• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

Safe Bet
Banned
(09-14-2017, 02:03 AM)
Safe Bet's Avatar

Originally Posted by Robert at Zeboyd Games

Here's a quick summary:

  • Most professionals believe LPs don't fall under Fair Use (however, there's no direct legal case on the matter).
  • Since LPs are copyright infrigement,

Can you not see what you did here?

You state LPs have not been deemed illegal in your first sentence then three sentences later claim LPs are illegal.
Robert at Zeboyd Games
Zeboyd Games
(09-14-2017, 02:15 AM)
Robert at Zeboyd Games's Avatar

Originally Posted by Safe Bet

Can you not see what you did here?

You state LPs have not been deemed illegal in your first sentence then three sentences later claim LPs are illegal.

Let me get more specific then. LPs are clearly a copyright violation. You're using somebody else's IP without a contract. What has not been proven in court yet is whether or not you could defend yourself against this violation with a Fair Use defense. However, most professionals believe that a Fair Use defense for an LP would fail in court since LPs score poorly in the 4 categories that determine Fair Use.

A Fair Use defense is an admission that you're violating copyright and then seeks to provide proof for why you should be allowed to violate copyright.
The Faceless Master
(09-14-2017, 02:18 AM)
The Faceless Master's Avatar
never liked PDP

never will like that racist anti-semitic shitbag

hope this goes to court and fair use wins
Safe Bet
Banned
(09-14-2017, 02:35 AM)
Safe Bet's Avatar

Originally Posted by Robert at Zeboyd Games

A Fair Use defense is an admission that you're violating copyright and then seeks to provide proof for why you should be allowed to violate copyright.

If it was up to me, I wouldn't use Fair Use.

I'd go for the whole ball of wax.

I'd claim the game is nothing more than a set.

And I'd ask for a jury.

#iownmyplaythroughs
Last edited by Safe Bet; 09-14-2017 at 02:38 AM.
Safe Bet
Banned
(09-14-2017, 02:42 AM)
Safe Bet's Avatar
The fact some playthroughs hold more value than others show the game itself has a base value and it is the player(s) which add any value beyond that base value.
Oxymoron
Member
(09-14-2017, 02:43 AM)
Oxymoron's Avatar

Originally Posted by Safe Bet

If it was up to me, I wouldn't use Fair Use.

I'd go for the whole ball of wax.

I'd claim the game is nothing more than a set.

And I'd ask for a jury.

#iownmyplaythroughs

You can't perform on or copy somebody else's set, sets are copyrightable :).
Safe Bet
Banned
(09-14-2017, 02:46 AM)
Safe Bet's Avatar

Originally Posted by Oxymoron

You can't perform on or copy somebody else's set, sets are copyrightable :).

I'd glady pay, contract, etc. to use them.

:D

Edit:

How about a cut of the gate?
Last edited by Safe Bet; 09-14-2017 at 02:48 AM.
BronsonLee
(09-14-2017, 02:46 AM)
BronsonLee's Avatar

Originally Posted by Safe Bet

If it was up to me, I wouldn't use Fair Use.

I'd go for the whole ball of wax.

I'd claim the game is nothing more than a set.

And I'd ask for a jury.

#iownmyplaythroughs

Why the fuck would you ask for a jury

Why are you using a hashtag on a message board

None of this makes sense

Get out of my house, stop pretending you know things
Oxymoron
Member
(09-14-2017, 02:47 AM)
Oxymoron's Avatar

Originally Posted by Safe Bet

I'd glady pay, contract, etc. to use them.

:D

Well, sure, that's the point. If you want to pay and obtain a license to stream a let's play, that would give you rights to do so without committing copyright infringement. You, of course, retain the copyright to the part of the performance that's yours and always hashtag own your play throughs.
KyanMehwulfe
Member
(09-14-2017, 02:55 AM)
KyanMehwulfe's Avatar

Originally Posted by Safe Bet

If it was up to me, I wouldn't use Fair Use.

I'd go for the whole ball of wax.

