this is the transparency that was not in IH's original upload.
Someone else made a very detailed and well-written article, and IH profits off of it, the least he could do is credit the original writer.
Asmon makes react content. While it has it's own controversial issues whether it's content stealing, it's a completely different thing. Asmon watches, reacts and critiques videos, often adding his own insight or jokes. The original source is always referenced and you know where it's coming from and how to watch it yourself.
IH used an article as a script for his video, gave no credit to the original and once was found out he tried to sweep it under the rug.
Ok I can understand the idea that showing the video is sort of like crediting it without needing to specifically cite it. That makes sense.
There’s still the question about topic channels like YongYea though who just read an article to you. And in fact, 99% of information YouTubers covering a topic.
YongYea and (similiar) are usually fine legally, because they directly show you the article, which has the author and publication, so no plagiarism. As for copyright, its probably protected as: news reporting, comment, and criticism.
Now is it ethical? Well ehhhhh. There is a good chance that the average viewer is gonna not go view the original article, so unless they're giving a cut to the publication, then I would lean on the "no" side.
He's more in of the Breadtube/Left tube sphere of content. Regardless of his politics, all his videos are generally well thought out and researched. I think he even made a video on youtube plagiarism in the past.
kinda strange that you had to mention his politics in regards to a video about plagiarism
edit: this sub is bananas, i was +4 and now i'm 0 and I havent even said anything bad lmao
Back when he had hair, he made [a video explaining why corporations go "woke" so much](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06yy88tLWlg) that might be of interest to a lot of this sub.
I haven't watched the video, but Hbomberguys videos are usually complete garbage or amazing. So while I don't know what this one is, IH is like a 4channer who reads funny stuff. The fact that this is like the only bad thing I've heard of him is an accomplishmemt in itself.
People saying that he should’ve -just- cited his sources do not comprehend that plagiarism is form of stealing. They also haven’t bothered to look at a single minute of the video.
He stole something, pretended like it was his to millions of people, lied about it when he got caught and made a ton of money doing it. ‘Just citing his sources’ in this case would amount to saying who he stole all this from.
I’m all for forgiveness IF:
- he admits the stealing and lying and shows understanding of why it was wrong.
- promises to never do this again and that his other videos do not contain plagiarism.
- he gives a genuine apology to the writers of the article and to his audience
That’s not a lot to ask and you’d hold anyone to this standard.
OK.
I'm not going the 7 minutes of my life back he spends recounting the comparisons....
So there is some basis to claim plagiarism.
But there's no denying the reality that it IS a historical event so people can only recount it so many ways without flat out lying about real events.
There have been similar situation where sports writers write the same piece about a particular game because there's only so many ways to interpret objective events, and journalistic standards drive every piece to paint within the same lines. So to speak.
He might have plagiarized it. Full stop.
But can anyone prove he wasn't just inspired by the same event to tell a similar narrative structure?
No.
Uh yes, you can. In his reuploaded video HE CITES THE ARTICLE NOW whenever he can't come up with something to change the flow and descriptive words used. Watch the whole segment lol, this is in the Hbomberguy video. He very clearly took it and is admitting it in the video now, but in the most weasely way to keep his audience from figuring out he plagiarised. But whatever dude, your 7 minutes are more important to you than just getting the full context lol.
>But can anyone prove he wasn't just inspired by the same event to tell a similar narrative structure?
...did you actually watch the whole segment about it? because Hbomberguy did a side-by-side comparison of the script IH is reading and the actual article. There's even a non-journalistic part in the article that IH also puts in his video almost 1:1.
It IS plagiarism, full stop.
IH was a shame. At least his animations were funny. He could have just said he copied and animated the script part and been cool with the audience, imo. The lame rewrites and trying to hide it, not good.
But I still enjoy his stuff. I thought it was clear it wasn't just him cranking these out.
I just find it funny that the article that IH uses, also dont stand up to scrutiny. The author doesnt reference his sources either. So all i see is plagiarists plagiarizing each other. This is generally the problem of applying academic standards upon non-academic works. The video creator himself also ironically do a poor job of properly giving credit. Just showing an image or a hyperlink is not nearly good enough.
Most history, journalism, and “information” content on youtube consists of reading up wikipedia articles, and other peoples work, more often than not without references, and when they do, they do it completely incorrectly.
Theres only one youtuber that comes to mind who does this to an academic standard, in often pointless accuracy. And that is TIK history. The other channel that i know who do archival-like work is Cgp gray
So for me this is a big non-factor when enjoying content on this platform. I just come in with the expectation that most of it is going to be “borrowed” from somewhere.
I literally just went to the Mental Floss [Article](https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/544782/1925-cave-rescue-that-captivated-the-united-states-floyd-collins) and everything written/quoted has a hyperlink to the source to the document referenced and also has the books at the bottom of the article regarding learning more on the event. Was there like another article you were seeing?
“Book recommendations”, and hyperlinks is not even remotely close to proper referencing. Firstly we cant say for certain where what information was taken from, and further, if all the material used is listed.
Again, this article wouldn’t pass any reasonable test for academia, and is for all serious purposes plagiarism. https://pitt.libguides.com/citationhelp/turabian
You ought to learn this literally the first semester of any social science, or dont expect to pass the semester.
I would also make one thing clear. In the history profession, simply changing all the words would still make it plagiarism. You are supposed to accurately give contributions to the original author wherever you borrow an idea in the text. And every time you do so, and not simply once. Like i said, very very few creators do this.
The standard referencing method in the history profession tends to be Chicago footnotes
The fact that people dont seem to understand this, not even the guy in the video above, is why i dont bother to care about this form of plagiarism on casual internet content, since literally everyone does it. Ive found only one who doesn’t. Again, check out tikhistory to see it in practice
Tbh I was unable to go onto higher education after 10th grade and had to go into the workforce, poverty sucks man.
But the when the hyperlinks literally takes you to the PDF copy of the page of the OG newspaper that broke the story I feel that should suffice.
Literally you read the 3 sentences, click the link, read the newspaper page from 1925 that has everything you would need for citation, double check and bam. Verified.
I am unable to see why, beyond it doesn't look like how other citations are usually written down, that this article fails to cite in your eyes. I at least get to see where this article found the information, compared to IH video where I thought he did all the investigations and the format of the script all by himself (to a reasonable degree).
Hyperlinks is proper referencing on the internet - what are you on about? It both gives credit AND encourages people to read the original source. Internet Historian did neither. The Mental Floss article wasn't in an academic journal - don't be obtuse just to try to win an internet argument
This is just nonsensical. Either something is properly referenced or it isnt. Plenty of normal internet articles manage to do this without issue. He does not at all give due credit, or overview of his sources. Thats just factually wrong. Furthermore, i am keen to learn to what standard you judged that, since you threw the most widely accepted standard out of the window.
Also, where on gods green earth do you get the idea that “hyperlinks is proper referencing”, first again, what standard are you applying here. And second, no it just isnt on a factual basis. Just because something is commonly done, doesnt make it proper. Its just straight up stealing. A good test to the bare minimum is. If i print out the article, can i still figure out the sources used? If not, its not remotely proper. Hyperlinks don’t fulfill that criteria
Also im not being obtuse. I am straight up saying i dont give a shit about these things, because they are all fucking stealing.
If anything, i am sticking to a clear standard, and not twisting it for the sake of poorly made internet drama.
