Support NeoGAF

[darkpower]

"Fair use" is neither international nor does it allow to post hours and hours of videogame footage. I have no idea why everyone thinks that would be the case, it's literally 1 minute on wikipedia to check what is covered by "Fair Use".

Then you didn't watch the same video I did that TotalBiscuit liked: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6-TOZat-wo

Of course, I expect some people to completely ignore things to prove that they are correct, but such are internet arguments anymore.

 

[MajorPain]

Boogie on this topic.

Just got done watching this and agree with everything he said. These game companies are not only hurt the people that make these videos but in the end it is going to hurt there bottom line.

 

[Deleted member 10571]

Then you didn't watch the same video I did that TotalBiscuit liked: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6-TOZat-wo

Of course, I expect some people to completely ignore things to prove that they are correct, but such are internet arguments anymore.

So why do you take TB's word but not checking on it by yourself. From Wiki:

"In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

1 the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2 the nature of the copyrighted work;

3 the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

4 the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

1. We're not talking nonprofit so yeah, some guys make a shitload of money here. Make that a 'check' on the No Fair Use list.
2. Depending on WHAT the work is, it may or may not be Fair Use. For a standard Let's Play, let's go with audio as well as video, which is pretty much everything. Let's make this another 'check', I guess.
3. Yeah, hours and hours of gameplay, which is 100% of the copyrighted work. Clear 'check'
4. If a publisher thinks a LP has a bad effect on the potential market, he's in his absolute right to not grant Fair Use. That's 4 out of 4 points that could argue that a Let's Play of a complete game, with audible sound and visible gameplay is as far away from "Fair Use" than I am from Mars.

I honestly have no idea whatsoever how LPers of all people could even begin to think their work falls under 'Fair Use'.

 

[darkpower]

So why do you take TB's word but not checking on it by yourself. From Wiki:



1. We're not talking nonprofit so yeah, some guys make a shitload of money here. Make that a 'check' on the No Fair Use list.
2. Depending on WHAT the work is, it may or may not be Fair Use. For a standard Let's Play, let's go with audio as well as video, which is pretty much everything. Let's make this another 'check', I guess.
3. Yeah, hours and hours of gameplay, which is 100% of the copyrighted work. Clear 'check'
4. If a publisher thinks a LP has a bad effect on the potential market, he's in his absolute right to not grant Fair Use. That's 4 out of 4 points that could argue that a Let's Play of a complete game, with audible sound and visible gameplay is as far away from "Fair Use" than I am from Mars.

I honestly have no idea whatsoever how LPers of all people could even begin to think their work falls under 'Fair Use'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work

In copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major, copyright-protected elements of an original, previously created first work (the underlying work). The derivative work become a second, separate work independent in form from the first. The transformation, modification or adaption of the work must be substantial and bear its author's personality to be original and thus protected by copyright. Translations, cinematic adaptions and musical arrangements are common types of derivative works.

Most countries' legal systems seek to protect both works. They grant authors the right to impede or otherwise control their integrity and the author's commercial interests. Derivatives and their authors benefit in turn from the full protection of copyright without prejudicing the rights of the original work's author.

Maybe I misspoke or something and meant to say derivative work instead of fair use, but you might say they fall under the same boat. Either way, they're both protected, and commentary with personality could fall under that.

 

[Deleted member 10571]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work



Maybe I misspoke or something and meant to say derivative work instead of fair use, but you might say they fall under the same boat. Either way, they're both protected, and commentary with personality could fall under that.

Translations, cinematic adaptions and musical arrangements are common types of derivative works.

Completely different terrain. By your logic, I should be absolutely free to take a random Top 10 charts song, change the words a bit and get rich with that. Or take a Van Gogh, copy it while drawing a few strokes by myself and sell it on the open market. If someone would just use your actually originally created art, be it comics, music, books, whatevs, and adds a bit to resell it again - let me just say that's not what "derivative" means.
A "Romeo and Juliet" movie is a derivative from the book. An animated movie based on the actual movie is derivative. A copy of the movie with a guy giving opinions every now and then is not a derivative of said movie.

 

[PotionBleue]

Maybe I misspoke or something and meant to say derivative work instead of fair use, but you might say they fall under the same boat. Either way, they're both protected, and commentary with personality could fall under that.

Simply putting your voice over hours of copyrighted content AND using it for commercial purposes is very likely not going to get accepted as fair use. There's a reason why book or movie critics can only show brief segments of copyrighted work.

 

[spandexmonkey]

Simply putting your voice over hours of copyrighted content AND using it for commercial purposes is very likely not going to get accepted as fair use. There's a reason why book or movie critics can only show brief segments of copyrighted work.

Thats the reason the Riff Trax guys usually only sell the audio with instructions on how to sync it with your own copy of the movie.

