Why MineAcademy Students Can Now Access My Course for Free (And Why I Had To Do It)

I’m writing this to provide a clear and comprehensive overview of the ongoing dispute with MineAcademy regarding the “System Administrator” online training course. This situation highlights critical issues concerning intellectual property rights, international contract law, and the challenges faced by independent contractors in the digital age.

The Genesis of the Course and Our Agreement

In July 2024, I entered into a contractor agreement with MineAcademy Kft., a Hungarian company, to develop the “System Administrator” online training program. This agreement explicitly stated that Hungarian law would govern our relationship. Crucially, our contract did

not include any clause transferring intellectual property (IP) rights of the materials I created to MineAcademy. Under both Hungarian and EU law, this means I, as the independent contractor and original creator, retain full copyright ownership of all the course content.

Termination and the Unraveling of the Agreement

On June 9, 2025, my contractor position with MineAcademy was terminated. I was asked to acknowledge receipt of the termination notice within 24 hours. While I acknowledged the termination, I also informed MineAcademy that, apart from weeks 5 and 6, they had until the termination date to download all source files and episode sources, as deletion would occur on the termination date.

Following this, Matej Pacan of MineAcademy inquired about recordings for Week 5, as he hadn’t found anything beyond Week 6 in the folder. I clarified that Weeks 5 and 6 hadn’t been edited yet (only recorded) and were therefore not under MineAcademy’s control. Matej then offered to compensate me at my standard rate of $20/hour to edit and send them over within 96 hours.

The Public Mischaracterization and My Response

My objection to the termination stemmed not from the termination itself, but from the unprofessional manner in which it was executed. I was immediately removed from the Discord server, despite being a plugin customer, and a public announcement of my termination was made via both Discord and their email list. This public mischaracterization, insinuating professional incompetence, caused reputational harm and defamation. While I acknowledged some delays in delivering the final two weeks of video content, I had communicated my commitment to complete them by the end of June and was allocating time and effort to meet that timeline.

As a direct result of this abrupt removal and the public announcement, I revoked access to the shared source files, asserting that these assets were no longer under MineAcademy’s control. I also formally advised that if the situation wasn’t rectified within 14 calendar days, all rights previously granted to MineAcademy regarding the use, distribution, or modification of any content I produced would be formally revoked.

MineAcademy’s Counter-Arguments and Legal Threats

Matej Pacan responded by claiming my defamation claim was “frivolous,” citing my admission of not always adhering to deadlines. He stated that only factual performance issues were shared after six months of missed deadlines and that no court would find liability for accurately informing their customer base about course delays.

He then accused me of breach of contract for halting the editing process, stating that our agreement required a 7-day notice from either party. Furthermore, he asserted that the work product belonged to MineAcademy, arguing that I was hired and paid to create content for them, and my attempt to retroactively “revoke rights” was invalid and constituted breach of contract and potential “theft of company property”. He reiterated that my termination was proper due to my failure to meet basic requirements for over six months.

Matej rejected my 14-day ultimatum, demanding the return of all MineAcademy property within 24 hours or face legal remedies, including claims for breach of contract, conversion, and damages, potentially through Netherlands courts.

My Stance on Key Issues: Defamation, Breach, and Ownership

In my subsequent responses, I formally addressed each of MineAcademy’s points:

• Defamation: I reiterated that their public statements, characterizing my work as “incompetent” or “sloppy” via Discord and their mailing list, constitute a potential case of defamation. I argued that unilateral public disparagement is inappropriate and damaging, and I would have cooperated professionally had they discussed public messaging with me beforehand.
• Breach of Contract: While they claimed I was in breach, I highlighted that MineAcademy also failed to uphold the agreement’s terms. We had a mutual understanding that termination would be effective on June 14, earlier than the standard 7-day notice, to which I agreed in good faith. My summary removal from the Discord server and public criticism without notice was unprofessional and breached the spirit, if not the letter, of our agreement.
• Ownership of Work Product: I disputed their claim of sole ownership of the video content. I reviewed the contractor agreement and found no explicit clause stating that intellectual property or content produced within the scope of my engagement becomes the property of MineAcademy. I stated that if they could reference a specific clause, I would comply. I also offered to resolve the matter amicably by allowing MineAcademy to purchase the current episodes at a rate of $25 per episode (totaling $450).