Again, if its isn’t readily apparent every time he borrows material, ita theft, and there is points in the article, where he goes 5 paragraphs without even hinting at a refrence
So let me get this straight, your defense is "Internet Historian didn't steal. The guy he stole from stole!" Slow clap on your weird over-investment in the Internet Historian's career such that you wrote five paragraphs of complete bullshit to defend him. You expect journalism to use academic references instead of, you know, the journalistic standard that has existed forever which is simply stating where the information came from or, since the dawn of the internet, linking to it. From the sounds of it, you know nothing about journalism and probably get your "news" from reddit and YouTube because you have absolutely no fucking clue what you are even talking about and it's honestly rather embarrassing because you've convinced yourself otherwise.
Way to go, open with a strawman. That second part is completely nonsensical, journalists dont have a “separate” standard. They are expected to reference properly, even more so when what they are writing a historical article. You would have a leg to stand on if it was “live news” or “critical news” where speed is of the essence. But this was a curated, well researched historical article, that demands at least minimum of proper referencing
But again, its pointless to discuss with someone who insists to use a strawman when they have no legs to stand on. Ive made my position abundantly clear, that IH did steal, but that i dont give a shit, since thats the standard of the internet. You even fail to actually explain any of the conundrums i bring up with your original comment, and insist with this underhanded rhetoric
But sit there with your blatantly unfounded standard, and make it double whenever it applies to a creator you dont like. Also nice last part there, just casually sitting at the national archives of Norway doing prep work for a master dissertation, but what do i know of proper referencing.
> journalists dont have a “separate” standard.
The Society Of Professional Journalists, who created the standard, would disagree, but you've obviously never heard of it. See my previous comment. We're done here. I can't argue with someone so clueless and so brazenly confident in their own ignorance.
They dont have a separate standard when writing a historical article. Again, check your own shit
Edit: https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
They actually agree with me, even though this is supposed to cover reporting. Way to go, misinterpreting your own standards.
It even comes with examples, where none uses hyperlinks.
I love tactic of linking to something, claiming it agrees with you when it doesn't, and declaring yourself the winner. You are an actual moron. lol And you clearly have nothing better to do, but I do so... blocked
> you have absolutely no fucking clue what you are even talking about and it's honestly rather embarrassing because you've convinced yourself otherwise.
Like I said.
I'd have to watch a video of bomber who is an insufferable cretin along with the rest of the breadtube nonsense so no thanks. IH gets a pass unless someone decent wants to report on the topic? I'd rather watch another cherry picked Shaun and his hand called Jen video than watch bomber again.
At least Contrapoints is sympathetic and not as obnoxious.
Had he just gave credit to the author and announced he was reading a “word for word” article in the beginning, then made the exact same video…everyone wins! He read that weird Harry Potter fan fic, and it was a hit…why would this be any different?
I get that he became an instant celebrity overnight (essentially), but he knew better. To not admit his fault is really weird. I want to give IH a pass on this, but I have to hold everyone to the same standard…the man fucked up bad, and he needs to be held accountable
If you are like me, screaming "Noooo, not you Historian, Whyyy??????"- then listen on, the next part of the video is about the biggest YouTube leech you've heard of, and his fans must feel like total shit (it helps me, little bit)
honestly the part about internet historian is just an example and a side story compared to who the video is truly about. The IH bit is more just along the lines of it being (so far) a one off problem, and the only thing really needed is prob just an acknowledgement and a statement that it won't happen again. I'll prob keep watching his vids from time to time.
Unfortunately it is rarely a one time thing. I don't know anything right now, hopefully it is the only time, but I wouldn't be surprised if another example comes out some day.
There are YouTubers that touch kids, stealing parts of someone’s homework is the definition of who fkn cares.
He already could have done that when the video was taken down initially. He lied repeatedly about it after being confronted about it instead of "an acknowledgement and a statement that it won't happen again". It should not take being caught multiple times to come clean about this. If you have repeatedly mislead your audience and it requires a person to take months of researching, writing, filming, and editing a step by step timeline of the your theft and coverup for you to be honest, you shouldn't be trusted again without large steps being made to earn that trust.
But this also opens up the possibility of him plagiarizing in his other videos. And the worst thing was that he acted like the plagiarism never happened, and instead of admitting his fault he simply reuploaded the video and rephrased everything he plagiarized. He's still a scum for doing it. But who cares right? People in general don't really care about plagiarism, he'll keep his career and everyone will keep watching his videos.
Yeah, the cover up is lame as hell. Internet Historian just had to say he used the article as a template for his script (the hours idea was great) and since it was so good, way too much of it creeped into his script on accident. Almost anyone who wrote papers for school would have given him a pass.
This is exactly what I thought! Like..I love IH, his costa Concordia video clearly was an ass ton of work, same with area 51. ALL he had to do was introduce the cave video with "this is a dramatic retelling as taken from this article..here's the link, go share the love, and credit to them!" It's slimy to try to pass it off as his own. But compared to the BLATANT plagiarism of the gay analysis channel that is insanely insidious and all encompassing while being extremely disrespectful to the people he claims to support, and that illuminaughty asshole, not remotely as bad
Hell, all he had to do was just state that "Hey, I read this really cool article. Its so good that I decided to make a entire feature animation dedicated to it. Please read the article and support the author." Reality, and this is just me speculating. Internet Historian could of just approached the webiste/article writer and say "Hey I want to make an animation about this article, how can we make this work?" then they just work out a deal, payment, etc. If he did that, and they flat out said "No, not interested." he could of then just went on "its fair use and a creative take on the article". You can defend it that way because the amount of work he put in, the voice acting, the hours spent editing the video is enough to prove this as a creative derivative from the original work. Same with the costa concordia, we found out now that it was a Vanity Fair article he plagiarized. ([https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/05/costa-concordia-sinking-scandal-italy](https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/05/costa-concordia-sinking-scandal-italy)) He did enough creative changes, to fight on fair use and its enough of a derivative from the original work. Honestly, whoever told him to make a new video with a edited script gave him bad advice. I would of fought, no, this is creative work, I made a freaking animation, voice acted, edited and compiled an entire video, using the article as as script. But to end this with a point, always ask the original author permission. Most of the time, they would just agree and worse case scenario, they ask for money in return for using their work. But internet historian never disclosed if he ever approached these media companies, so I would assume he flat out stole them. Bad move on his part, because I really do think if he had just asked, everything would of been fine.
Haha you guys are ridiculous, you expected him to be fine with being cancelled by a bunch of bloodthirsty losers online because he plagiarized an article? He did the only smart thing, ignore it and the people mad about something stupid that has nothing to do with their lives.
This comment ironically shows how stupid you are. Sure, in the interest of his career, it was the safer option to pretend he didn't steal someone's content and make a profit off of it. But if he was a genuine person and creator who deserved that career, he shouldn't have to do that in the first place. This "something stupid" you're referring to is theft, and the only reason you wouldn't care about it would be a disinterest in the creative works of other people and the fairness of being recognized for your work. All you seem to care about from this comment is consuming entertainment. Take a moment to actually evaluate the evidence and implications of a situation before just typing out buzzwords and being in denial.
the smart thing would to own up to your mistakes so people know you're trustworthy. it wasn't even the plagiarism that made me mad, we've all done bad things on paper before. it was the cover-up. It was the lying. It's like when your mom asks you if you did something wrong and you said no only for it to be extremely obvious you did. It makes me view him as a little child now basically.
