Support NeoGAF

[Orayn]

Making a copy of the contents of a video game and distributing it (via Youtube or elsewhere) is a violation of copyright. You are redistributing someone's work without their explicit permission. Watching such a video isn't any sort of violation.

Most publishers don't require explicit permission to upload videos of their games, though, and some even encourage it. See the OP of the other thread where various publishers' stances are summarized.

Monetizing those videos is the issue, as many publishers disallow it by default.

 

[hwy_61]

If I post a video of me vacationing, and someone just so happens to be playing 2 Live Crew in the background, can my video suffer the same repercussions as these LPers?

Is that the same scenario?

 

[TheD]

Well this was just a matter of time... I think let's play videos should not be monetized, it's pretty damn obvious why. Unless you have the express permission to do so from the publisher/developer of the game.

How many times does it have to be said......
IT IS NOT JUST FUCKING LETS PLAYS THAT CAN GET FLAGGED!

 

[Phades]

Right of first sale does not allow you to do anything you want with a work you purchased a copy of. It doesn't, for example, allow you to copy and reproduce, which are specifically covered by copyright. And what's actually going on in these videos.

Full stop. Watching a game is not the same as playing it, nor are you enabling others to play it by posting a video of it. This is not piracy.

 

[pelican]

But it's the livelihood of most of these people. It's worrying if these are erroneous claims which can come from anywhere.

I see your point regarding YT being an important source of income for these people.

But remember they are in reality making money from someone's work. While I wouldn't advocating banning channels I do think successful financially motivated You Tube channels should be expected to pay some form of return to the copyright holders. Other forms of media require outlets publicly broadcasting their material for financial game require some form of kickback e.g. Music Licensing.

This was always bound to happen as broadcasting games became more commercially viable. I might be wrong, but this doesn't effect the regular gamer wanting to upload some clips of his gameplay etc.

Just trying to see it from both angles.

 

[besada]

You can't apply rules for non-interactive media to an interactive one such as video gaming.

Yes, you can. In fact, under copyright law, you do. Again, you could certainly make the argument that watching a video game's content is fair use, but it's unlikely any reasonable court is going to agree. At least some of the value of the game exists within its writing and art, both of which are being replicated and distributed without the owner's permission. If you're making money off that as well, it's incredibly unlikely that a court would find that sort of usage fair use.

 

[TheHollowNight]

I don't see how any aspect of this prevents you from allowing a channel to Let's Play (and/or monetize) your game. If it's an indie game that you own the copyright to, you can absolutely give other people permission to LP the game.

Sure, but to give individual permission to every single let's player channel/streamer/quick look/review channel out there on YouTube, big & small is nigh on impossible, since:

1. Our team simply wouldn't have the public reach to get all our bases covered, even if we had a disclaimer on our site or on social media networks. It is a huge pain on our side of things too.

2. All these channels, not just LP ones, are getting automated ID claims. That's hard to work around. If people are accidentally getting flagged, even though myself as a developer am totally fine with it, it's unlikely the flagged channel will even bother keeping the video up and losing us the promotion we could of got.

Sure my personal stance on is, well, 'maybe I'm just not a bit of a dick about it'. It's less unlikely copyright claims will happen with people playing a game from a small indie team, but the snowball effect with this happening on mainstream games is that, it's affectively stunting content creators, to actually, you know, create content on their channels, if they're afraid they will get everything flagged.

When we released our mod last year, we were briefly doing the rounds of some of the big channels, which resulted in a truck tonne of emails from smaller channels asking if they could Let's Play a free mod. It may be common courtesy of them to ask, or misinformation of them believing we purposely targeted those channels, but at the end of the day, it they were already fearful of permission from a team of nobodies, what mindset are they going to be in now?

I don't want this barrier to exist between a channel & developer, because it affects a potential consumer watching their video. Our mods popularity was the effect of Pewdiepie choosing to play it, and something unlikely possible to replicate if we tried asking him first (he may ignore our request since he probably gets thousands of emails). And since that has happened, we have a small foothold in the door of that scene to then get them involved when we release our commercial game, because they'll remember us from before! (maybe).

 

[CR0]

This sounds like a music industry related issue at the moment.

If the videos are being flagged by music organizations because of the in-game 'background music,' maybe the RIAA types are just up to their old tricks?