I'd claim the game is nothing more than a set.

And I'd ask for a jury.

#iownmyplaythroughs

I also wouldn't say Fair Use in these LPs case but perhaps something like... implied-in-fact contract.

"To establish the existence of an implied in fact contract, it is necessary to show: an unambiguous offer, unambiguous acceptance, mutual intent to be bound, and consideration. However, these elements may be established by the conduct of the parties rather than through express written or oral agreements."

Argue that the fact the LPs were allowed for so long constitute 'conduct' that expresses the contract by both parties, for the sake of consideration for both parties (marketing for the dev; ad rev for the LPer).
Hilbert
Deep into his 30th decade
(09-14-2017, 02:55 AM)
Hilbert's Avatar

Originally Posted by Safe Bet

I'd glady pay, contract, etc. to use them.

:D

Edit:

How about a cut of the gate?

hahaha, that was a quick! It sounds like you are in firm (but obnoxious) agreement with publishers!
FyreWulff
I Spit Hot Fyre
(09-14-2017, 03:25 AM)
FyreWulff's Avatar

Originally Posted by Safe Bet

If it was up to me, I wouldn't use Fair Use.

I'd go for the whole ball of wax.

I'd claim the game is nothing more than a set.

And I'd ask for a jury.

#iownmyplaythroughs

if it was a set then the developer would still have rights since sets and scenarios are copyrightable.

At best, you're "moving around" someone else's pieces, and you're a derivative work. I can't buy an action figure of Batman and make Batman puppeteering videos and have DC unable to touch me. Now, DC generally lets people do this, without officially endorsing anyone in particular, but copyright laws and any interpretation of fair use outside of parody would be a quickly lost case.
Safe Bet
Banned
(09-14-2017, 03:33 AM)
Safe Bet's Avatar

Originally Posted by BronsonLee

Why the fuck would you ask for a jury

Why are you using a hashtag on a message board

None of this makes sense

Get out of my house, stop pretending you know things

Oh..

Hello..

You must be new.

My name is Safe Bet.

I am old.

Originally Posted by Oxymoron

Well, sure, that's the point. If you want to pay and obtain a license to stream a let's play, that would give you rights to do so without committing copyright infringement. You, of course, retain the copyright to the part of the performance that's yours and always hashtag own your play throughs.

Unless specifically stated otherwise, there is already a license between players and gamemakers to stream.

(see below)

Originally Posted by KyanMehwulfe

I also wouldn't say Fair Use in these LPs case but perhaps something like... implied-in-fact contract.

I

JUST

CAME


:P

Originally Posted by Hilbert

hahaha, that was a quick!

Thanks!

:)

Originally Posted by Hilbert

(but obnoxious)

Sorry..

It's just the way I am.

:\

Usually gets me kicked outta here pretty quick.

Originally Posted by Hilbert

It sounds like you are in firm agreement with publishers!

They deserve to get paid too.

;)
Safe Bet
Banned
(09-14-2017, 03:37 AM)
Safe Bet's Avatar

Originally Posted by FyreWulff

if it was a set then the developer would still have rights since sets and scenarios are copyrightable.

Some rights, not all and up for negotiation obviously.

In fact...

I'm sorry but for one party to walk in here and assume 100% ownership over something that party did not 100% create is arrogant beyond belief.

Some of you people should be absolutely ashamed of yourselves.
BronsonLee
(09-14-2017, 03:42 AM)
BronsonLee's Avatar
This is like the equivalent of running headfirst into a fire hydrant that sprays emojis out of the top
Zolo
Member
(09-14-2017, 03:42 AM)
Zolo's Avatar
Do people really think that a court made up of people who are almost certainly unfamiliar with "Let's Plays" are going to consider it fair use when no other form of media allows this?
LudicrousSpeed
Member
(09-14-2017, 03:44 AM)

Originally Posted by Safe Bet

Some rights, not all and up for negotiation obviously.

In fact...

I'm sorry but for one party to walk in here and assume 100% ownership over something that party did not 100% create is arrogant beyond belief.