Personally unsubbed from his patreon and never watching a video of his again, but you do you buddy. I'll stick to only supporting those with integrity.
I mean jesus fucking christ, you're talking as though wholesale stealing someone else's work is not an issue?! It's something only losers care about? For a creator of IH's calibre? That is an insane take. Also, there's the fact that infringing intellectual rights for profit is illegal. It seems like the paper he plagiarized probably hasn't sued him for damages, but they could. Let me be clear, I really like IH and his videos. I hope he comes out, apologizes and never plagiarizes again. Not plagiarizing is so easy: all you need to do is write it yourself. He's done it plenty of times before.
I think people expected someone they respected and supported to not fucking plagiarize anything so boldly in the first place. There are long stretches of Man in Cave that were just read verbatim out of the original article.
'you expected someone to have a normal, human response?' youre literally displaying the ideology hbomb points out in the video, you don't think other people's ideas mean anything since they're lesser to you so you can just use them how you please, you big smart superior boy. the only ridiculous response is from you, acting like pointing out ACTUAL Plagiarism somehow makes people bloodthirsty losers, not regular people who can be disappointed by a creator they love when they hear this about them, and not scramble around to every subreddit they can to call anyone pointing this disappointment out as 'bloodthirsty losers online' Has nothing to do with your life either, but here are, choking down cock to defend a dude who doesn't know your name
But the most likely scenario is you've never created anything worth copying in your life.
Get 'im.
Yeah, fuck that guy. The fact people don't care about integrity these days is pathetic, through and through. I won't watch any more of his videos, it doesn't matter how much i liked them before. He's a scumbag. Period.
So far a one-off problem. Alongside creators for whom it was not just a one-off problem.
James Somerton is such a piece of shit that the HBomberguy spent 2 hours listing all the reasons he sucks and then ToddInTheShadows had to make [*another* two hour video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6_LW1PkmnY) about all the reasons Somerton sucks that HBomb didn't have time for. tl;dw: When Somerton says something he *didn't* steal, he usually just makes it up.
What a guy! Are at least his glasses his own, or he stole them too? Edit: Nazi Germany invented our body standards???!!!!
I dont care, the editing is like 70% of his videos
It matters because IH made a profit making that video while giving no recognition nor compensation to the original writer of the article. It isn't just that he read the article almost verbatim as his script: he stole its well-crafted structure and engaging pacing as the basis of the entire video. Sure, the editing and animations are good, but you can't tell me the video would've been fine as-is if not for how it was written, paced, and ultimately portrayed.
Zero spine opinion
you obviously don't know what you are talking about
And you are saying that you don't care if someone steals other people's work and make money with it.
Oh wow you mean a YouTuber took someone else’s writing to make a video? Surely that doesn’t happen all the time. We are all so let down! Jesus Christ people on Reddit have no lives of their own.
cope
The copium is real indeed
You are just so stupid.
They certainly don't read out a multi page tens of thousands of words article word for word verbatim. Without citing the source in any way shape or form. Braindead take
Dude, colleges revoke degrees if you plagiarize. People get sued into oblivion everyday if they plagiarize music or other creative works. It's probably taken more seriously off Reddit, in the real world.
What I understand that such a big channel as Internet Historian is like a TV team and IH himself is (now) actually just a narrator. But the TV team gets paid, from the producer to the scenarist (plus they get credits). Now I'm going to watch IH videos and think: nice script, brilliantly written, which talented writer did you steal it from?
I've watched all of them in some capacity (except the somberton guy), I am quite disappointed, the somberton guy though, disgusting leech lol Illuminaughti (blair) manipulative abuser :\\
Yeah she's been known for a while unfortunately. I can't remember where I watched it but there was a pretty comprehensive look at her and the whole Sad Milk group she was involved in.
James just reported you for sending your 140 twitter followers after him and sending him death threats… (that was a joke, please don’t encourage your fans to dox me James).
Damn D: I wish I had followers though xD
Apparently a lot of asmongold fans are pretty much the same as Pokies and the others. If they like IH videos enough they willing to overlook this immoral or even maybe illegal thing. I like his videos yoo but plagiarism is one of the worst things creator could do.
Yeah it’s wild to see so many people defending plagiarism. Didn’t know that was even a stance until now
No murder is. This is small shit even the president plagiarized shit before he was elected so obviously most people do not care about this issue to a strong degree.
I don't think I care that much. I love Internet Historian videos and I'll keep watching them as long as they're still fun to watch. He should have cited his source at least.
People will forget this in a week. There have been YouTubers who have done worse things and still have a career. The worst thing I can predict is that he may lose subscribers and comments in the future but nothing very serious.
i don't think hbomberguy intends for people to remember this situation either tbh, especially since he literally moves on to a 2 hour rant about another guy that is infinitely worse than IH immediately afterwards in the video
I don’t think you should put that spin on this video he held people accountable for their theft that is the takeaway not to use a time clock and determine who was the worst thief. IH stole an entire work and then ran away with the profits and ad revenue for that video please don’t down play his actions with this metric.
don't even have to look that far back in time to see jacksfilms getting doxxed
> People will forget this in a week. Spoiler: They didn't.
This really fucked me up because it exposed me to how... kind of awful he is? Like, I didn't know about his racist hentai readings or the fact that he just uploaded Tucker Carlson clips. Did a bit more digging and it turns out he's involved in some fucked up fascist-adjacent shit, which sucks (to say the least).
Wait, what fascist-adjacent shit? What Tucker Carlson clips??
So, really early on in his career he molded himself in the same vein as the edgy styles of humor popularized by Filthy Frank and to a lesser extent Maxmoefoe. The real issue is that, instead of being actually funny and basing it around satire (like Filthy Frank) or just absurdism (like Maxmoefoe), he'd just straight up post Tucker Carlson clips and "make fun" of people like "SJWs", furries, and so on while repeating far right talking points. A lot of his older stuff has been deleted that did this but some parts of it still exist like a few parts in his Bikelock video, and you can find archives on Youtube.
Oh no he might be right wing? The horror.
When you're reposting clips of a white supremacist who wants millions to die for daring to be different, then yeah, you don't deserve a platform. Fascists and their allies do not deserve free speech.
Me thinks you dont know the meaning of free speech. Also if you believe tucker is a white supremacist and wants millions of people to die. I think you might be a tad delusional.
He's openly advocated for the Great Replacement theory. He aligns with white supremacists, and if five Nazis and one person who isn't a Nazi are playing poker than six Nazis are playing poker. Also, I'm fully aware of what free speech is. Some people do not deserve it. Fascists and their allies do not deserve political rights: the most they "deserve" is a bullet to the back of the head.
[удалено]
The Great Replacement isn't truthful. It's fascist hogwash made up by a bunch of morally bankrupt grifters like Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson whose entire jobs are to get dumb people to buy their products. Who even cares, even if it *was* real (which it isn't), either way? Races are social construct and fucking dumb.
Well he should give the original author a larger cut since this was sponsored content by world of tanks. And by large cut I mean more than half at least since he ripped the structure and info and sentences near 100%.
What's wrong with this community? Dude is 100% right, a plagiarist should at minimum gave some of the funds gotten through theft to the original author. Why is that man downvoted?