 

[Deleted member 10571]

Thats the reason the Riff Trax guys usually only sell the audio with instructions on how to sync it with your own copy of the movie.

Exactly. And the reason why MST2K is actually licensing all the stuff they use.

 

[darkpower]

Simply putting your voice over hours of copyrighted content AND using it for commercial purposes is very likely not going to get accepted as fair use. There's a reason why book or movie critics can only show brief segments of copyrighted work.

Which is...what reviews on YouTube of games do to begin with, and THEY are getting flagged. So...yeah, care to explain that? Care to say how that's NOT any one of the two things. Someone showing flaws in a game and showing how a game isn't worth your 60 bucks isn't worthy of some money coming in the direction of who showed you the bugs, flaws, and the reasons why you should or shouldn't drop money on a product? Someone takes the time to give you a service, and they don't deserve to be compensated so they can continue to do the work because God forbid they USE footage from said game to illustrate the flaws or the good that said game might have?

And I thought it was bad enough that people were actually DEFENDING this action, but to use THESE trite defenses?

For the record, people can troll and bait all they want. It won't change the actual laws, or that this whole thing is a bunch of BS!

 

[Deleted member 10571]

Which is...what reviews on YouTube of games do to begin with, and THEY are getting flagged. So...yeah, care to explain that? Care to say how that's NOT any one of the two things. Someone showing flaws in a game and showing how a game isn't worth your 60 bucks isn't worthy of some money coming in the direction of who showed you the bugs, flaws, and the reasons why you should or shouldn't drop money on a product? Someone takes the time to give you a service, and they don't deserve to be compensated so they can continue to do the work because God forbid they USE footage from said game to illustrate the flaws or the good that said game might have?

And I thought it was bad enough that people were actually DEFENDING this action, but to use THESE trite defenses?

For the record, people can troll and bait all they want. It won't change the actual laws, or that this whole thing is a bunch of BS!

It was made pretty clear that a lot of claims aren't even made by the original creators nowadays and are dealt with accordingly. Plus, the point of discussion here was the usage of "Fair Use" and "derivative works" in regards to LPs. Stop moving the goal posts.

I'm not trolling, I tried to explain why those laws aren't easily applicable to Let's Plays. Reviews are (for the most part) a completely different thing and might fall under Fair Use depending on how they are set up. Read up on the laws and you should be fine, I guess.

(Edited the last part since my wording was unclear)
Second edit: Bleue might be right, I'm not exactly sure about how long a copyrighted clip is allowed to be. Surely not the length of your average LP though

 

[PotionBleue]

Which is...what reviews on YouTube of games do to begin with, and THEY are getting flagged.

Yeah no they don't. Ideally they should be showing in their videos a few extracts of ~30 seconds or less each, even then there's no guarantee court will say it's fair use.
What they do is showing continuous minutes of in-game content… fair use is not the defense to go with here.

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

It was made pretty clear that a lot of claims aren't even made by the original creators nowadays and are dealt with accordingly. )

Do you know what "dealt with accordingly entails"?

It entails a wait time of up to 30 DAYS while the company ID'd by YouTube takes their time to get around to it--not only do they not have to respond at all in that time period, but they don't even have to release the claim even if it is Fair Use because they have no incentive too.

The system is broken

 

[Silver_key]

We all know that movie and music-related things get flagged. Now, video games. I'm wondering if one of the hair/makeup people or chefs have ever received a C&D. I'd hate for Youtube to become like tv with its fuzzed-out Nike swooshes and masking tape-covered cans of beer.

 

[Smelly5ocks]

Which is...what reviews on YouTube of games do to begin with, and THEY are getting flagged.

I imagine the automated system YouTube is using is probably overturned. However, you guys do have the means to contest the claims if you feel you work falls under "Fair-Use" correct? It might be a pain in the ass to contest hundreds of videos but it seems like the system is "working as intended".

 

[jakonovski]

1. We're not talking nonprofit so yeah, some guys make a shitload of money here. Make that a 'check' on the No Fair Use list.
2. Depending on WHAT the work is, it may or may not be Fair Use. For a standard Let's Play, let's go with audio as well as video, which is pretty much everything. Let's make this another 'check', I guess.
3. Yeah, hours and hours of gameplay, which is 100% of the copyrighted work. Clear 'check'
4. If a publisher thinks a LP has a bad effect on the potential market, he's in his absolute right to not grant Fair Use. That's 4 out of 4 points that could argue that a Let's Play of a complete game, with audible sound and visible gameplay is as far away from "Fair Use" than I am from Mars.

I honestly have no idea whatsoever how LPers of all people could even begin to think their work falls under 'Fair Use'.

You should really stop putting out misinformation like that. For profit fair use exists, as does full copy fair use. Also the rights holder does not grant fair use. It is granted by law regardless of the wishes of the rights holder.

