[thekid]

Hey all, I wanted to get the community’s opinion on an issue that has been haunting me (no pun intended) for years. I’ve done a variety of digital prop work (designing Ghostbusters maps, operator manuals, slime beaker labels, Winston’s check, blueprints, etc.) throughout the years. My work was stolen so rampantly I took most of it off the internet but that hasn’t stopped it from occasionally popping up.

That’s part of why I started the YouTube channel Channeling Spirits. I’m not meaning this to be a shameless plug, but it is important for context. Some of you may be familiar with us, certainly the Ghostbusters Northwest are. Back in April 28, 2020, we posted a video “How Does the Proton Pack Work? | The History and Physics of Ghostbusters Equipment”.



Today we found that a new video had been posted by Ghostbusters NW “GBNW ‘How It Works’ - The Proton Pack” which very obviously copies every one of our ideas. See for yourself and compare.



My question to the community is, how acceptable is this? From a personal standpoint it is very frustrating. Yes, the video’s description gives (minor) credit to us. Yes, from a copyright standpoint, both our videos are merely derivative works of an original IP. I suppose I’m more annoyed at the lack of decorum and the evident plagiarism of our original ideas. I'd be curious to know others thoughts and hear if others have had such extensive issues with their work being stolen. Often we are quick to be outraged by re-casters, what about others who doing practically the same thing?

[d_osborn]

Your video was really well researched. The newer motion graphics video was really well produced.

I find it a bit funny that you're complaining about plagiarism, considering your video is full of scans from Making Ghostbusters, GB: The Visual History (maybe even the new Eagle Moss book, the Ecto Hayne's Manual and Cleanin' Up the Town? I'm too lazy to look.) All without any citation or credit.

As a fellow content creator, I feel your pain. I'm no stranger to having work or research duplicated, copied, ripped off. However, he very clearly gave you props in the Youtube description. I don't see anything wrong. If anything, it sounds like you inspired the guy!

I wasn't familiar with your channel, but I'm absolutely going to be watching your other videos. I could watch this stuff for hours. Keep it up!

[Kingpin]

My question to the community is, how acceptable is this?

To me, it could count as digital recasting. It's not just a simple case of them achieving a closely-similar result to yours, the choice of elements in the sequence they're presented, and especially the Cyclotron and thrower magnets are identical.

Sadly, as you noted, as the video they've copied is derivative of a licensed property, there's not much you can do beyond what you've already done... Other than maybe sending them a message. At the very least they should've asked you if it was okay to draw such strong influence for their video's science from your own.

[thekid]

I find it a bit funny that you're complaining about plagiarism, considering your video is full of scans from Making Ghostbusters, GB: The Visual History (maybe even the new Eagle Moss book, the Ecto Hayne's Manual and Cleanin' Up the Town? I'm too lazy to look.) All without any citation or credit.

Fair point, I've added some citations in the description. However, my video makes it quite clear from the highlights that these are quotations and I am not claiming them as my original ideas. The typewriter quotes also give credit and I went so far as to ensure the fan-named prop parts were appropriately credited. Plagiarism by definition is "the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own." Almost every scientific concept from how PKE works, why protons are necessary, to the function of most of the pack parts is my original idea. They barely deviate from one concept and do not give any credit.

[Dr.D]

I am fully in agreement here with you thekid. There is a marked difference between producing similar material from the same inspiration and blatantly taking from someone else's work. It's pretty frustrating to see and I hope this community does better.

[d_osborn]

I can totally see where you (and the others above) are coming from. Perhaps something similar to what you did for the proton pack part names in the video would've been a proper gesture.

I see it as a very similar thing-- the fan pack part names were so good that they stuck amongst all builders, eventually becoming canon. Who knows, unless Afterlife contradicts it, perhaps you've left a lasting mark on the fandom with the scientific explanations. Again, great work!

Also, I love animated highlights on archival elements. So much so, it's what I used on the Cleanin' Up the Town doc.