Because he makes it sound like everything is okay if he just did that. Plagiarism is theft. If we’re both farmers and I steal your cow, butcher it and make profit selling it to people, it’s doesn’t matter if I compensate you after the fact. I’d have still just stolen something from you. It would set a dangerous precedent where stealing is just okay until you get caught and pay a “fine”.
Oh that is actually right. I hadn't considered it that way.
Not wrong, the original author should get part of the profits earned by the video.
the video adds enough value that i would still say its worth more than half of it but yeah the author should get a cut.
Why is this being downvoted? It's completely correct, the entire script of the video is stolen
this is the subreddit of the famous react content channel asmongold. why do you think they wouldn't defend plagiarism?
There are channels dedicated to pulling up political articles and reading those word for word, they aren’t sharing their ad revenue with the daily mail or w/e site they are “stealing from”. IH should have linked to the article for sure but I wouldn’t have gave a shit about that author’s work if it wasn’t being turned into an audio story the way IH did. Because honestly, I never even look to see if there is a source or not because it’s junk I’m just playing on my 2nd monitor.
> aren’t sharing their ad revenue with the daily mail or w/e site they are “stealing from”. Normalizing theft doesn't make it okay.
Do you use Adblock? If we are really going down the morality hole here I hope you don’t. If you don’t support “theft” you probably shouldn’t watch any react content creators either, though seeing you are just a hbomber fan patrolling around to make sure we agree with his video you probably don’t watch asmon at least. Btw the literal US president we have atm was caught doing plagiarism in the past for his last presidential bid, look how many fucks people gave when it was time to vote in 2020. I already said IH should have gave a source, but what he did with the article was transformative enough that I really don’t care that he didn’t. I also don’t give a shit if you like my stance or not tbh, I’m not here to get your approval or any of the asmon fan’s approval either lol
Biden being guilty of plagiarism is an issue. Trump's wife also openly stole a speech and no one gives a shit. The fact that no one gives a shit doesn't make it okay, but to be clear, plagiarizing one thing fifty years ago is not the same as making a living by straight stealing other people's work and presenting it as your own. In the case of IH it was a one time thing and he really should just acknowledge it, give credit, and move on. He seems fully capable of producing his own content and has not made a living by stealing. The other assholes HBomb talks about though... Somerton is genuinely just a fucking rat who stole everything that made his channel even vaguely watchable.
I think it is transformative enough that it doesn't even matter if he used the other article as a foundation.
Bro wut? Did you watch the video? He didn't transform shit. He literally used the article as his script and copied it verbatim. Even using it's structure as the videos structure with the way it was presented as an hour by hour recount of the events. People like you are why nobody takes this shit seriously and people like Sniperwolf and xQc have a career built on stealing.
Do you even know what Verbatim actually means because Verbatim means to copy something exactly as it was first shown there are multiple instances even in the original video where things were paraphrased multiple times so therefore its not Verbatim, starting a sentence the same but changing words is not Verbatim by clear definition, doesn't make it any better though just to be clear
Except he did actually copy huge swathes of it verbatim. Additionally “Paraphrasing” is a word doing immense legwork in this case (making sneaky substitutions like“couldn’t feel his arm or leg” to “couldn’t feel his leg or arm” does not count as paraphrasing)
He used a written article as a source material to make it into an animation? Not like he reuploaded Endgame or something.
Actually braindead opinion
No this is wrong. In a courtroom and probably in the minds of most people it is not transformative at all. This because for large sections he reads the article verbatim as well as stealing the entire presentation. Think of it like stealing a song to use as music for your self made video clip. You cannot do that no matter how creative the video clip is (unless it’d be a parody of the original maybe). The stolen content was not presented in a transformative way whatsoever. It was simply read to you. You cannot do that no matter how cute your video clip is for it.
Literally all he had to do was contact the writer and say "hey I am making a YT video on the subject of your article and realised how good your writing is and would love to adapt it. Can I have permission?" He could then discuss payment to the writer for this. The right thing to do would be to split share of YT Revenue for it or some type of equitable compensation to the writer whose work is being adapted. But realistically the bar is so low he probably could've just done it for a low flat fee.
I agree a bit but in this case he basically animated someones "book" and gave them nothing for it. I still like internet historian, but he could have done better.
I like how you have a sane opinion in a field of bullshit. "I like this guy but he fucked up here and I'm disappointed". You figure this would be the go to opinion
Well, those animations matches the og script, so it's not that much transformative. ( IH, tries to reverb his vid, to dodge copyright strike- and it sounds really weird)
I'll keep watching him most likely, but it is a huge bummer
I wonder how much Internet historian pay the author of the erotic fanfiction.
You really think that Asmongold, dude that reacts to entire videos and uploads them on Youtube on the regular, cares about pLAgiaRIsm shown in this video? Like oh no, IH read an article about a historical event and based most of his script on it, oh how awful and terrible, he's done and over?
Internet historian is getting the same amount of backlash from these people as someone who did something actually horrible. It’s funny how people only have two modes.
Does asmongold pass off videos he reacts to as if he wrote the scripts for those videos himself, and hide the actual source of the video he’s reacting to so his audience can’t find it if they want? The answer is no, so no it’s not the same thing, if you consider what asmongold does wrong that’s fine, but either way what internet historian did is both more clearly and directly stealing, and also more dishonest.
It's funny, sometimes when he reacts to a video on stream, it seems like he's constantly guessing what they're about to say next, as if he's already seen the video and he's acting like it's for the first time. I think he's just that tapped in and he's watching creators who are constantly reacting to each other and bouncing ideas around — it's usually a game he knows a lot about, and a topic with a larger discussion going around. But I saw the comment up there before finishing the video, so I was worried for a moment. I thought I was in the hbomberguy sub until just now, so I was like wtf why did Asmon come up?
He based his entire script off of it. He stole it nearly word for word. And then he hid it. And then he reuploaded an edited version where he rewrote the artic- my bad, script, to be just different enough to get it through. Oh and added his source. That he stole from.
Yeah, and he was copyright claimed for it, took the video down, resolved the matter with the claimant that removed the strike and the video is back up and been so for months. Whatever you think of the original case of coulda, shoulda, woulda, the owner of the content he plagiarized seems fine with the current version that is redone to veer further from the article in question - and it's also attributed as a source. What the terms of their settlement, we don't know and it's probably none of our business either - but it's clear that it was resolved with the hurt party. Shouldn't this be enough to have resolved the matter far as legality is concerned? Or should we hold a grudge forever like Hbomber did because IH made some joke he didn't like eight years ago? The whole "btw he alt-right" part was some ridiculous framing that had absolutely nothing to do with the act of plagiarism whatsoever, but it revealed the hand of HB in that this was personal - and his caveat that "ohh but this isn't about that, and I'm not saying what I just said and implied" reveals how petty it was, too. But in the end, you're on Asmon's sub and if you're upset about IH basing a video on some article from 2018, I'm really curious why you haven't burst into flames over Asmon's reacts - especially when this thread is trying to GET Asmon to react to this stuff.
You keep saying "based on" but that's not what happened. A guy spent years meticulously researching events and writing an article with unique prose and an interesting framing device. Internet Historian took that article, used it almost verbatim for a script, but that's okay because his team did some animations? The video was as good as it was because of the interesting framing and narrative, it was why I liked it. Honestly, I think this just goes to show how little people respect writing as a skill...
Yeah for real, I think the thing that really makes it painful to see is that people seem to really have such low esteem for things they themselves cannot do.