 

[Deleted member 10571]

Do you know what "dealt with accordingly entails"?

It entails a wait time of up to 30 DAYS while the company ID'd by YouTube takes their time to get around to it--not only do they not have to respond at all in that time period, but they don't even have to release the claim even if it is Fair Use because they have no incentive too.

The system is broken

I got a claim on my original content this morning, told YT that it's my original content and by now the video is monetised again. Of course that doesn't happen every time, and it may entail waiting time, what would your alternative be?

All I said is that if something IS your content, it will eventually be monetized again. Because it can be annoying to wait, YT plans to add a new id'ing system before publishing. Which is a good thing and will start in january.

You should really stop putting out misinformation like that. For profit fair use exists, as does full copy fair use. Also the rights holder does not grant fair use. It is granted by law regardless of the wishes of the rights holder.

I am sorry then - it was just how I understood the points, should have made that clearer. How does full copy fair use work, isn't that somewhat of a contradiction? Didn't find anything about it on a quick Google search.

 

[Spirit of Jazz]

About time. People should not be making money off this.

Yeah, people who spend time producing content and manage to build up an audience that enjoy watching it? Clearly they don't deserve shit.

I think it's pretty ludicrous as I wouldn't have purchased Persona 4 or Deadly Premonition if they weren't Giant Bomb endurance runs. Maybe there's a huge amount of people who only watch Youtube videos instead of buying games but I'm finding that incredibly hard to believe.

 

[jakonovski]

I am sorry then - it was just how I understood the points, should have made that clearer. How does full copy fair use work, isn't that somewhat of a contradiction?

Taping TV programs is the only one I know of. Doesn't likely apply here, but the point was that it's not precluded. Not that I expect American IP rulings to ever again side in favor of the general public.

edit: oh right parodies. Lawl.

 

[darkpower]

I am sorry then - it was just how I understood the points, should have made that clearer. How does full copy fair use work, isn't that somewhat of a contradiction? Didn't find anything about it on a quick Google search.

For example, a parody!

And if you are talking parodies, then this guy would like to have a word:

Even though he asks anyway out of respect, he, by law, never has to ask!

 

[Open Source]

You should really stop putting out misinformation like that. For profit fair use exists, as does full copy fair use. Also the rights holder does not grant fair use. It is granted by law regardless of the wishes of the rights holder.

Fair Use doesn't have strict boundaries. All of the above factors are taken into consideration when a judgment call is made. If it's for education/non-profit/etc., then that's a point in favor of it being fair use. If it's commercial, that's a point against.

But the biggest, most relevant thing here is the amount of the copyright work being used. There's no way any court in the U.S. is going to say a "Let's Play" video is fair use in a commercial setting. Even tiny musical samples are often ruled not fair use. It's not even close.

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

All I said is that if something IS your content, it will eventually be monetized again.

That isn't a guarantee. And the potentially 30-wait period (even IF it less less) can be crippling for videos, as that's when they get the bulk of their traffic

 

[darkpower]

Fair Use doesn't have strict boundaries. All of the above factors are taken into consideration when a judgment call is made. If it's for education/non-profit/etc., then that's a point in favor of it being fair use. If it's commercial, that's a point against.

But the biggest, most relevant thing here is the amount of the copyright work being used. There's no way any court in the U.S. is going to say a "Let's Play" video is fair use in a commercial setting. Even tiny musical samples are often ruled not fair use. It's not even close.

So, let me ask you a question, then?

When you play a game, how do you play it? You play it in your own way, do the things that you want to do in the game, you pace yourself, go to a certain spot in the game at a certain time, kill a mob a certain way every time, whatever, right?

Take another person playing the exact same game, then. That person plays it differently. They don't go to that very exact spot at the same time, they don't kill the mob with the same weapon, they try to get through various spots as fast as they can, and they usually don't grind out things as much as you do, right?

Now, you BOTH record what you do, and you both post something to YouTube! The playing of the game is then your own because you played it your own way. The creator created the world for you to play the game in, but YOU chose how to play that very game, and it shows when you compare the two playthroughs side by side!

And therein lies the gray area! Because the content creator did not, in turn, create that playthrough and did not tell you how to explicitly play the game and how to pace or whatever, you should have some right to not only show that particular playthrough of the game because you took the time to play that game for your audience, but to be compensated in some way because it's YOUR playthrough! It can be their world, but your choosing how to play the game and where to go at whatever times.