Matej continued to assert ownership, claiming my work was “work for hire” and that their payment established ownership, citing their entity PACAN ENTERPRISES LLC. He rejected my $450 demand as “attempted extortion” and issued a final notice to make all company property accessible within 24 hours, threatening legal action for breach of contract, conversion/theft, and attempted extortion.

The Core of the Dispute: Intellectual Property Rights and “Work for Hire”

The central point of contention lies in the intellectual property ownership, specifically the applicability of the “work for hire” doctrine.

• My Position: Section 7 of our agreement provides for a 7-day termination notice, making the effective termination date June 16, 2025. I continued preparing course material in good faith, expecting to either deliver content by the end of June or finalize portions at a flat rate. However, due to the unprofessional termination, I halted editing. Crucially, the agreement contains no clause assigning IP rights to MineAcademy Kft., nor is the work defined as “work made for hire” under EU or national law. Under Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC, authors retain exclusive rights to authorize or prohibit reproduction of their work. Given the absence of a written assignment of rights and the applicable Dutch and Hungarian copyright frameworks, I retain full copyright ownership of all original materials created, including video files, scripts, outlines, recorded lessons, and all unreleased or in-progress content. Therefore, withholding access or use of these files does not constitute breach, conversion, or theft.
• MineAcademy’s Position: MineAcademy (specifically PACAN ENTERPRISES LLC, a U.S. entity) claims ownership based on the U.S. “work-for-hire” doctrine. They argue that because they commissioned and paid for the work (totaling approximately $3,116.61 USD), they own the copyright under U.S. law. They also state that by repeatedly accepting payment from PACAN ENTERPRISES LLC, I ratified their ownership rights.

This creates a significant cross-continental legal conflict: a contract governed by Hungarian law (which requires explicit IP transfer for independent contractors) versus a claim of ownership under U.S. law (which has a different “work-for-hire” interpretation based on payment).

DMCA Takedown Notices and Counter-Notices

Given the unauthorized continued use of my copyrighted materials after the termination of our contractual relationship and the explicit revocation of the temporary license in June 2025, I initiated formal DMCA takedown notices.

On June 25, 2025, I sent a formal DMCA takedown notice to Matej Pacan under the EU E-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC), demanding the removal of infringing content or entering into a formal licensing agreement. I proposed a one-time fee of $50 per episode (totaling $950) valid for 7 days, increasing to $100 per episode (totaling $1900) after that period. I affirmed that I am the rightful copyright holder and stated that if valid proof of MineAcademy’s ownership, backed by cited laws, was provided, the files would be handed over and the notice rescinded.

On July 2, 2025, I sent a follow-up, confirming the expiration of the $50 per episode offer and the increase to $100 per episode (totaling $1,900) for the 19 episodes, valid until July 9th. If no agreement was reached, I would proceed with filing DMCA takedown requests with hosting providers, CDN/video platforms, and third-party course vendors, and issue a formal Cease and Desist letter under applicable Hungarian, EU, and U.S. copyright law.

Matej responded on July 3, 2025, expressing a desire for peaceful resolution, acknowledging that his public announcement might have offended me. He stated that the program generated less than €6,000 since October 2024, with 50% already paid to me, and he didn’t think it was fair to ask for more money. He proposed keeping the program private for existing students for a few months until they find a new person and then removing it.