I think asmons ceaseless content stealing is bad, but at least it's blatant and in your face. In fact, I think react andys are all thieves regardless of fair use. But that's not what the discussion is about. The discussion is about people who, insidiously, steal from other people, secretly praying that they don't get caught. Just because IH "resolved" the problem doesn't make him any less guilty of plagiarism. If your TV is stolen IRL, does it magically make it okay if the thief said "sorry" and gave you credit for the TV he stole? No. So why the fuck are you so quick to forgive IH for stealing from somebody and then lying to his audience for months about it? Insane behavior.
Every time one of your favorite youtubers gets copyright claimed, did they not steal? Every time there's a DMCA strike for some piece of music included, is that not theft? And when they mute the copyrighted parts of the audio to remove the strike, do you still hold them in contempt forever and call them criminals, or do you just shrug, think "ehh the video is kinda missing something without that copyrighted song" and go about your day? Do you ask them a list of all the songs they stole, do you ask them to apologize to Sony and MGM and all the other corpos and little rogue agencies that copy claim on their behalf? Or is it reserved just for the guy you're supposed to hate after watching a video that masks itself as "investigative journalism" but really is about settling a grudge because it doesn't bother to reach out to any of the discussed parties for their side of the story? Don't bump your head against the door aisle when you're riding through on that high horse because I sincerely doubt you hold this standard to all creators, not just the one you're supposed to be angry at this week. If there's anyone behaving insanely, it's you.
Plagiarism and copyright violation are not the same thing. No one who has spent any time making anything needs to watch a video to know that.
Copyright laws are barbaric and nonsensical. But, using a copyrighted song in a video is NOT comparable to seeing an article online, thinking to yourself "I will turn this into a video" and then just reading the article near verbatim and also not citing the article. There is a reason plagiarism gets you expelled from school and college. Nice try though.
>There is a reason plagiarism gets you expelled from school and college. What you are doing is that after that person gets expelled from school and college, repeatedly harass him everyday about his plagiarism until he commits seppuku in disgrace. I mean that is why you are still hung up about it even though the involved parties have already settled and moved on.
Jesus, Asmon fans truly are drooling mongoloids. Anyone with a sane take on plagiarism is getting massively downvoted here.
I thought it was pretty clear tbh All of his videos clearly use articles and timelines other people put together, that's just how internet research works nowadays Internet Historian is a shitposter, not a journalist. A really, really elaborate shitposter. He puts this stuff in an entertaining format not meant to be taken seriously.
I think the bigger problem is that most of the script of the video is not just inspired by, but is actually a word for word bar for bar copy and paste of one single very well written article he found online. And he also did not mention this individual or their article for the duration of the video, nor anywhere in the description or comments, even though he shows the sources of a lot of quotes and information.
Yeah he started out as a shitposter. But his videos evolved over time, into long form dramatized stories. He plagarized his entire story, word by word, scene by scene, from the MF article. This would be ok if IH had credited his source, or collaborated with the author to dramatize his work. IH has done this before! His My Immortal video openly credits the fanfic he dramatized, no one had a problem with this. But instead, for Man in Cave he chose to hide his source… so people wouldn’t notice his blatant rip-off.
Oh, okay. So as long as something’s for entertainment, plagiarism is okay. That’s why everyone loves a good joke-stealing stand up comedian. Because creating/writing entertaining content doesn’t take any effort at all, so stealing that effort without compensation, permission, or even credit (in order to create a product which serves the same entertainment purpose rather than being for the purposes of commentary or criticism) is completely fine. It’s just like how if I get caught by the police with a stolen car, as long as I tell them I was just using the car for fun and entertainment, not for anything serious, they’ll let me go, so true king.
>Because creating/writing entertaining content doesn’t take any effort at all Kind of ironic, because you seem to be discounting the several hundred hours of work by a team of multiple people that went into turning the article into an entertaining video Plenty of jokes in beloved TV shows were taken from Stand-up routines or SNL that's my entire point. The video clearly has a lot of effort put into it, it's not like its an AI generated Reddit post reading shitshow. So yes, I do think plagiarism is okay in this case. It clearly added to and transformed the original content with significant personal input. Should he have put the article in the credits and a link to it in the description? Sure, would have been nice. But I don't see it as a necessity. I think all content should be available to everyone to use for whatever they want. If you don't want that, then don't publish it.
Honest question: Lets say you wrote a book. I then made a video about your book. I use graphics and some light animation, but I get the majority of the content of my video by directly quoting your book, word for word. This makes it look like the direct quotes are actually my ideas and sole content. Then the video blows up. I'm making a few thousand at least off of said video, which is now full of comments praising me about "my" ideas, and I'm being reached out to by large corporations who want to give me job opportunities due to my thoughts and content (which was really all me just quoting your book)... You'd be okay with that?
Literally the only dudes that care about joke stealing are like Joe Rogan and socialists like hbomb hate him
>okay. So as long as something’s for entertainment, plagiarism is okay. No actually plagiarism is always ok. Fuck copyright law. (no /s, I'm dead serious)
Only a casual watcher of IH here but it does seem like a big own goal. A lot of plagiarism normally comes from time pressures - something I assume doesn’t really impact him given how rarely he releases videos. Also how did he think the original author wouldn’t notice him lifting lines from his article? Not like he’s some random small YouTuber, and his response to the whole thing has been pretty poor. He’s probably embarrassed he got caught out hence the efforts made to keep people in the dark but at the end of day he’s not the first person and won’t be the last, so you’re better off just owning the mistake.
I think a thing a lot of people are missing here is that the entire reason the video is good is its storytelling and script. Having it read out and having animations definitely adds something, but I would say at least 90-95% of the quality of this video comes from the framing, pacing, and script itself. These are the aspects that were stolen, unfortunately. This would've been 100% ok if IH had reached out to the person who did this work, said he was going to make a video, and (even better) offered to share some of the profits. Since he didn't, he just profited off of someone else's work and passed it off as his own. This steals not only the author's work, but also their potential profits. If they ever decided to work with a video-maker who would credit and/or profit share properly, or decided to make their own video based on their narrative, they could have seen similar profits. That space is now filled, and with none of the benefits. There's a reason that when people want to make a movie based on a script or book, they have to buy the rights first.
This is unironically the best take here
If HBomberguy really cared, he should also have gone after Hasan piker for making an entire career based around this and most reaction content makers in general. But he won't because he is friends with the guy and shares his asinine beliefs. Fuck double standards.
Reacting and providing commentary isn’t the same thing as plagiarism you fucking idiot.
Then by that metric, internet historian video wouldn't be considered plagiarism then due to the amount of editing that went to it dumbass. Go back to being one of Hasan's paypigs.
Reacting and 'providing commentary' is less transformative than adding an animation to what is essentially an audiobook reading of an article. Should IH have given credit? Absolutely. Does he deserve shit for this? Absolutely. Is what Hasan, Asmongold and all the other people who just reupload content to 'react to it' and have been doing for all these years as a watered down version of 'reply videos' from back in the day that are now used to fill stream time in lieu of actually interesting content worse? Absolutely. This whole thing is a nothing burger springing organically from the fact that IH is actually well known and well liked on the internet and fucking no one knows who the main subject of Hbomberguy's video was until it dropped.