The problem is that we're treating games the same way as movies or books, which is not the same in any way because they are not static viewings. You cannot control how a movie plays out, or a book, but you CAN control actions in a game because it's an interactive piece of art, which basically means that the rules will become much more unclear as to what should or shouldn't be considered yours in that playthrough. Why do you think there's more of an outcry over the used games industry as opposed to used good industries in other forms of media? Because there's that whole static versus interactive thing that you need to consider, and though I support the used game industry in every sense of the word, the thing about it is that games not having a static way to play makes a TON of difference in this debate.

 

[Josta]

For example, a parody!

And if you are talking parodies, then this guy would like to have a word:

Even though he asks anyway out of respect, he, by law, never has to ask!

I'm no expert, but this paper details how Weird Al actually is not covered by fair use.

Having concluded that his song and video parodies are not legally characterizable as fair uses, Mr. Yankovic licenses all of the musical compositions and music videos he parodies directly from their respective copyright owners. According to his attorney, Chuck Hurewitz of the Beverly Hills law firm of Cooper, Epstein and Hurewitz, Weird Al generally gets a writing credit and a copyright interest in the song parody, which he shares (in varying royalty ratios) with the writers of the original underlying work. The publishing rights in the parody are most often conveyed to the copyright owner of the original song, usually a music publisher, which in turn issues instructions to the applicable rights societies as to division of performance royalties on the parody, issuance of mechanical licenses for sale of the parody to the public in the form of phonorecords, and licensing of synchronization rights in the parody for its use in audio visual works such as music videos. Certain contractual limitations may be placed on the music publisher regarding its right to exploit the parody without the prior consent of Wierd Al. As noted above, license to utilize the underlying music video in a parody is done on a negotiated basis with terms of compensation varying from a flat fee buyout to royalty participation.

Source: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=iplj

Again, I'm no expert. Just joining the conversation.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Fair Use doesn't have strict boundaries. All of the above factors are taken into consideration when a judgment call is made. If it's for education/non-profit/etc., then that's a point in favor of it being fair use. If it's commercial, that's a point against.

But the biggest, most relevant thing here is the amount of the copyright work being used. There's no way any court in the U.S. is going to say a "Let's Play" video is fair use in a commercial setting. Even tiny musical samples are often ruled not fair use. It's not even close.

Like a lot of legal tests, it's a matter of fact and degree. Anyone saying "it's transformative therefore it's fair use", or "it's monetised therefore it's not fair use" is simply projecting their wishes for the end result as if it's a certainty. As you say, all factors are considered, and, crucially, no factor is decisive in and of itself.

 

[Karkador]

The problem is that we're treating games the same way as movies or books, which is not the same in any way because they are not static viewings. You cannot control how a movie plays out, or a book, but you CAN control actions in a game because it's an interactive piece of art, which basically means that the rules will become much more unclear as to what should or shouldn't be considered yours in that playthrough. Why do you think there's more of an outcry over the used games industry as opposed to used good industries in other forms of media? Because there's that whole static versus interactive thing that you need to consider, and though I support the used game industry in every sense of the word, the thing about it is that games not having a static way to play makes a TON of difference in this debate.

You're treating it like it's either completely linear or non-linear, when most videogames (especially these days) are much closer to linearity like books and movies than they are to non-linearity.

Whether someone did an action one way or another in a modern game is largely irrelevant in the larger context of how most games are made these days. The developer built that experience and accounted for different possibilities and outcomes. Furthermore, unless it's something highly dynamic and replayable like Dota2, the truth is that the game was probably built to have a beginning/middle/end and is a guided experience in one way or another. The thing that I'm playing with, even if I'm doing it differently, is still something they built. If the developer has made something in a way that would be 'spoiled' if you just watched someone else do it, and feels that people should have to play it for themselves to experience it, then is it not their right to enforce that?

 

[Mindlog]

You're treating it like it's either completely linear or non-linear, when most videogames (especially these days) are much closer to linearity like books and movies than they are to non-linearity.

Whether someone did an action one way or another in a modern game is largely irrelevant in the larger context of how most games are made these days. The developer built that experience and accounted for different possibilities and outcomes. The thing that I'm playing with, even if I'm doing it differently, is still something they built. If the developer has made something in a way that would be 'spoiled' if you just watched someone else do it, and feels that people should have to play it for themselves to experience it, then is it not their right to enforce that?

They haven't stopped anyone from posting spoilers. This is only a renegotiation on who is making money off of those videos.

Basically we're talking about paying upfront, paying for micro-transactions, and then letting them make more money off of people playing the game. It's a less visible form of in-game advertising. This entire segment was built from the ground up by enthusiasts and now that it's mature the system is being changed to benefit the groups that had ignored it.

 

[darkpower]

You're treating it like it's either completely linear or non-linear, when most videogames (especially these days) are much closer to linearity like books and movies than they are to non-linearity.