 

[MagicWithEarvin]

Making a copy of the contents of a video game and distributing it (via Youtube or elsewhere) is a violation of copyright. You are redistributing someone's work without their explicit permission. Watching such a video isn't any sort of violation.

Read my post above.

Being partnered with a major network grants you permission to upload (and monetize) gamplay. That's what a network is for - they're that third party that communicates with the major publishers to grant permission to use their works with network affiliates.

 

[Orca]

#TEAMVIMEO

I used to put gameplay videos on Vimeo, until they deleted all the gameplay videos on the site without warning, declaring they were 'artistic' enough to merit inclusion. Did they change that policy...and if so, why do we believe they wouldn't change back to it again?

Edit - "No screen-captures of video games or gameplay videos, even if edited. (Exception! Game developers can upload examples of their own work. Machinima videos with a story also are allowed, but must be labeled as such in the video description to avoid deletion.)"

Apparently they haven't changed.

 

[Axass]

I disagree with that. Gaming YouTuber's have always assumed publishers are okay with it and for the most part they are. However they don't own the rights to the footage being shown and never have. It is essentially monetising off other people's work and putting your voice over it. Going by that logic, if I buy a movie I should be able to upload it to YouTube and make money.

I don't have a strong opinion about people earning off gaming videos without specified permission, some of my favourite YouTubers do it full time. Some publishers have stated they're fine with it to keep the community happy although I expect their legal department don't share the same view. Can't say I didn't expect something like this could happen.

Your comparison is inherently wrong, a movie is made to be watched, a game is made to be played.

That's like saying that you shouldn't be able to upload a video of yourself playing twister on YouTube, and that, if you do, the ads revenue should go to the company that makes the game.

Why?

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

Read my post above.

Being partnered with a major network grants you permission to upload (and monetize) gamplay. That's what a network is for - they're that third party that communicates with the major publishers to grant permission to use their works with network affiliates.

But even partnered channels are getting claims...

 

[besada]

Most publishers don't require explicit permission to upload videos of their games, though, and some even encourage it. See the OP of the other thread where various publishers' stances are summarized.

Monetizing those videos is the issue, as many publishers disallow it by default.

A copyright owner can choose to allow people to make derivative works, and they can chose not to allow it. Unlike trademark, one is not required to make a concerted effort to stop illegal use in order to file a copyright violation later on. So companies can allow people to use their video if they like, but they can also change their minds at any time.

 

[Biker19]

I would love for a movement to drop youtube as its only good for viewers (awful video compression) and move somewhere else.

I cannot wait for the day we move to a better website of superb video quality through hosting videos.

Been going down with each update.
It's only a matter of time before people say enough and migrate elsewhere.

Amen to these. It'll be good if for one day, a lot of people were to put Youtube in their place & for Youtube to become the next MySpace in popularity.

 

[patapuf]

Yes, you can. In fact, under copyright law, you do. Again, you could certainly make the argument that watching a video game's content is fair use, but it's unlikely any reasonable court is going to agree. At least some of the value of the game exists within its writing and art, both of which are being replicated and distributed without the owner's permission. If you're making money off that as well, it's incredibly unlikely that a court would find that sort of usage fair use.

The issue is not whether publishers have the right to flag the videos, it's whether they should.

 

[remnant]

Classy!

100% accurate. I'm sorry but there are clearly some bitter people in this thread, who have a major hatred for LP's that they are missing the forest for the tree's.

 

[Portugeezer]

They all have contracts and agreements with dev's and publishers and have to follow guidelines on what they can / cannot do and show.

They also don't have automated ID systems for taking down videos.

 

[Ragingnight]

LOL MAX from Assist me is getting flagged for it and he has gotten permission and has even been paid by capcom a few times to do the assist me videos lololol

 

[friskykillface]

The End.

I never got a chance to do this haha, what a bummer, damn me for being cheap to get a capture card.

 

[MagicWithEarvin]

But even partnered channels are getting claims...

That's the thing I'm confused about - what has changed over night and how come MCN isn't aware of this?

 

[patapuf]

Read my post above.

Being partnered with a major network grants you permission to upload (and monetize) gamplay. That's what a network is for - they're that third party that communicates with the major publishers to grant permission to use their works with network affiliates.

since partnered networks and even people like jim sterling are getting flagged.. i don't think that's protection enough.