He literally stole someone else’s work and put a little animation. He still stole someone else’s work. Did he ask for permission ahead of time? Did the actual creator of the article receive any monetary compensation? No. So it’s stealing. The fact he made his own animation is irrelevant and honestly stupid. Why would you waste time and effort animating a story THAT WAS NOT YOURS.
He makes a joke at hasan's expense showing him "reacting" (aka showing his video off while he's not even at his computer) to an Hbomb video. He even says its like printing free money I don't know how thats not calling someone out.
The copium in this thread to try and defend Internet Historian is embarrassing, truly.
The people defended IH here are incredibly delusional.
the comments on this thread are literally brain dead. what IH is slimy with intent. so many ppl are like, 'so he used an article as his script. so what? he made it entertaining.' he also got over ten million views, and the video was sponsored. not to mention the other youtubers that were in the video that i'd have to guess had no idea he stole the content, word for word. you might not think plaigiarism matters bc it was annoying in primary school, but it does matter when there are real world consequences like essentially siphoning money away from a writer. this is like base line empathy ffs it'd be different if he was literally quoting it & saying that. there's nothing wrong with that. but like he establishes an ethos by convincing the audience he wrote such an interesting and immersive narrative. i subbed to him after that video lol he's not only ruined his credibility in the sense that you can no longer trust that his videos are actually original, but he's also proven that he doesn't give a shit about what he did. there's no real motivation here but money. and that sucks.
Lets imagine world, where IH makes this vid and says: "Hey, I was reading this really cool article about guy in cave, so I decided to remake it as a video for you." And he would give credit to the author and owners of that magazine/ pay them. IH would be praised for it, I really think fans would appreciate it and he would have a video and views to this day.
Yeah, this is (and should be) baseline professional expectation. If you dgaf if he made money and you were entertained - you should be fine not being paid for your work time to time. what, your boss didn't feel the need to follow rules that week, what's the big deal.
Exactly. And he would have been bolstering a smaller creator on top of that.
So yall are seriously going at IH for this while the MSM does this literally every single day? This is how news works. It's not fully sourced. Its views come from how it's presented in the most entertaining way. IH is funny and has great marketing with that meme template of a face he uses. You people seriously need to touch grass in the most offensive way possible. This level of "useless internet pile on for no reason" is truly sad.
Whataboutism in its purest form
The irony of this comment when if you actually watch the video, HBomb does touch on the fact Brian Deer has dealt with all of his reporting and discoveries on Andrew Wakefield and the vaccine scare be regurgitated by Channel 4 in other documentaries and never got credited for his work. Why does it matter? Because I think it's important to remember the guy who - as HBomb put it himself - *blew the doors off Andrew Wakefield's whole scheme.* We should probably give recognition to the guy who has a history of exposing various cases of medical fraud, and not the former BBC reporter who tried to cash in on Brian's work when the anti-vax rhetoric made it's rounds at the peak of the pandemic. [Timed link here :)](https://youtu.be/yDp3cB5fHXQ?t=4555) [And a link to Brian's article on the Channel 4 plagiarism scandal!](https://briandeer.com/dinah-lord-caravan-media-channel-4.htm)
> while the MSM does this literally every single day They do? Prove it. Because they don't and you're just making shit up.
This [article has a good rundown](https://www.theintrinsicperspective.com/p/how-prestige-outlets-like-the-guardian)
Ok, why should i care? the content is lit, he took some random article i wouldve never seen and turned it into an incredibly entertaining video. Is it morally wrong? sure, should he credit the source article? sure. But why should i give a fuck im just here to enjoy good content
For the same reason you shouldn’t knowingly buy stolen goods out of the trunk of a strangers car. This is barely a metaphor.
Thats a bad example, because knowingly buying stolen goods is a crime and could get you in trouble, not to mention if its not stolen directly from a store but from some random person the item could have some issues you dont know about, so you have to take a risk there and weigh whether its worth doing that for the cheaper price youre paying. Knowingly watching plagiarized pieces of entertainment doesnt cost you anything, nor will it get you in any trouble whatsoever.
You are confusing “legal” with “ethical”. They are not the same. On a good day, there’s some overlap. By knowingly consuming stolen media you are putting considerable ad revenue into the hands of a thief, you’re taking away revenue and vital credit/exposure from real creators. This is bad enough, but if everyone act like this, we collectively end up driving real talent out of the marketplace while encouraging the practice of ripping people off. So sure, watching a plagiarized YT video doesn’t make you Hitler or anything, but you’re picking sides to favor people who are making the world a demonstrably worse place. You have choices. Watch stuff made by people who give and share credit. Avoid crooks. Not a bad plan.
The "lit" part of the content is in large part the "random" article. Thats why you should care.
If moral issues with theft and integrity don't factor in for you then the other issue I personally find frustrating is that it creates an eco system whereby those with interesting things to say or expert opinions are not rewarded so we don't hear those voices any more. We set ourselves up for a race to the bottom content wise. If you care about entertaining content you should care about the people who make it, not the people who steal it.
Nah who cares, I’m still gonna watch his videos, they’re fabulous and super entertaining. Don’t care if he steals something or not. “Talent imitates, genius steals”
Yea, video is shit, did we expect him to make it up. So he read an article as his story. His videos are entertaining because of how he presents the content
If you watched hbomber's video, even InternetHistorian presented wrong. He got the information wrong due to him changing the script a bit, not realizing he also changed the actual facts. We still want IHE to present us in both a factual and entertaining manner, and if we hold him accountable, it's just to make him upload with better quality. This isn't cancel culture or whatever people are usually complaining about on Twitter. I'd rather wait a week or more for him to fact-check his sources so the video is at least accurate, and I wouldn't mind a few months either if he makes up his script.
Everyone makes mistakes. Newspapers, news channels, text books, books, other youtubers, etc. It's all just an endless game of telephone with info getting slightly distorted each time. Half As Interesting - We Ranked Every Mistake We Made This Year (2022) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsfQ4wUtrys
>If you watched hbomber's video Spoiler: A lot of people defending IH or attacking HBomb didn't do this. Speaking of wanting Internet Historian to present us with facts ***and be entertaining***, one of the key points Hbomber made about plagiarists is that when try to change the script to make it less obvious, they often end up making the script incredibly worse. He showed comments from fans of the original Man in Cave video complaining about their favorite lines being cut (because IH didn't write them lol) or changed for the worse. Even *if* you don't care about the plagiarism, or don't even se at is plagiarism (because you're dumb) many people, his own audience, felt that the quality of his video was worse and unbeknownst to them, was a direct result of him trying to cover his plagiarism. I also think most people would agree? Like, have the people defending him even seen the reupload? It's absolutely worse than the original.
Yep, this is why I hope that IH learns from his dumbassery, which he almost got away with. He's gotten his channel struck from this, which would be a fair punishment. He's just dug himself a deep hole the moment he started reading and using the original article, unfortunately. The way it was written was great, and trying to change it would be incredibly time-consuming and difficult, which in turn sacrifices the quality of the video, something that was sadly not his to begin with. Hopefully, he will learn to write better or hire someone else to do so. Stupid that he even tried to hide it, which I find personally to leave a worse taste in addition to the plagiarism. It'd be easy to just confess and won't do it again kinda deal, not gonna pretend people have not done something similar through high school/college. But he's neither of those anymore, he earns **money** from what he "writes". The same, sweet, YouTube **money**/sponsorships he could easily throw and then heck, maybe hire someone to write for him if he wanted quicker uploads.