Whether someone did an action one way or another in a modern game is largely irrelevant in the larger context of how most games are made these days. The developer built that experience and accounted for different possibilities and outcomes. Furthermore, unless it's something highly dynamic and replayable like Dota2, the truth is that the game was probably built to have a beginning/middle/end and is a guided experience in one way or another. The thing that I'm playing with, even if I'm doing it differently, is still something they built. If the developer has made something in a way that would be 'spoiled' if you just watched someone else do it, and feels that people should have to play it for themselves to experience it, then is it not their right to enforce that?

But you still played it, right, even if you don't believe any of that other stuff? You put the work into playing that interactive piece of art, and thus, you got to choose how you completed each task and/or challenge presented to you, correct? That is not linear, and that's where your argument becomes quite flawed.

Why do you think people complain all the time (with the most recent being TotalBiscuit) about Anita Sarkeesian not giving credit for who she gets the game footage from for her Tropes Versus Women In Video Games series?

And you brought up DOTA2. How do you think the e-sports scene would like a move like this? Their entire business practice thrives on things like streaming to get people to want to watch pro-gamers play as a way of life. Things like MLG and Starcraft Invitationals wouldn't survive if they didn't get someone able to watch it, and people to play it the way that they think they need to in order to win and get their titles, trophies, whatever. Of course, some might be sponsored, but they have to start somewhere (and yes, TB DOES commentate many of those tournaments, so these YouTubers DO go to various conventions and do get noticed).

Hell, would AVGN be where HE is right now if this draconian rule were in effect that he couldn't be compensated for the hard work he's done? Hell, YouTube sponsored that lowlife Irate Gamer for the longest time from him doing exactly what they are condemning YouTubers for doing now!

 

[Karkador]

They haven't stopped anyone from posting spoilers. This is only a renegotiation on who is making money off of those videos.

Posting a spoiler is quite less severe than posting a total playthrough video of a game from beginning to end. It's no secret that some people watch LPs instead of playing the game.

But you still played it, right, even if you don't believe any of that other stuff? You put the work into playing that interactive piece of art, and thus, you got to choose how you completed each task and/or challenge presented to you, correct? That is not linear, and that's where your argument becomes quite flawed.

Playing a game is not "putting in work", not in any sense that it should give you some inflated sense of ownership of the game. The solutions to most games are often very narrow, and the different possibilities for how to interact with the game/complete the tasks are there because the designer thought of the different possibilities and put in the actual work to make sure those solutions work without being too easy or difficult.

But that's just tangential to the point- if a game designer put a story or some complicated puzzle in a game, and feels that LPs on the internet are essentially giving a big part of the product away for free, then it's their right to try and control that. The idea that you are being given an illusion of authorship in their game because you are interacting with it doesn't mean you own some part of the game. It's still theirs.

[And you brought up DOTA2. How do you think the e-sports scene would like a move like this?[/quote]

That's why those types of games are different, because instead of linearity, the game is based on short matches against other people and lots of replays to increase your skills. They encourage streaming of matches because that's how they highlight the competition and the fun of the game. There aren't exactly "spoilers" in these games, it doesn't work that way. It's way different from the average single-player game where they've spent millions creating linear content that can be spoiled.

Hell, would AVGN be where HE is right now if this draconian rule were in effect that he couldn't be compensated for the hard work he's done?

Is anyone supposed to care about AVGN? Besides, he featured old games that weren't being promoted (or even sold, in most cases) anymore, it's not quite the same thing as doing it with new games.

 

[Rakthar]

If I were to buy a chessboard, and record myself playing with it and discussing my strategy and games that I've played on it - I would be totally fine. I could monetize these videos, I could call it "Chess Instructional Videos" and do whatever I wanted with it - run ads, charge money for the video, etc. Do the same thing with a digital version of chess, or a chess videogame, and all bets are off. The 'fun' of Chess comes from the gameplay - the game doesn't play itself or provide any amusement on its own. The two players do.

For games where the story and gameplay are purely from the participants - multiplayer games (shooters, RTSes, strategy games), is that something that the content owner should have full and total rights over? And if so, why?

I can record myself playing any kind of game I want - as long as it's not digital. Soccer, chess, tennis, all of that is fine and I don't need any permission. If it's in the form of a videogame, then suddenly I'm using someone else's rights and content without their permission - but really I'm just trying to share footage of me playing something, albeit of a digital form.

To me, if two guys can throw a football around in their backyard and upload that video with pretty much no issues, I'd like to see them be able to play a round of Madden and upload gameplay footage of them doing the same thing - without it being viewed any differently.

Why do digital games makers have the right to stop me from recording myself playing their games, but videos of physical things have no such rights? I can record myself throwing a 3ds into a blender, but I can't record 2 seconds of footage from that 3ds without Nintendo's permission.