Some of you people should be absolutely ashamed of yourselves.

If you think anyone has said that LP videos are owned 100% by publishers, then you don't understand the conversation taking place.
Safe Bet
Banned
(09-14-2017, 03:48 AM)
Safe Bet's Avatar

Originally Posted by Zolo

Do people really think that a court made up of people who are almost certainly unfamiliar with "Let's Plays" are going to consider it fair use when no other form of media allows this?

This is media like no other.

I might even say it aint media at all.

I think a jury would see this to.
FyreWulff
I Spit Hot Fyre
(09-14-2017, 03:49 AM)
FyreWulff's Avatar

Originally Posted by Safe Bet

Some rights, not all and up for negotiation obviously.

In fact...

I'm sorry but for one party to walk in here and assume 100% ownership over something that party did not 100% create is arrogant beyond belief.

Some of you people should be absolutely ashamed of yourselves.

Derivative works are legally defined as an original material that needs the copyrighted work to have material worth.

So yes, it's well established that you can make an original contribution to something and still not be square under the law. If I make a Terminator game, I'm clearly using all of the Terminator scripts, lore, visages etc to give the material worth to it even though I'd be designing all the levels and script.

The only workaround is distribute your work completely separate from the copyrighted work it's attached to - this is why making patches for games is entirely legal (as it should be), since you're not distributing any of the developer's copyrighted material with the patch itself, and requires someone to acquire their own legal copy of the copyrighted material. This is why books that dissect other books are legal (again, as they should be), because you need to get your own copy of the book it talks about yourself, and the study book does not distribute the original book with it.

In the case of an LP, this would mean distributing the audio of your Let's Play without any video or sound from the game, and requiring people to sync it up to the game themselves. Since that's near impossible, it's pretty clear that you rely on someone else's copyrighted material to give your own work material worth.
Last edited by FyreWulff; 09-14-2017 at 03:52 AM.
Safe Bet
Banned
(09-14-2017, 03:50 AM)
Safe Bet's Avatar

Originally Posted by LudicrousSpeed

If you think anyone has said that LP videos are owned 100% by publishers, then you don't understand the conversation taking place.

You're taking my words too literally.
David___
Member
(09-14-2017, 03:54 AM)
David___'s Avatar

Originally Posted by Zolo

Do people really think that a court made up of people who are almost certainly unfamiliar with "Let's Plays" are going to consider it fair use when no other form of media allows this?


I see where youre coming from but no other form of media is interactive like video games

A movie/song/show will play from start to end with no interaction and whether or not someone is present

A game with nobody there will stay at the main menu.

At best its a grey area thats allowed to happen since both parties benefit from it for the most part and I feel itll stay that way until some streamer/youtuber with enough money is stupid enough to take it to court
Last edited by David___; 09-14-2017 at 03:58 AM.
Safe Bet
Banned
(09-14-2017, 03:57 AM)
Safe Bet's Avatar

Originally Posted by FyreWulff

Derivative works are legally defined as an original material that needs the copyrighted work to have material worth..

I used a copyrighted camera to shoot a movie.

Who owns the movie?

I use a copyrighted car to win a race.

Who gets the purse?

Hyperbole I know but I hope you get my meaning..

I would argue that games are technical equipment used by people to create and those people have a right to their creations.
Gestault
Member
(09-14-2017, 03:59 AM)
Gestault's Avatar
Safe Bet
Banned
(09-14-2017, 04:01 AM)
Safe Bet's Avatar

Originally Posted by Gestault

lol

:p

Yeah..

I remeber when I use to do that too.

;)
Skittles
Member
(09-14-2017, 04:03 AM)
Skittles's Avatar

Originally Posted by David___

I see where youre coming from but no other form of media is interactive like video games

A movie/song/show will play from start to end with no interaction and whether or not someone is present

A game with nobody there will stay at the main menu.