They barely deviate from one concept and do not give any credit.

Except where they do.

[SpaceBallz]

It's unfortunate that fan fiction can be taken and made their own by other fans of the licensed property, but unless you own the rights it's a free-for-all. Myself and our GB franchise in Upper Michigan do actual paranormal investigations and have been working on an hour and a half documentary on a big investigation we did in New York state...but our jackets have our franchise logo on them. Not exactly the original GB logo, but pretty damn close. I don't have the marbles to try and market the documentary with those logos, so that leaves us in a pickle too.

[One time]

I would be careful.

Your video states for example that the fuel for the proton packs is Carbon 14.

12:36s


I considered this in this post from two years ago:

viewtopic.php?t=44617

holmium-153--4570 years
curium-246----4730 years
carbon-14------5730 years

Does that mean you plagiarized my post?
(Mine is the only other source on the internet that lists Carbon 14).

Of course it doesn’t mean that you plagiarized me. We all play in this universe and try to figure how things might work from the scant scientific mentions and technobabble available in the two films.

But I say you should be careful because the more specific one is with science, the more mistakes one makes.

Your video for example has numerous mistakes (physical impossibilities) which would not be apparent if you hadn’t gotten so specific with science.

E.g. Your theory that the proton packs are powered by Carbon 14 because the half life of C14 is ~5700 years.

Carbon 14 does “decay”, half of however much you have disappears as heat every 5700 years. So it could be used as fuel in an RTG.

RTG: Radio isotope thermoelectric generators are power sources which are powered by fuel that undergoes radioisotope decay (in other words: little chunks of radioactive stuff that are so radioactive they glow and give off a little heat which can be used to power things).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisot ... _generator

But, here it comes:
C14 is never (ever) used as a fuel for RTG’s because it yields almost no energy during decay! The decay energy property is 0.15 MeV.

Carbon 14 is literally never used as a fuel for anything.
In addition, the decay is dangerous beta radiation.

You chose the wrong one of the three.

That’s why in 2018 I concluded that the “5000 years” quote must mean Curium-246.

viewtopic.php?t=44617

Curium 246:
-Half life is 4700 years (much closer to 5000 years than Carbon 14’s 5700 years).
-Decay energy property is 5.4 MeV (3600% more energy yield for the same gram than Carbon 14)
-Decay is α-particle radiation so safe for handling.

I was surprised to learn that it IS in fact used on spaceships as RTG fuel for these very reasons.
Imagine my surprise! I felt I had figured something out.

So the fuel must be Curium 246 used as fuel in a radio isotope thermoelectric generator.

Right?

Wrong.

These things give off power at the level of a toaster or a small refrigerator. That is why RTG’s are used on deep space spacecraft because they give a tiny bit of power but it’s constant for decades.

As much power as a fridge makes, isn’t going to power a proton pack.

Well what COULD the 5000 years be then?

And remember, this isn’t an exercise in trying to make sense of gibberish. We are talking about Dan Aykroyd. He is known to base all his storytelling on real science.


So In this post:

viewtopic.php?p=4907915#p4907915

I tried to calculate the actual power output of the proton pack (based on the visible destruction the beams do in GB1). Then considering the energy efficiency of a typical cyclotron I calculated the required latent fuel energy to get it working.

It was around 1.5 megawatts. A tiny RTG is never going to deliver that. Which means the Carbon 14 or even the 3600x more potent Curium is not used as fuel for an RTG.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisot ... f_isotopes

To get energy at that level requires a nuclear power reactor. There I was surprised to learn that Curium can be used as nuclear fuel. It undergoes fission which generates 200 Mev decay energy per particle! (3700% of what it would yield in an RTG.) A few hundred grams of Curium could very well power a proton pack.

In fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curium

States that: “Curium is not currently used as a nuclear fuel due to its low availability and high price.”

I had finally solved it!

Right?

Wrong. As soon as someone comes along with more knowledge of applied particle physics than me, they will blow that out of the water and prove that I’m talking nonsense.