 

[Karkador]

If I were to buy a chessboard, and record myself playing with it and discussing my strategy and games that I've played on it - I would be totally fine. I could monetize these videos, I could call it "Chess Instructional Videos" and do whatever I wanted with it - run ads, charge money for the video, etc. Do the same thing with a digital version of chess, or a chess videogame, and all bets are off. The 'fun' of Chess comes from the gameplay - the game doesn't play itself or provide any amusement on its own. The two players do.

This is just a guess, but I would wager that a company who made a chess videogame would not mind a youtube play of their game by two people.

For games where the story and gameplay are purely from the participants - multiplayer games (shooters, RTSes, strategy games), is that something that the content owner should have full and total rights over? And if so, why?

I don't know if there is a videogame where the story is purely from the participants. The gameplay? As in pure, non-storyline multiplayer shooters, RTS multiplayer, Dota, etc.? Despite all the bells and whistles, those games have more in common with Chess than other videogames, and we have continued to see broadcasting of those games to be an accepted and promoted thing by the companies who make those games (Blizzard, Valve, Bungie, etc.)

I can record myself playing any kind of game I want - as long as it's not digital. Soccer, chess, tennis, all of that is fine and I don't need any permission. If it's in the form of a videogame, then suddenly I'm using someone else's rights and content without their permission - but really I'm just trying to share footage of me playing something, albeit of a digital form.

To me, if two guys can throw a football around in their backyard and upload that video with pretty much no issues, I'd like to see them be able to play a round of Madden and upload gameplay footage of them doing the same thing - without it being viewed any differently.

Now you're talking about something different, because those games (played physically) are public domain and no one owns that intellectual property. But a videogame does contain many things besides the ruleset of a soccer or tennis game, that the developer created (art assets, code, etc.), and they have a right to protect that however they see necessary- as does Blizzard and Valve with their popular esports games- and they may or may not want to allow streaming of their game. It's up to them. With that said, is anybody out there really LPing a sports game?

Why do digital games makers have the right to stop me from recording myself playing their games, but videos of physical things have no such rights? I can record myself throwing a 3ds into a blender, but I can't record 2 seconds of footage from that 3ds without Nintendo's permission.

Because it's their game that they created.

Let's put this another way. If you and your friends go out and played football somewhere, and some random people started filming you and (for whatever reason) started monetizing the videos they took of your game, wouldn't you at least want a cut?

 

[Zoe]

You can't draw a picture of Mickey Mouse on a daycare wall. Why should you be able to upload a run-through of a level of Epic Mickey?

^^The NFL licensing is just as strict.

 

[pancakesandsex]

Because it's their game that they created.

Let's put this another way. If you and your friends go out and played football somewhere, and some random people started filming you and (for whatever reason) started monetizing the videos they took of your game, wouldn't you at least want a cut?

Disingenuous argument. This is more in line with you trying to monetize a video of you and your friends playing football on your own, and then getting a copyright claim from Nike because someone in the video wore their shoes, or the ball manufacturer because you used their ball.

 

[TheContact]

In the same way you can't go and upload a movie I don't see why it would be fair to upload a full game, just because one is passive media and the other is interactive it suddenly changes the way content is copyrighted? I do enjoy let's play videos and I've even done some of my own, but I can see why someone wouldn't buy a game for the story when they could just as easily watch someone else do it for free, and on top of that uploader can even make decent money for doing it.

 

[kingslunk]

Copyright is getting really obnoxious.

 

[thechristoph]

I wonder how this would affect shows like Gamesack. They don't just show gameplay videos, but skits and talking head segments.

 

[The Real Abed]

I wonder how this would affect shows like Gamesack. They don't just show gameplay videos, but skits and talking head segments.

Even a single segment of gameplay = no money for Gamesack. All money for game creator.

That is how this system works.

 

[Syriel]

And therein lies the gray area! Because the content creator did not, in turn, create that playthrough and did not tell you how to explicitly play the game and how to pace or whatever, you should have some right to not only show that particular playthrough of the game because you took the time to play that game for your audience, but to be compensated in some way because it's YOUR playthrough! It can be their world, but your choosing how to play the game and where to go at whatever times.

The problem is that we're treating games the same way as movies or books, which is not the same in any way because they are not static viewings. You cannot control how a movie plays out, or a book, but you CAN control actions in a game because it's an interactive piece of art, which basically means that the rules will become much more unclear as to what should or shouldn't be considered yours in that playthrough. Why do you think there's more of an outcry over the used games industry as opposed to used good industries in other forms of media? Because there's that whole static versus interactive thing that you need to consider, and though I support the used game industry in every sense of the word, the thing about it is that games not having a static way to play makes a TON of difference in this debate.

J.R.R. Tolkien didn't write the screenplay for The Hobbit.

Peter Jackson CREATED HIS OWN CHARACTER for The Desolation of Smaug.