At best its a grey area thats allowed to happen since both parties benefit from it for the most part and I feel itll stay that way until some streamer/youtuber with enough money is stupid enough to take it to court

It's literally no different than live performances of music or plays on stages
Safe Bet
Banned
(09-14-2017, 04:06 AM)
Safe Bet's Avatar

Originally Posted by Skittles

It's literally no different than live performances of music or plays on stages

Uh..

Yeah..

Exactly.

Aint nothing gonna happen without the players.

And the better the players, the more value the performance has.
Type40
Member
(09-14-2017, 04:09 AM)
Type40's Avatar
I hate Youtuber's and Streamers so this is pretty awesome. Time for them to get some real jobs.

If i had the money I would make a LP to be purposely taken down. Then fight it in court in a manner to purposely lose so that they would all get screwed over.
Last edited by Type40; 09-14-2017 at 04:13 AM.
Maximo
Member
(09-14-2017, 04:12 AM)
Maximo's Avatar

Originally Posted by Type40

I hate Youtuber's and Streamers so this is pretty awesome. Time for them to get some real jobs.

Lol as real as yours.
Safe Bet
Banned
(09-14-2017, 04:13 AM)
Safe Bet's Avatar

Originally Posted by Type40

I hate Youtuber's and Streamers so this is pretty awesome. Time for them to get some real jobs.

The economic and social impact of that would be enormous.

Do you know how many kids watch YouTube?
Safe Bet
Banned
(09-14-2017, 04:15 AM)
Safe Bet's Avatar
They're bluffing and they know it.

The best they're hoping for is firming up their positions before the upcoming negotiations.
David___
Member
(09-14-2017, 04:15 AM)
David___'s Avatar

Originally Posted by Maximo

Lol as real as yours.

Like, I understand people questioning the legality of the whole thing regarding whether or not people should be able to make money off of it, but to say entertaining hundreds / thousands of people concurrently to the point they literally throw money at you isnt a real job is asinine.
sonicmj1
Member
(09-14-2017, 04:15 AM)
sonicmj1's Avatar

Originally Posted by Safe Bet

I used a copyrighted camera

I use a copyrighted car

This is not how copyright works. Technology has patents. Brands have trademarks. Artistic and expressive works have copyrights.

If you want to argue that games aren't art, aren't governed by copyright, and aren't entitled to First Amendment protections, we can go down that road.
Type40
Member
(09-14-2017, 04:15 AM)
Type40's Avatar

Originally Posted by Maximo

Lol as real as yours.

Designer at a book publisher, it's pretty real.

Originally Posted by Safe Bet

The economic and social impact of that would be enormous.

Do you know how many kids watch YouTube?

Too many.
nephilimdj
Member
(09-14-2017, 04:17 AM)
nephilimdj's Avatar
Isnt this silly? DMCA a big youtuber with connections to youtube HQ is dumbest "legal" thing a game dev could do.

What to be made a example for exploiting the system?
King Tubby
Member
(09-14-2017, 04:17 AM)
King Tubby's Avatar

Originally Posted by Safe Bet

The fact some playthroughs hold more value than others show the game itself has a base value and it is the player(s) which add any value beyond that base value.

I'm just going to quote myself earlier in this thread for why this can break down.

Originally Posted by King Tubby

Sure it does. Choose Your Own Adventure books.

Let's take an example of Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney, a highly narrative driven game that basically consists of making choices that show different scenes, with some of them leading to a "false ending" of sorts, and most of them leading one way or another up the same, main branch.

There are plenty of youtubers who have uploaded Let's Plays of the entire game, some of whom include alternate choices for viewers who want to see what would have happened. If you want to experience all the content the game has to offer, you really only need to watch a Let's Play.

Is this really fundamentally different from someone who uploads an entire Choose Your Own Adventure book? We can even account for the LPer's commentary by saying the upload has been annotated. It would be a violation of copyright. Maybe the copyright owner will look the other way because it will bring their work much needed exposure, but they are well within their rights to request that it be taken down.

This is the exact grey area where Let's Plays exist. There may be some disagreement over how applicable this is to all sorts of games (it's not a great analogy for a game like, say, Civilization VI) but it at least seems applicable to some games, and Firewatch, as well as a lot of very popular LP'ed games, are a lot closer to something like Phoenix Wright.

