1.1M Subscriber Channel Accused of Copying 100K Channel's Content

Cultured/Educational

When you're craving knowledge, you go for mandu, right? ... See more

Mandu

2 links outside YouTube Sign up Subscribe

It used to be a knowledge YouTube channel that had climbed up to 1 million subscribers before

Sports Trend Cultured Mandu got caught up in a controversy over misogynistic subtitles used in their video, so they replaced the video and posted an apology. YouTube broadcast screen

After the only male team member, the team lead, left and it became female-dominated, the video quality went downhill and they kept pushing it through the subtitles before it even made the news

Do you inherit your face from dad and intelligence from mom? The truth about genetics we didn't know | Educational Mandu. 1.16M subscribers

75.3K 4 Share

Subscribe

Subscribe The real reason Koreans can't steal | Why do Koreans only steal bikes? | Educational Mandu • 1.16M subscribers

☆ Share

Save

Subscribe

Subscribe Did Japanese people actually commit seppuku? The reason samurai slit their own bellies | Educational Mandu.

57 4.2K ☆ Share

Subscribe

Subscribe

1.16M subscribers The real reason demons torment humans | Shocking visual transformation of demons | Educational Mandu. 1.16M subscribers

4 Share

Subscribe

Subscribe getting called out and liking/disliking it Changnam

When 5 feminists gather, all they do is copy a channel with 1/10th of their own subscribers' videos. What's up Mandu?

The real reason Koreans don't steal | The real reason Koreans can't steal | Why do Koreans only steal bikes? ▷ 76K 2 weeks ago Using this kind of video to tag bait and

Gyoyang Mandu 2 days ago Hello, this is Gyoyang Mandu. I sincerely apologize for causing concern due to the recently rekindled plagiarism allegations regarding the <Joseon Tongsinsa> video. I am carefully reviewing every word you've sent. Two years ago, we received a plagiarism objection regarding the <Joseon Tongsinsa> video from the Knowledge Supremacy channel, and at that time we clarified the circumstances and position of how the video was made. However, we are taking seriously the fact that the same controversy has repeated due to our insufficient response. After the controversy was rekindled two weeks ago, we are carefully re-examining the allegations related to the video once more. Additionally, since our judgment alone may be insufficient, we are also seeking legal consultation regarding whether plagiarism occurred. We are currently awaiting results, and due to being cautious, our additional statement was delayed. We apologize for appearing to neglect the channel with no response during that process. Viewers sent sincere concerns and opinions through emails and comments. We are also not taking this matter lightly. We fully understand that there are people who feel frustrated and disappointed because of this incident. As soon as the legal consultation results come out, we will share the contents transparently. If a decision is made that the video constitutes plagiarism, we will take appropriate responsibility and measures. Also, regardless of the outcome, we will use this incident as an opportunity to improve the insufficient parts.

@Kame-q1i1 1 day ago Translation: No clue about moral responsibility, seems like they're figuring out how to slip through legally. Do I look like I care? 4461 7 replies 1 reply ▼ Controversy date 'Legal response'

Truly impressive, Gyoyang Mandu

Comment on post 435 @jisikpowerking • 2 days ago (edited) I've confirmed the statement from the Gyoyang Mandu side. But to be honest, the answer "we're waiting for legal consultation results" seems a bit off from the core of the issue I raised. What I'm asking is not "does copyright infringement legally hold up?" What I've been consistently asking is this: What materials were referenced in making that Joseon Tongsinsa video? Why does the unconventional composition, narration, development method, and storytelling look similar to my video? During the scriptwriting process back then, was there a fact that you referenced my channel's videos, yes or no? Two years ago, I also asked Gyoyang Mandu this question, and at that time they said they'd send me the materials. But for 2 years, there's been no additional clarification. These questions are not questions that can only be answered after legal consultation results come in. Of course, it's possible it could be judged as not plagiarism legally. It's an issue where lawyers can have different opinions. If I were to hire a lawyer and get legal consultation, I could interpret it as "this has a 100% risk of violating copyright law." Or I could interpret it as having risk under the "Unfair Competition Prevention Act." If I received legal consultation on this kind of content and announced it as a notice, would the Gyoyang Mandu side be able to accept and understand it as is? Copyright law is originally like that. The reason I've never mentioned "copyright law" even once is exactly for this reason. But a legal judgment of whether there's a problem or not doesn't directly mean there's no problem creatively and ethically either. Also, legal consultation results cannot substitute for an explanation of the production process and moral clarification. In this case, what viewers are curious about is not just the judgment of a lawyer I paid for consultation. It's the production process of Gyoyang Mandu. What materials were referenced, what circumstances led to that composition, and clear explanation of whether or not my channel's videos were referenced. Getting legal consultation is Gyoyang Mandu's freedom. But those results cannot substitute for clarification about the production process. Before legal judgment, I'm demanding an explanation that's understandable as a creator.