His movies don't match the plot of the original book.

His movies don't match the plot of the animation The Hobbit film.

But he couldn't make his LotR films without permission.

It doesn't matter if they are derivative works.
It doesn't matter if Jackson's films play out in a different way.

He (and anyone else who wants to make a film in the LotR universe) still needs to get permission from the rights holders.

If you want to play in someone else's yard, you ask permission first.

Even a single segment of gameplay = no money for Gamesack. All money for game creator.

That is how this system works.

That's not how it works for legit reviews.

And false claims can lead to legal issues for the person or entity making the claim.

 

[SeventhSon]

I love The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, but they should both be public domain by now.

By the way, Peter Jackson didn't have to get permission from the Tolkien Estate. The Professor sold the movie rights for a pittance to pay a tax bill. Right now, New Line Cinema owns the film rights to those two works and can make derivative works or license them to others.

 

[Syriel]

I love The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, but they should both be public domain by now.

By the way, Peter Jackson didn't have to get permission from the Tolkien Estate. The Professor sold the movie rights for a pittance to pay a tax bill. Right now, New Line Cinema owns the film rights to those two works and can make derivative works or license them to others.

I never said that Jackson had to get permission from the Tolkien Estate. I simply said he had to get permission from the rights holders, so you seem to be agreeing on that point.

Ultimately, all the talk about LP's being "unique" is no different than someone who puts on a play, performs a piece of music or makes a film.

If you're using someone else's IP as the basis for your work, you have to get clearance before you use it. This is copyright law 101 and anyone who considers themselves a "media professional" should know this.

 

[Dusk Golem]

I never said that Jackson had to get permission from the Tolkien Estate. I simply said he had to get permission from the rights holders, so you seem to be agreeing on that point.

Ultimately, all the talk about LP's being "unique" is no different than someone who puts on a play, performs a piece of music or makes a film.

If you're using someone else's IP as the basis for your work, you have to get clearance before you use it. This is copyright law 101 and anyone who considers themselves a "media professional" should know this.

How did you feel about Mystery Science Theater? Or the music video segments in Beavis and Butthead? Or reviews with video footage? Or articles about said game or walkthroughs on a site with no permission with ads on the site? Or unofficial game magazine articles about games they don't have permission to write articles about, but are purchasable magazines? Or those old Unofficial Guide books? Or televised programs of games on old TV stations like G4, even with the old TV show that used to do nothing but play game trailers and gameplay clips with commercials to them?

Copyright is not as black and white as you make it out to be.

 

[Mr. Luchador]

Interestingly you mention the music video segments on Beavis & Butthead as one of the reasons it took so long for them to release a DVD collection was due to them getting permission to include the music video segments again. Some of the original broadcasts have been edited to remove the music videos of the ones who didn't agree to be on DVD.

WWE DVDs had to use generic music instead of licensed themes too, as the original license had expired and no longer covered the DVD release.

 

[Quixzlizx]

How did you feel about Mystery Science Theater? Or the music video segments in Beavis and Butthead? Or reviews with video footage? Or articles about said game or walkthroughs on a site with no permission with ads on the site? Or unofficial game magazine articles about games they don't have permission to write articles about, but are purchasable magazines? Or those old Unofficial Guide books? Or televised programs of games on old TV stations like G4, even with the old TV show that used to do nothing but play game trailers and gameplay clips with commercials to them?

Copyright is not as black and white as you make it out to be.

The Daria DVD collection doesn't have the original soundtrack due to rights issues over the songs.

 

[Syriel]

How did you feel about Mystery Science Theater?

I've used MST3K as an example *many* times. The movies used were either public domain, or licensed. MST3K couldn't do its thing w/o permission. Copyright law doesn't allow for it.

Or the music video segments in Beavis and Butthead?

These were licensed for use. MTV didn't use them without permission.

Or reviews with video footage?

Reviews would generally be fair use.

Or articles about said game or walkthroughs on a site with no permission with ads on the site?

News stories would generally be fair use.
Previews would generally be fair use.
Feature stories would generally be fair use.

Walkthroughs would generally be fine as long as it stuck to facts and didn't rely on copyrighted material. This is why GameFAQs is 100% protected, as the content in the FAQs is typically all original. They don't use licensed content.

Or unofficial game magazine articles about games they don't have permission to write articles about, but are purchasable magazines?

News, Features, Previews and Reviews are all generally fair use. No permission is needed to report on content.

Or those old Unofficial Guide books?

This is where a lot of people get confused (and where a number of lawsuits were filed). Unofficial Guides are OK as long as it is original content. Unofficial Guides which used licensed artwork ended up getting sued and loosing.

Or televised programs of games on old TV stations like G4, even with the old TV show that used to do nothing but play game trailers and gameplay clips with commercials to them?