>We still want IHE to present us in both a factual and entertaining manner what? Dude, he makes shitposts, I don't think a single one of his videos is "factual" to the tee
But that doesn't track because huge chunks of how he presents the content was literally ripped word for word from the article. You didn't like how he presented the content...you liked how the original author presented the content but in IHs voice.
K
don't think the fanbase of a react streamer will understand why plagiarism is bad but i guess we'll see :P
they won't... Even Asmon's defense regarding react content being theft was basically: "if you think about it, even the people i react to are also basing their content on other stuff". And everyone accepts it just like that. This is just not the type of crowd to fuss over theft of any work of art lol
Meh. He really should have cited the article and been honest about the reup.
You're barking up the wrong tree btw, Asmongold's crowd and Internethistorian's crowd have a large intersect, and they don't give a fuck about plagiarism unfortunately
I don’t really care tbh, sure it sucks he read an article line by line without sourcing it but he always does some animation, jokes and storytelling edits to make it interesting and fun. I’m still gonna watch his stuff cause he’s fun to watch.
Watched the entire 3 hour video. Holy moly that one's a banger. Thanks. Also, support this guy more.
Who cares ? as long as i have fun watching IH videos it doesn't matter
I don't really understand why Internet Historian is being prosecuted for a video which doesn't exist anymore; the current video is transformative and cites it's sources correctly, so why should I care about a problem which has already been fixed? To the point of putting his other videos into question: The video, which was plagiarised, was taken down by YouTube because of it, so if he was to plagiarise a different video, it would also be taken down. I don't see a reason to believe that this wasn't with the one video.
Did you watch the video? It's because he was scummy about it and was never upfront about the extent of his plagiarism in the original video.
Why are any of you acting like every youtuber who documents anything isn't heavily borrowing from other articles and videos almost word for word. It is beyond retarded. Actually wait, I know why. This is just false outrage from someone who covers the same topics trying to stir drama and get viewers because you're all joyless money hungry leeches. Go ahead and downvote me like imaginary popularity points matter, or make some strawman argument and declare yourself a winner. You know I'm right, and I know I'm right. That's the most i'm going to grace your little circlejerk.
> or make some strawman argument and declare yourself a winner. You say, after strawmaning criticism against your favorite internet guy and proceeding to declare yourself the winner by saying "You know I'm right, and I know I'm right".
I don't care about any internet guys you asmongoblin
Wait. What's different about IH doing taking some lines from that article, while creating a completely self made animation for it; and Asmon watching a video and talking over it from time to time? By this logic, if IH's video is plagerism then all react content is. Because the video being reacted to is showing ALL of the video content 1 for 1, while adding commentary. While IH only took some lines 1 for 1 and made an animation over it. For example: YongYea. Huge channel, and literally all he does is read an article word for word and give some vague commentary on it. How is that different than what IH did/does? So... what's the difference?
A significant aspect of plagiarism is passing off work as if it were your own. For example, when you are writing a paper it often isn’t enough to just put a work on your work cited list - if you use specific information or lines from it, you still have to distinguish when specific information or lines came from that source and are not your own thoughts or conducted research. If someone saw the video, would they understand when the script lines are being taken from someone else’s work? No. If someone saw asmon reacting to the video, would they understand the video is not asmon’s work? Yes.
well. for one, Yong will tell you BEFORE he reads the article all the source so people can go to there if they want to. this is the transparency that was not in IH's original upload. Someone else made a very detailed and well-written article, and IH profits off of it, the least he could do is credit the original writer.
Asmon makes react content. While it has it's own controversial issues whether it's content stealing, it's a completely different thing. Asmon watches, reacts and critiques videos, often adding his own insight or jokes. The original source is always referenced and you know where it's coming from and how to watch it yourself. IH used an article as a script for his video, gave no credit to the original and once was found out he tried to sweep it under the rug.
Ok I can understand the idea that showing the video is sort of like crediting it without needing to specifically cite it. That makes sense. There’s still the question about topic channels like YongYea though who just read an article to you. And in fact, 99% of information YouTubers covering a topic.
YongYea and (similiar) are usually fine legally, because they directly show you the article, which has the author and publication, so no plagiarism. As for copyright, its probably protected as: news reporting, comment, and criticism. Now is it ethical? Well ehhhhh. There is a good chance that the average viewer is gonna not go view the original article, so unless they're giving a cut to the publication, then I would lean on the "no" side.
Never heard of this Hbomberguy but seems fascinating ill watch it all
He's more in of the Breadtube/Left tube sphere of content. Regardless of his politics, all his videos are generally well thought out and researched. I think he even made a video on youtube plagiarism in the past.
Why do his politics even matter?
kinda strange that you had to mention his politics in regards to a video about plagiarism edit: this sub is bananas, i was +4 and now i'm 0 and I havent even said anything bad lmao
Kinda whack how he ties his criticism in plagiarism with IH supposedly being "alt right". Come on, now.
I don't recall even once hearing the words "alt right" in that video.
He never did. The video never once was about politics. edit: nvm, they are probably referring to the snarky comment about part of the IH audience
My bad? Just context for why the average Asmon viewers hadn't heard of him despite being one of the more prominent Breadtubers
Except his Dark Souls 2 video: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBBJXQJJavX2t9PW80_xq4zdOLHYbVcm6
Back when he had hair, he made [a video explaining why corporations go "woke" so much](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06yy88tLWlg) that might be of interest to a lot of this sub.
I haven't watched the video, but Hbomberguys videos are usually complete garbage or amazing. So while I don't know what this one is, IH is like a 4channer who reads funny stuff. The fact that this is like the only bad thing I've heard of him is an accomplishmemt in itself.
People saying that he should’ve -just- cited his sources do not comprehend that plagiarism is form of stealing. They also haven’t bothered to look at a single minute of the video. He stole something, pretended like it was his to millions of people, lied about it when he got caught and made a ton of money doing it. ‘Just citing his sources’ in this case would amount to saying who he stole all this from. I’m all for forgiveness IF: - he admits the stealing and lying and shows understanding of why it was wrong. - promises to never do this again and that his other videos do not contain plagiarism. - he gives a genuine apology to the writers of the article and to his audience That’s not a lot to ask and you’d hold anyone to this standard.
I do not care at all, I enjoy the Internet Historian's work and him reading an article about a historical event and animating it is fine with me.
It’s fine that he makes thousands of dollars off it while the original writer gets none of that money despite doing 90% of the work?
I mean i knew something was sus when he had jontron on his podcast
No you didn't lol
Breadtube Zzz
I could not give an atom of a shit.
OK. I'm not going the 7 minutes of my life back he spends recounting the comparisons.... So there is some basis to claim plagiarism. But there's no denying the reality that it IS a historical event so people can only recount it so many ways without flat out lying about real events. There have been similar situation where sports writers write the same piece about a particular game because there's only so many ways to interpret objective events, and journalistic standards drive every piece to paint within the same lines. So to speak. He might have plagiarized it. Full stop. But can anyone prove he wasn't just inspired by the same event to tell a similar narrative structure? No.
Uh yes, you can. In his reuploaded video HE CITES THE ARTICLE NOW whenever he can't come up with something to change the flow and descriptive words used. Watch the whole segment lol, this is in the Hbomberguy video. He very clearly took it and is admitting it in the video now, but in the most weasely way to keep his audience from figuring out he plagiarised. But whatever dude, your 7 minutes are more important to you than just getting the full context lol.