I respectfully rejected this compromise, reiterating that any continued use, including passive hosting for “existing students,” is unauthorized without an active license, as the temporary license was revoked in June 2025. Despite previous accusations of extortion and threats, I offered a final licensing settlement of $450 ($25 per episode for 19 published episodes, with one episode given for free as goodwill), valid for 7 calendar days expiring on July 9, 2025. If accepted and paid, I would also provide access to relevant source files and DaVinci Resolve project files.

On July 4, 2025, it came to my attention that MineAcademy advised users to download my training videos using browser extensions before the announced removal on July 9, 2025. This actively encourages the illegal copying and distribution of materials despite the revoked license. As a result, I escalated the matter and initiated formal enforcement actions.

Indeed, on July 4, 2025, I submitted a DMCA claim to Vimeo, identifying myself as the author and producer of the 19-episode “System Administrator” course and stating that its continued presence on Vimeo constituted infringement.

In response, Vimeo received a DMCA counter-notification from Matej Pacan of PACAN ENTERPRISES LLC on July 4, 2025. This counter-notification asserted that PACAN ENTERPRISES LLC owns the copyright based on the work being “commissioned work” for their business, payments being made by PACAN ENTERPRISES LLC (totaling €2,647.56, approximately $3,116.61 USD), the “Work-for-Hire Doctrine” under U.S. copyright law, and ratification by my conduct in accepting payments. Matej also alleged that I breached the agreement by removing access during the contractual notice period and was attempting to claim ownership of work already paid for. Vimeo has stated they will restore the material in 10 business days unless they receive notice of a court order to restrain this user from the alleged infringing activity.

One of the most disappointing and concerning developments in this dispute has been the way students were mobilized against me by the companies involved—MineAcademy Kft. and PACAN ENTERPRISES LLC.

After I issued DMCA takedown notices to protect my intellectual property, PACAN ENTERPRISES LLC—which handled payments but is not a party to my contract—sent a mass email to MineAcademy’s paying customers. In this email, they blamed me, by name, for the course takedown and encouraged students to contact me directly using the email address I had submitted as part of the DMCA complaint. That email was never intended for public use—it was shared solely for legal correspondence—yet it was used to solicit direct pressure from students, which I view as an attempt to intimidate and harass me into backing down.

This email included:

• A template letter accusing me of violating EU Directive 2019/770, committing “tortious interference” and “unjust enrichment,”
• A claim that I acted in “retaliation” after being “terminated,”
• My email address, directly pulled from the DMCA submission, to target me personally,
• A suggestion that students coordinate collective legal threats against me,
• Encouragement to report me to consumer protection agencies and leave negative reviews online.

One student, Devaughn Keliinoi, contacted me on July 4, 2025, using this exact template. He threatened legal action, citing EU consumer law and accusing me of denying him access to content he had paid for. While I understand his frustration, I cannot condone the way MineAcademy and PACAN ENTERPRISES LLC weaponized student trust and redirected blame away from themselves.

My Response and Steps Taken

In my response to Devaughn—and by extension, to all affected students—I clearly stated the following:

• My actions are not aimed at students, but at MineAcademy Kft., the company that continued using my copyrighted content without permission.
• Under EU Directive 2019/770, it is MineAcademy Kft. that is classified as the “trader” and thus the party legally responsible for ensuring continued access to the course.
• To mitigate the impact on students, and in good faith, I have made the entire “System Administrator” course freely available on YouTube.
  📌 Watch the Full Course Here

My Recommendation to Students

If you are one of the students affected:

• Please direct all access and refund requests to MineAcademy Kft., as they are the entity you paid and signed a contract with.
• If you do not receive a satisfactory resolution, I recommend contacting your local European Consumer Centre (ECC) to file a formal complaint. This network assists with cross-border consumer disputes within the EU/EEA and can guide you on your legal rights and next steps.

This situation has grown far beyond a simple contract dispute. It now involves questionable conduct by two companies, public misrepresentation of facts, and clear misuse of the DMCA system by a party not named in the contract. I remain committed to transparency, the defense of my intellectual property, and ensuring that students are not left without access to what they paid for—despite the platform’s actions.