Guess what? Those TV shows got permission to show the trailers.

Copyright is not as black and white as you make it out to be.

As someone who has worked in broadcast, print (newspaper and magazine) and web media, copyright is pretty straightforward. It really doesn't take long to learn it, and once you know where the lines are you can do a lot.

All the restrictions above assume no permission. Once permission is granted by the copyright holder, you're free to do as allowed. A good YouTube example of that is Deep Silver. That company has granted permission for people to make and monetize LPs, but NOT to monetize just the cut scenes.

The Daria DVD collection doesn't have the original soundtrack due to rights issues over the songs.

There are actually a number of older movies which don't have their original film (as shown in theaters) soundtrack on the DVD releases. It is because the original rights never covered it.

 

[Darkmakaimura]

There are actually a number of older movies which don't have their original film (as shown in theaters) soundtrack on the DVD releases. It is because the original rights never covered it.

Speaking of the Daria thing the poster mentioned, wasn't there an issue regarding the "Love & Marriage" song when it was used as the theme for Married.... With Children? I remember you could still hear it on syndicated re-runs but it was scrapped from the DVDs and other media.

Back on topic, why does this seem to be effecting CGR if the guy is mainly giving a review of the game, thus falling into fair use? Those are mostly old games for one thing and he's basically reviewing them. Again, I wonder if AVGN will get hit soon? As a fan, that would suck. I'm already bummed as I used walkthroughs and LP's as a guide to buy games and I wonder how many other people do the same? I know it isn't going to mean anything when a company loses money on me but what about all those similar minded folks?

 

[Syriel]

Speaking of the Daria thing the poster mentioned, wasn't there an issue regarding the "Love & Marriage" song when it was used as the theme for Married.... With Children? I remember you could still hear it on syndicated re-runs but it was scrapped from the DVDs and other media.

Back on topic, why does this seem to be effecting CGR if the guy is mainly giving a review of the game, thus falling into fair use? Those are mostly old games for one thing and he's basically reviewing them. Again, I wonder if AVGN will get hit soon? As a fan, that would suck. I'm already bummed as I used walkthroughs and LP's as a guide to buy games and I wonder how many other people do the same? I know it isn't going to mean anything when a company loses money on me but what about all those similar minded folks?

False copyright claims can still be made, but doing so can expose the entity making them to legal liability, especially is damages are involved.

With YouTube false claims can be intentional or as a result of negligence/ineptitude on the part of the party that configured ContentID, but that doesn't change the available remedies.

Ultimately, that becomes a question of resources and risk/reward as far as the likelihood of following up with a lawsuit. After all, if a company is overbroad with its ContentID claims, but figures no one it injures will bother to sue, then why bother dialing back the claims?

The only real way to stop ContentID abuse is going to be for one more people with false claims (this is going to have to be someone who has content that is clearly original and/or fair use, such as news, reviews, etc.) filing suit against the companies making the false claims.

A LP without permission is on very shaky ground as far as fair use is concerned. I know I would fight like hell for the former. I wouldn't bother to try fighting a claim on a LP that didn't have permission.

 

[L.O.R.D]

https://twitter.com/terrycavanagh/status/413055480315920384/photo/1

what ?

 

[Darkmakaimura]

https://twitter.com/terrycavanagh/status/413055480315920384/photo/1

what ?

Looks like we've gotten to this point.

 

[Dusk Golem]

YouTube doesn't plan to change anything: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-12-17-youtube-stands-by-content-id-system

 

[thechristoph]

Even a single segment of gameplay = no money for Gamesack. All money for game creator.

That is how this system works.

Their show is all about various games within a given theme. If they show an EA game, a Sega game, a Nintendo game, and a Konami game, but only two of those four file claims, who gets the cash? Do the other two companies then need to file a lawsuit against the original claimants to get the funds that they illegally claimed? Or do they divide each video up into segments and do the math?

These questions are ridiculous but they are ridiculous on purpose; this whole system is so poorly thought out.

 

[CadetMahoney]

ITT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnTmBjk-M0c

Simply putting your voice over hours of copyrighted content AND using it for commercial purposes is very likely not going to get accepted as fair use.

Pretty much, talk some shit over copyrighted work - monetize it - FAIR USE! 1 my my personalityyyeee 2

Their show is all about various games within a given theme. If they show an EA game, a Sega game, a Nintendo game, and a Konami game, but only two of those four file claims, who gets the cash? Do the other two companies then need to file a lawsuit against the original claimants to get the funds that they illegally claimed? Or do they divide each video up into segments and do the math?

These questions are ridiculous but they are ridiculous on purpose; this whole system is so poorly thought out.

Uploaders should create mixed videos involving arch rivals MS and Sony exclusives. . . one will get the revenue of the other.