LOL MAX from Assist me is getting flagged for it and he has gotten permission and has even been paid by capcom a few times to do the assist me videos lololol

clearly this is a great policy change from YT and the publishers invovled.

 

[lethial]

So is this over money? Should some guy get paid (or ad revenue) for posting a video of him playing a videogame on youtube? I don't get it.

 

[besada]

Read my post above.

Being partnered with a major network grants you permission to upload (and monetize) gamplay. That's what a network is for - they're that third party that communicates with the major publishers to grant permission to use their works with network affiliates.

And so long as the publisher (not just of the game, but of incidental background music or images) allows it, it's legal. Copyright owners have control over what is done with their work, generally speaking. If non-interested third parties are filing cease and desists or removal mandates, then that's inappropriate. They don't have standing to do so, and Google should do a better job checking that.

The issue is not whether publishers have the right to flag the videos, it's whether they should.

That may be the issue you're discussing. I'm discussing copyright law and what the owner of an original work is entitled to. I don't have a strong opinion on "should" here. What "should" be done with derivative works is entirely up to the owner of the original work and the courts.

 

[Professor Lich]

If I post a video of me vacationing, and someone just so happens to be playing 2 Live Crew in the background, can my video suffer the same repercussions as these LPers?

Is that the same scenario?

I would say yes, in the sense that you might lose adds from that said video. It would depend on how they screen for content too. They're hitting videos with music and clips already available to the public.

Must have an exciting life if enough people watch your vacation videos though. haha

 

[Htown]

So is this over money?

Should some guy get paid (or ad revenue) for posting a video of him playing a videogame on youtube?

Sometimes.

 

[Orayn]

LOL MAX from Assist me is getting flagged for it and he has gotten permission and has even been paid by capcom a few times to do the assist me videos lololol

Then he just needs to provide Capcom's written permission again and he's good to go, assuming that's who the content ID matches are from.

 

[Ragingnight]

So capcom gave Max an early copy of marvel and paid him to do the assist me series for ultimate marvel vs capcom 3. Now he is getting content flagged lololol.

I guess that permission wasn't explicit enough.

Then he just needs to provide Capcom's written permission again and he's good to go, assuming that's who the content ID matches are from.

Yeah, thats not a hassle for like a ton of people asking different publishers for it.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

A copyright owner can choose to allow people to make derivative works, and they can chose not to allow it. Unlike trademark, one is not required to make a concerted effort to stop illegal use in order to file a copyright violation later on. So companies can allow people to use their video if they like, but they can also change their minds at any time.

Actually I'm pretty sure that derivative works don't require copyright holder permission; as long as the work is transformative enough, it will be protected under fair use. This specific context is just without precedent at the moment.

 

[Aquamarine]

Yes, you can. In fact, under copyright law, you do. Again, you could certainly make the argument that watching a video game's content is fair use, but it's unlikely any reasonable court is going to agree. At least some of the value of the game exists within its writing and art, both of which are being replicated and distributed without the owner's permission. If you're making money off that as well, it's incredibly unlikely that a court would find that sort of usage fair use.

With linear, cinematic, story-based games, a good majority of the content is presented as cutscenes / in-game videos. By uploading these cutscenes to the Internet, you are directly reproducing non-interactive video content without permission...so while the actual gameplay may be under fair use, uploading videos / cutscenes from the game could very easily be equivocated to uploading a movie or a TV show. It's the same type of content.

 

[jacksepticeye]

My BF4 video didn't even get matched for BF4 content, it got matched for having the Bonnie Tyler song play in the game in the first 20 seconds... -__-

 

[ezekial45]

So is this over money? Should some guy get paid (or ad revenue) for posting a video of him playing a videogame on youtube? I don't get it.

Yes. Publishers think they're losing money from these videos so they want to limit it to the youtubers they have control over (the really popular ones they're paying), and cut out anyone who wants to upload videos on their own.

It's about money AND control.

 

[Junior Mint]

Why are people blaming YouTube? Isn't this something the publishers are pushing for?

 

[Orayn]

Actually I'm pretty sure that derivative works don't require copyright holder permission; as long as the work is transformative enough, it will be protected under fair use. This specific context is just without precedent at the moment.