LudicrousSpeed
Member
(09-14-2017, 04:18 AM)

Originally Posted by Safe Bet

Uh..

Yeah..

Exactly.

Aint nothing gonna happen without the players.

And the better the players, the more value the performance has.

Plays are copyrighted material (so long as they're not old enough to have been made public domain). If you don't have a license from the owner of the play, but you get a bunch of scripts and put on a performance of that play, you've just committed copyright infringement.

That was the entire point of the original post.
Last edited by LudicrousSpeed; 09-14-2017 at 04:20 AM.
Safe Bet
Banned
(09-14-2017, 04:20 AM)
Safe Bet's Avatar

Originally Posted by sonicmj1

If you want to argue that games aren't art, aren't governed by copyright, and aren't entitled to First Amendment protections, we can go down that road.

I don't know what Minecraft is but it aint art in that sense and whatever my kids create in it belongs to them, not Microsoft.
Skittles
Member
(09-14-2017, 04:24 AM)
Skittles's Avatar

Originally Posted by Safe Bet

Uh..

Yeah..

Exactly.

Aint nothing gonna happen without the players.

And the better the players, the more value the performance has.

Well plays and music are protected by copyright. So i'm glad you agree that video games fall in the same area
Safe Bet
Banned
(09-14-2017, 04:24 AM)
Safe Bet's Avatar

Originally Posted by LudicrousSpeed

Plays are copyrighted material (so long as they're not old enough to have been made public domain). If you don't have a license from the owner of the play, but you get a bunch of scripts and put on a performance of that play, you've just committed copyright infringement.

That was the entire point of the original post.

You seem to be referencing games like Firewatch, art from times past disguised as new.

I am referencing sandbox games.
Safe Bet
Banned
(09-14-2017, 04:28 AM)
Safe Bet's Avatar

Originally Posted by Skittles

Well plays and music are protected by copyright. So i'm glad you agree that video games fall in the same area

Analogy about requiring human interaction to legal status of video games as technology or art is a large leap.

On that note though..

We don't follow a script.
Zolo
Member
(09-14-2017, 04:36 AM)
Zolo's Avatar
Dude, there's an edit button instead of double-posting.

Originally Posted by David___

I see where youre coming from but no other form of media is interactive like video games

A movie/song/show will play from start to end with no interaction and whether or not someone is present

A game with nobody there will stay at the main menu.

At best its a grey area thats allowed to happen since both parties benefit from it for the most part and I feel itll stay that way until some streamer/youtuber with enough money is stupid enough to take it to court

That's the thing. Courts are prone to making poor decisions based on ignorance, and those forms of media would still be their closest form of reference they would use.
FyreWulff
I Spit Hot Fyre
(09-14-2017, 04:41 AM)
FyreWulff's Avatar

Originally Posted by Safe Bet

Analogy about requiring human interaction to legal status of video games as technology or art is a large leap.

On that note though..

We don't follow a script.

Once again.. if I buy a Kermit the Frog muppet, I can't make Kermit the Frog videos and distribute them untouched. Even though I'm doing my own puppeteering, the material worth of the work is still Kermit and therefore the Henson copyright. I can of course, use the puppet.

If I buy the Monopoly board game, I can't say I own the rights to do a Let's Play of Monopoly and use the board and graphics in full even if I'm using a house rule that No Parking gives the person 400$ and I'm rolling the dice myself. The material worth of the work would still be the Monopoly board, place names, etc. Now, I could make a game board that plays like Monopoly, but uses none of it's graphics, names, or writing, because you can't copyright gameplay rules, but then nobody would be interested in watching the video, huh? It's pretty obvious if someone needs the original copyrightable parts of the work to give their work value, their additions to the proceedings aren't distinct enough to transform it into a new work.
Last edited by FyreWulff; 09-14-2017 at 04:43 AM.
The Hermit
Member
(09-14-2017, 04:43 AM)
The Hermit's Avatar

Originally Posted by Betty

Yeah, i'm well aware.