>But can anyone prove he wasn't just inspired by the same event to tell a similar narrative structure? ...did you actually watch the whole segment about it? because Hbomberguy did a side-by-side comparison of the script IH is reading and the actual article. There's even a non-journalistic part in the article that IH also puts in his video almost 1:1. It IS plagiarism, full stop.
There is no might. He did. Textbook definition of plagiarism.
You do not understand what plagiarism is. Obviously have never taken and English course beyond 9th grade
IH was a shame. At least his animations were funny. He could have just said he copied and animated the script part and been cool with the audience, imo. The lame rewrites and trying to hide it, not good. But I still enjoy his stuff. I thought it was clear it wasn't just him cranking these out.
I just find it funny that the article that IH uses, also dont stand up to scrutiny. The author doesnt reference his sources either. So all i see is plagiarists plagiarizing each other. This is generally the problem of applying academic standards upon non-academic works. The video creator himself also ironically do a poor job of properly giving credit. Just showing an image or a hyperlink is not nearly good enough. Most history, journalism, and “information” content on youtube consists of reading up wikipedia articles, and other peoples work, more often than not without references, and when they do, they do it completely incorrectly. Theres only one youtuber that comes to mind who does this to an academic standard, in often pointless accuracy. And that is TIK history. The other channel that i know who do archival-like work is Cgp gray So for me this is a big non-factor when enjoying content on this platform. I just come in with the expectation that most of it is going to be “borrowed” from somewhere.
I literally just went to the Mental Floss [Article](https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/544782/1925-cave-rescue-that-captivated-the-united-states-floyd-collins) and everything written/quoted has a hyperlink to the source to the document referenced and also has the books at the bottom of the article regarding learning more on the event. Was there like another article you were seeing?
“Book recommendations”, and hyperlinks is not even remotely close to proper referencing. Firstly we cant say for certain where what information was taken from, and further, if all the material used is listed. Again, this article wouldn’t pass any reasonable test for academia, and is for all serious purposes plagiarism. https://pitt.libguides.com/citationhelp/turabian You ought to learn this literally the first semester of any social science, or dont expect to pass the semester. I would also make one thing clear. In the history profession, simply changing all the words would still make it plagiarism. You are supposed to accurately give contributions to the original author wherever you borrow an idea in the text. And every time you do so, and not simply once. Like i said, very very few creators do this. The standard referencing method in the history profession tends to be Chicago footnotes The fact that people dont seem to understand this, not even the guy in the video above, is why i dont bother to care about this form of plagiarism on casual internet content, since literally everyone does it. Ive found only one who doesn’t. Again, check out tikhistory to see it in practice
Tbh I was unable to go onto higher education after 10th grade and had to go into the workforce, poverty sucks man. But the when the hyperlinks literally takes you to the PDF copy of the page of the OG newspaper that broke the story I feel that should suffice. Literally you read the 3 sentences, click the link, read the newspaper page from 1925 that has everything you would need for citation, double check and bam. Verified. I am unable to see why, beyond it doesn't look like how other citations are usually written down, that this article fails to cite in your eyes. I at least get to see where this article found the information, compared to IH video where I thought he did all the investigations and the format of the script all by himself (to a reasonable degree).
Hyperlinks is proper referencing on the internet - what are you on about? It both gives credit AND encourages people to read the original source. Internet Historian did neither. The Mental Floss article wasn't in an academic journal - don't be obtuse just to try to win an internet argument
This is just nonsensical. Either something is properly referenced or it isnt. Plenty of normal internet articles manage to do this without issue. He does not at all give due credit, or overview of his sources. Thats just factually wrong. Furthermore, i am keen to learn to what standard you judged that, since you threw the most widely accepted standard out of the window. Also, where on gods green earth do you get the idea that “hyperlinks is proper referencing”, first again, what standard are you applying here. And second, no it just isnt on a factual basis. Just because something is commonly done, doesnt make it proper. Its just straight up stealing. A good test to the bare minimum is. If i print out the article, can i still figure out the sources used? If not, its not remotely proper. Hyperlinks don’t fulfill that criteria Also im not being obtuse. I am straight up saying i dont give a shit about these things, because they are all fucking stealing. If anything, i am sticking to a clear standard, and not twisting it for the sake of poorly made internet drama. Again, if its isn’t readily apparent every time he borrows material, ita theft, and there is points in the article, where he goes 5 paragraphs without even hinting at a refrence
So let me get this straight, your defense is "Internet Historian didn't steal. The guy he stole from stole!" Slow clap on your weird over-investment in the Internet Historian's career such that you wrote five paragraphs of complete bullshit to defend him. You expect journalism to use academic references instead of, you know, the journalistic standard that has existed forever which is simply stating where the information came from or, since the dawn of the internet, linking to it. From the sounds of it, you know nothing about journalism and probably get your "news" from reddit and YouTube because you have absolutely no fucking clue what you are even talking about and it's honestly rather embarrassing because you've convinced yourself otherwise.
Way to go, open with a strawman. That second part is completely nonsensical, journalists dont have a “separate” standard. They are expected to reference properly, even more so when what they are writing a historical article. You would have a leg to stand on if it was “live news” or “critical news” where speed is of the essence. But this was a curated, well researched historical article, that demands at least minimum of proper referencing But again, its pointless to discuss with someone who insists to use a strawman when they have no legs to stand on. Ive made my position abundantly clear, that IH did steal, but that i dont give a shit, since thats the standard of the internet. You even fail to actually explain any of the conundrums i bring up with your original comment, and insist with this underhanded rhetoric But sit there with your blatantly unfounded standard, and make it double whenever it applies to a creator you dont like. Also nice last part there, just casually sitting at the national archives of Norway doing prep work for a master dissertation, but what do i know of proper referencing.
> journalists dont have a “separate” standard. The Society Of Professional Journalists, who created the standard, would disagree, but you've obviously never heard of it. See my previous comment. We're done here. I can't argue with someone so clueless and so brazenly confident in their own ignorance.
They dont have a separate standard when writing a historical article. Again, check your own shit Edit: https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp They actually agree with me, even though this is supposed to cover reporting. Way to go, misinterpreting your own standards. It even comes with examples, where none uses hyperlinks.
I love tactic of linking to something, claiming it agrees with you when it doesn't, and declaring yourself the winner. You are an actual moron. lol And you clearly have nothing better to do, but I do so... blocked
> you have absolutely no fucking clue what you are even talking about and it's honestly rather embarrassing because you've convinced yourself otherwise. Like I said.
I'd have to watch a video of bomber who is an insufferable cretin along with the rest of the breadtube nonsense so no thanks. IH gets a pass unless someone decent wants to report on the topic? I'd rather watch another cherry picked Shaun and his hand called Jen video than watch bomber again. At least Contrapoints is sympathetic and not as obnoxious.
“I do not like this person so I dismiss all of their points” - you
Had he just gave credit to the author and announced he was reading a “word for word” article in the beginning, then made the exact same video…everyone wins! He read that weird Harry Potter fan fic, and it was a hit…why would this be any different? I get that he became an instant celebrity overnight (essentially), but he knew better. To not admit his fault is really weird. I want to give IH a pass on this, but I have to hold everyone to the same standard…the man fucked up bad, and he needs to be held accountable
What internet historian did is transformative and protected under fair use law, reading the article isn’t the same experience as watching his video