And until there's a pretty strong precedent supporting LPs as fair use, you pretty much need a lawyer to successfully argue that yours are. That's beyond the means of most of the people affected, though I'd be very interested to see it happen.

Why are people blaming YouTube? Isn't this something the publishers are pushing for?

Unclear who this is coming from. Most publishers already had policies regarding videos of their games, YouTube had just been turning a blind eye to them before now.

 

[patapuf]

Then he just needs to provide Capcom's written permission again and he's good to go, assuming that's who the content ID matches are from.

Until the bots gets him for the next video...

I can't even imagine the bureaucracy that will be involved in this.

 

[besada]

Actually I'm pretty sure that derivative works don't require copyright holder permission; as long as the work is transformative enough, it will be protected under fair use. This specific context is just without precedent at the moment.

The only way to determine if a work is transformative, rather than derivative, is to actually go to court and use fair use as a defense. And a transformative work is seen as a different thing entirely than a definitive work. Whether it's one or the other is one of the four pillars of determining fair use.

 

[hwy_61]

I would say yes, in the sense that you might lose adds from that said video. It would depend on how they screen for content too. They're hitting videos with music and clips already available to the public.

Must have an exciting life if enough people watch your vacation videos though. haha

Those videos can get a lot of views dude!

 

[AppleMIX]

Until the bots gets him for the next video...

I can't even imagine the bureaucracy that will be involved in this.

Not only that, Youtube has been notoriously bad with handling DMCA claims.

 

[Bsigg12]

So where does this benefit YouTube and publishers? A lot of people go to known figures on YouTube to find info on games and get an idea of what they're in for if they pick the game up. This is just dumb.

It was mentioned elsewhere, but I wonder what it would take for a 3rd party to step in and handle all of legal stuff so the people doing these can still get paid.

 

[Phades]

The only way to determine if a work is transformative, rather than derivative, is to actually go to court and use fair use as a defense. And a transformative work is seen as a different thing entirely than a definitive work. Whether it's one or the other is one of the four pillars of determining fair use.

By the nature of the different mediums, by default it is a transformative work. They are in no way reproducing the source code to duplicate the original effort.

 

[patapuf]

With linear, cinematic, story-based games, a good majority of the content is presented as cutscenes / in-game videos. By uploading these cutscenes to the Internet, you are directly reproducing non-interactive video content without permission...so while the actual gameplay may be under fair use, uploading videos / cutscenes from the game could very easily be equivocated to uploading a movie or a TV show. It's the same type of content.

Story driven games are defenitely hurt by this, but it's not like there's any differentiation going on, it's just bots flagging what they find.

 

[Cuyejo]

So is this over money? Should some guy get paid (or ad revenue) for posting a video of him playing a videogame on youtube? I don't get it.

It depends on how much input or originality you are bringing to a video. Even then, depending on third party and intellectual property for monetizing is walking on a thin line.

 

[Orayn]

So where does this benefit YouTube and publishers? A lot of people go to known figures on YouTube to find info on games and get an idea of what they're in for if they pick the game up. This is just dumb.

It was mentioned elsewhere, but I wonder what it would take for a 3rd party to step in and handle all of legal stuff so the people doing these can still get paid.

That's what partner networks like Maker, RPM, and Machinima had been doing before. Now, it sounds like they're only extending that protection to a select few people who'll be getting "managed" status for their accounts. Everyone else is being returned to the same position as having a plain old YouTube partnership when it comes to copyright claims.

 

[Senor Kami]

If I post a video of me vacationing, and someone just so happens to be playing 2 Live Crew in the background, can my video suffer the same repercussions as these LPers?

Is that the same scenario?

From what I've heard from the industry podcast I mentioned, stuff like that was what was made the future of music so bright in their eyes. The person with the video would receive a notice that there was a content match but everything was cool and the video could stay up with audio fully intact, but there'd be the YouTube ad system applied to it.

Garbage collectors get paid pretty good as I recall.

Anyway, this is pretty bullshit. The ramifications are pretty bad for what this could entail in the end. The community in ompetitive games in particular will be hit hard

Based Gabe Newell. Doesn't DOTA have like a built-in feature where you can watch competitive events from within the game client? I remember hearing about that and thinking that was way better than garbage ass Twitch streams that might be unwatchable depending on the saturation of their servers/whatever in your area. I thought that eventually, that would be the future for consuming a lot of this type of content. You download some Call of Duty, Street Fighter, whatever app/player/streamer and skip video altogether.