Lol





:(
Safe Bet
Banned
(09-14-2017, 04:49 AM)
Safe Bet's Avatar

Originally Posted by FyreWulff

If I buy the Monopoly board game, I can't say I own the rights to do a Let's Play of Monopoly ..

Who said?

But yeah, it would be nice to revenue share with them.

They might consider it free advertising etc. and allow you to keep 100% of the revenue generated from your LP as long as your LP does no harm to the brand and in case it did all they would have to do is send you a C&D.

Oh..

Wait...

THAT'S HOW IT WAS ALREADY WORKING
Last edited by Safe Bet; 09-14-2017 at 04:54 AM.
etrain911
Member
(09-14-2017, 04:51 AM)
etrain911's Avatar

Originally Posted by Type40

I hate Youtuber's and Streamers so this is pretty awesome. Time for them to get some real jobs.

If i had the money I would make a LP to be purposely taken down. Then fight it in court in a manner to purposely lose so that they would all get screwed over.

Wow, which streamer/youtuber pissed in your cheerios this morning?
David___
Member
(09-14-2017, 05:05 AM)
David___'s Avatar

Originally Posted by etrain911

Wow, which streamer/youtuber pissed in your cheerios this morning?

Id love to know too. The fact that he edited that in 4 minutes after posting and responding to two others is something else
Safe Bet
Banned
(09-14-2017, 05:13 AM)
Safe Bet's Avatar

Originally Posted by etrain911

Wow, which streamer/youtuber pissed in your cheerios this morning?

Use to work for 1UP prolly.
Game Guru
Member
(09-14-2017, 05:21 AM)
Game Guru's Avatar
So long as there's not an actual lawsuit regarding the nature of Let's Plays, I don't see why I should give a damn about this situation. If anyone deserves to be struck down by the gods of copyright law, it's the anti-Semitic racist guy. And I say that as someone who thinks IP law is pretty broken as it was not meant for a world where making copies is as easy as a click of the mouse, and that this could have wide-reaching implications that could later harm decent people. Right now, the anti-Semitic racist guy gets what he deserves.
Hesh
Member
(09-14-2017, 05:25 AM)
Hesh's Avatar
An interesting precedent. I can see it from both sides: from Campo Santo's side it is perfectly reasonable that they don't want an unwanted element advertising their game. It's an interesting dilemma: if you were a small business owner would you skimp on paying for advertising if the Westboro Baptist Church offered to advertise your business for you? On the other hand, this can set a dangerous precedent where trolls like the clowns behind Digital Homicide and their countless sockpuppets could DMCA videos showing why their games are a cheap disgrace to the medium.

All in all, though, I feel like I would ultimately side with Campo Santo on this. I would rather the publisher have the right to defend their work and prevent undesirables from making money off it first and foremost, and then from there we can hash out specifics to prevent trolls from abusing the system to censor critics.
Safe Bet
Banned
(09-14-2017, 05:40 AM)
Safe Bet's Avatar

Originally Posted by Hesh

An interesting precedent. I can see it from both sides: from Campo Santo's side it is perfectly reasonable that they don't want an unwanted element advertising their game. It's an interesting dilemma: if you were a small business owner would you skimp on paying for advertising if the Westboro Baptist Church offered to advertise your business for you? On the other hand, this can set a dangerous precedent where trolls like the clowns behind Digital Homicide and their countless sockpuppets could DMCA videos showing why their games are a cheap disgrace to the medium.

All in all, though, I feel like I would ultimately side with Campo Santo on this. I would rather the publisher have the right to defend their work and prevent undesirables from making money off it first and foremost, and then from there we can hash out specifics to prevent trolls from abusing the system to censor critics.

What if a publisher, developer, etc, used DMCA against a streamer for being gay, black, felon, controversial, etc?

Would it still be ok?

Would it still be an open and shut case with no reasoning required?

Yeah...

I thought not.

I suggest you find better lawyers to write your articles.

Thread Tools