What I’m trying to say is that Hollywood (and Aykroyd) keep these things vague deliberately. As soon as you get too specific with science it’s easy prove to people that it’s simply wrong.

I know exactly why you put these things in the video, but be careful.
Because obviously false science claiming to be real dilutes the believability of the (science parts of) the franchise.

It goes from “hey this thing could exist one day and kind of work like this” to “nope that’s wrong”.

Look at the current actual lightsabers (read: plasma swords) various groups are constructing that are actually beginning to cut through stuff.

In fact after having seen Ghostbusters NW’s proton pack video (which I didn’t know used a lot of your “theories” verbatim) I contacted him on Facebook. I discussed with him how his video had several inaccuracies (also regarding e.g. the functioning of the wand, his description is completely wrong based on the licenced Sony props, etc). He agreed to talk with me prior to planning other videos to get them more scientifically accurate.

Edit: Actually, if you make any more feel free to ask me about any research or use any of the conclusions I’ve reached in any of my posts. I don’t care if you monetize or earn money off them or whatever. All the more power to you.

[ccv66]

There's people making a fortune just making reaction videos to what other people created, much less putting the time into copy it. You have 14k views they haven't broke 1000. I consider that a win. I'd be annoyed too, but not much you can do. Just be first be better.. The guy that made the video 5 years before both of you doing over 400k views

[Kingpin]

I don't have the marbles to try and market the documentary with those logos, so that leaves us in a pickle too.

You could just not wear anything in the documentary with Ghostbusters-like logos. That's the simplest solution, and you'll be taken more seriously as paranormal investigators if you don't appear to be "obviously Ghostbusters fanboys".

[SpaceBallz]

We already filmed it, I'll have to go in there a blur out the logos LOL

[JA Slow]

I wouldn't worry about plagiarism in the world or fandom. Unless the lawyers come after you, it's a free for all. Recasting may tick people who think they own the material they are replicating but that's tough because there's no one out there to stop them.

Making content for YouTube is different because everyone's trying to make a buck off what they're posting and the website will demonetize or remove videos that cross lines. Maybe Ghost Corps will set up their own squad of people whose sole purpose is to take down unlicensed videos and prop makers. Doubtful but imagine the chaos that would ensue.

[Kingpin]

I wouldn't worry about plagiarism in the world or fandom.

Considering people have been kicked off university courses and had high-profile firings from their jobs (and even the president-elect pulled out of a prior campaign in the 1980s because of part of a speech he gave being copied without accreditation), folks should worry about plagiarism.

Unless the lawyers come after you, it's a free for all. Recasting may tick people who think they own the material they are replicating but that's tough because there's no one out there to stop them.

It is most definitely not a free-for-all.

The Ghostbusters prop-building community and others have the negative view of recasting because it is someone taking someone else's effort and passing it off as their own, often resulting in an extremely shoddy product. Recasters usually put in the least effort possible to reach the end result.

You're correct that we don't own the copyright or the intellectual rights, but that doesn't mean that excuses someone from being the laziest kind of prop builder possible.

[JA Slow]

You're like my lucky penny, Kingpin. You're always turning up.

[Kingpin]

You're like my lucky penny, Kingpin. You're always turning up.

I'm part of the furniture here.

[RealGhostbusterJay]

I've seen your vids "TheKid" and quite enjoyed them. If the other video did give credit in the "about" section then you really can't do much especially if you've done the same thing to the various sources you referenced. Would it be nice if those sources were put up in the video itself at the beginning? Yes. But seems like as noted above they are there. Worst case send them a message and say thanks but in the future could you please?... I can't speak for the nuclear sample itself as correct or not but the only thing I found a little vexing about the pack vid is...shouldn't the hydrogen come from the injector tubes rather then the two small tanks at the bottom? That to me seems more likely where coolant would come in from but there may in fact be a cannon resource I have missed that explains this.

I know Troy and Chris really liked your vids as they mentioned them on the crossrip a ways back.