Or it's the LoL method where you have a company trying to turn their game into a league that they can control, which probably would allow them to dictate how their streams are handled by media outlets.

 

[Baleoce]

If something could come along and be more popular than YouTube that would be nice.

 

[tickling]

The gaming industry is imploding. This is just bizarre

 

[Gannd]

Your comparison is inherently wrong, a movie is made to be watched, a game is made to be played.

That's like saying that you shouldn't be able to upload a video of yourself playing twister on YouTube, and that, if you do, the ads revenue should go to the company that makes the game.

Why?

Games used to be made to play. The "interactive cinematic experience" is becoming a larger part of the "games" industry. If, I was TellTale I would hate LP because there isn't any real "play" in a game like The Walking Dead. It's much more of an interactive movie. Even games like Uncharted advertised themselves to be more like an interactive movie than a "game". If stories are a big reason people play games, I don't want them to be able to watch the "game" if I am a publisher.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

The only way to determine if a work is transformative, rather than derivative, is to actually go to court and use fair use as a defense. And a transformative work is seen as a different thing entirely than a definitive work. Whether it's one or the other is one of the four pillars of determining fair use.

Yep, that's what I meant by the absence of precedent. If someone decides to challenge the publishers and take them to court arguing that the work is transformative enough to be covered, the outcome will probably decide whether publishers continue to go after people monetising their game-related content. Right now we have Google deciding to act in a particular way independent of any legal ruling one way or another, but they'll do whatever is necessary to uphold their obligations while making revenue from the videos if they're able.

 

[Orayn]

Games used to be made to play. The "interactive cinematic experience" is becoming a larger part of the "games" industry. If, I was TellTale I would hate LP because there isn't any real "play" in a game like The Walking Dead. It's much more of an interactive movie. Even games like Uncharted advertised themselves to be more like an interactive movie than a "game". If stories are a big reason people play games, I don't want them to be able to watch the "game" if I am a publisher.

Telltale Games allows LPs and videos of their games, but not monetizing them.

If something could come along and be more popular than YouTube that would be nice.

Wouldn't help, they'd be subject to the exact same rules from publishers.

 

[The Dutch Slayer]

My BF4 video didn't even get matched for BF4 content, it got matched for having the Bonnie Tyler song play in the game in the first 20 seconds... -__-

Is mostly for audio content is what I'm hearing from everyone. because the new content ID system has an much easier time identifying sound then video for copyright.

 

[KukicAdo]

Sure, but to give individual permission to every single let's player channel/streamer/quick look/review channel out there on YouTube, big & small is nigh on impossible, since:

1. Our team simply wouldn't have the public reach to get all our bases covered, even if we had a disclaimer on our site or on social media networks. It is a huge pain on our side of things too.

2. All these channels, not just LP ones, are getting automated ID claims. That's hard to work around. If people are accidentally getting flagged, even though myself as a developer am totally fine with it, it's unlikely the flagged channel will even bother keeping the video up and losing us the promotion we could of got.

Sure my stance on is, well, 'maybe I'm just not a bit of a dick about it'. It's less unlikely copyright claims will happen with people playing a game from a small indie team, but the snowball effect with this happening on mainstream games is that, it's affectively stunting content creators, to actually, you know, create content on their channels, if they're afraid they will get everything flagged.

When we released our mod last year, we were briefly doing the rounds of some of the big channels, which resulted in a truck tonne of emails from smaller channels asking if they could Let's Play a free mod. It may be common courtesy of them to ask, or misinformation of them believing we purposely targeted those channels, but at the end of the day, it they were already fearful of permission from a team of nobodies, what mindset are they going to be in now?

What if somebody built a site that would allow Indies.. or any other developers to post what content is allowed and allow the YouTube content creators to go to the site look up your game and claim they're going to use your game for their LP, Review, Etc.

That way if a video gets flagged and the YT Creator needs proof, he can just link back to the site.

Not a fully automated system, but would help creators and YouTuber's alike.

I have some free time and can probably build it in a couple weeks.