Support NeoGAF

[Oxymoron]

You purchase those other stuff legally and use them to make a youtube video which makes you money. How is that different from purchasing a video game and using it to make a video which makes you money? I can do a skateboarding tips and tricks video, a workout video uisng fitness equipments, a video showing the features of my new car or camera, a bike stunt video etc. all which involve me doing something with the legally purchased item. SHould the other companies be given the right to have me take down the video just because they don't like the way I behave or think?

A skateboard isn't governed by copyright law. A video game is. That's a very fundamental difference.

If you disagree with the existence of copyright law, that's a different argument, but it does exist in the world today.

 

[Maledict]

The point about Coke or the clothes makes zero sense. It's another slippery slope argument that doesn't hold water.

Content creators rely on the games to make their content. It's not something incidental to the stuff they do, it *is* the stuff they do. No-one thinks Ralph Lauren supports nazis just because they all seem to wear polo shirts. But there's a clear reputations damage issue when your game is known for catering too, tolerating and supporting racists and nazis.

If someone made a video about Coke and how great it was whilst also shouting out racial slurs im damn sure Coke would have it taken down fast.

 

[Majukun]

The point about Coke or the clothes makes zero sense. It's another slippery slope argument that doesn't hold water.

Content creators rely on the games to make their content. It's not something incidental to the stuff they do, it *is* the stuff they do. No-one thinks Ralph Lauren supports nazis just because they all seem to wear polo shirts. But there's a clear reputations damage issue when your game is known for catering too, tolerating and supporting racists and nazis.

If someone made a video about Coke and how great it was whilst also shouting out racial slurs im damn sure Coke would have it taken down fast.

nobody thinks a videogame publisher supports nazis because a nazi plays it either.

 

[excelsiorlef]

No that's not what I'm saying, I'm saying he shouldn't have thrown his personal thoughts about someone into his job. I'm not saying racism is wrong is his personal opinion, I'm saying he should leave stuff like that out of his job. Leaving things like this out of his job makes him more neutral.

Either way what both parties did was wrong (Pewdiepie way more then what Sean did).

Nah. There's no neutrality on racism.

 

[excelsiorlef]

You purchase those other stuff legally and use them to make a youtube video which makes you money. How is that different from purchasing a video game and using it to make a video which makes you money? I can do a skateboarding tips and tricks video, a workout video uisng fitness equipments, a video showing the features of my new car or camera, a bike stunt video etc. all which involve me doing something with the legally purchased item. SHould the other companies be given the right to have me take down the video just because they don't like the way I behave or think?

Games are not bikes or skateboards

 

[Boombloxer]

Makes sense. Its really no different from The Rolling Stones not allowing their music to be played during a Trump campaign.

And we're done.

Content creators have all.rights here. If you're going to piggy back and be dumb, then thats the risk you take.

 

[Steroyd]

So basically no consequence as YouTube has done nothing at all against PDP outside of cancelling his Youtube Red show. He still gets money and does what he wants.

EDIT: I'm also not sure how this equates to Digital Homicide and their attack on Jim Sterling in attempts to silence him and his criticisms of them, and Campo Santo wanting to dissociate with a racist scumbag.

Unless I've got my DMCA'ing and copyright strikes mixed up this is only going to be taken off PDP's YouTube channel for 2 weeks and then it goes back up, which is arguably weaker than a slap on the wrist unless the devs sue PDP for...

Meanwhile Youtube is in the middle of an adpocalypse and they will happily bend over and spread their ass cheeks to stay ad friendly.

And it very much is the same as Digital Homicide, the only difference is that instead of the one dishing out the DMCA is the scumbag going against the Youtuber with public backing it's the one issuing the DMCA who has the public backing against the Youtuber scumbag.

 

[Majukun]

And we're done.

Content creators have all.rights here. If you're going to piggy back and be dumb, then thats the risk you take.

videogames are an interactive medium,music is not

there's no transformative work in playing a song during a campaign..but there's some in playing the game, and that is something that cannot be denied..in fact,, you could argue that the streamer playing is a much bigger part of the show than he game itself...evryone has access to the same version of the game,but some youtubers are more popular than others, so what makes people come back is the personality of the youtuber,and not the game.

at best, you should talk about cover songs,which at least in the US ,fall under the mechanical license,which cannot be denied by the original author

and one could argue that said license has already been paid when you bought the game

but in the end of the day,videogames are a quite unique medium that has yet to get the complete legislation around it.

 

[BBboy20]

Especially with hate groups using the internet to carry out their message I think it's very likely this will be the next thing Congress goes after.

With these enemies of the state?

 

[CoLaN]

Honestly, a lot of youtubers/streamers are getting ahead of themselves, and extremely arrogant.

It would be good to have something that makes them be a bit more humble and respectful towards developers and their work. Yes they can help with exposure, but they should know that they are making a living also thanks to other people hard work and properties.

Also, that keemstar tweet makes me vomit, that guy is useless.

 

[collige]

Games are not bikes or skateboards

I think a more apt analogy would be to that of a skate park or ice rink (especially in the case of multiplayer games like PUBG). While it's obviously well within the rights of the owners to kick people out, do you think they should also have ownership of any videos taken of people skating there?

 

[Zen_Arcade]

It's their work. They have the right to say if people can use it for their own monetary gain or not. Doesn't matter if it's because they think the person playing is an asshole or just because they don't want random people making money off their work while they get nothing.

 

[FyreWulff]

videogames are an interactive medium,music is not

there's no transformative work in playing a song during a campaign..but there's some in playing the game, and that is something that cannot be denied..in fact,, you could argue that the streamer playing is a much bigger part of the show than he game itself...evryone has access to the same version of the game,but some youtubers are more popular than others, so what makes people come back is the personality of the youtuber,and not the game.

You can't apply transformative legal interpretation to something that can't be copyrighted in the first place, that being gameplay mechanics.

So that leaves the rest of the work which can be copyrighted, which is the music, writing, art, and animation, and in no way is the Lets Player transforming any of those, which is defined as "a new or unexpected use of the work". They're just redistributing those 1:1. As such, Let's Plays are clearly a Derivative Work at best, because it depends on using the whole entire or the vast majority of someone else's copyrighted work, and cannot stand as it's own work.

 

[Maledict]

nobody thinks a videogame publisher supports nazis because a nazi plays it either.

PDP doesn't just play it. His entire living is based off streaming it and playing it. It's why people watch him. It is integral to what he does - no games, no pewdiepie.

And if you think there is no association between what the worlds most famous YouTube does and plays, and the shit he says whilst doing it, and the impact that can have, then I have a bridge to sell you. Having a prominent racist be a huge fan of your game and make videos about it *is* bad for your companies reputation and brand, and of course those companies should be able to use whatever legal tools they have to stop that happening.

(There's also thevery fair moral argument that a company doesn't want young people to see their game being played by a racist nazi. Few people want their products to be part of a a platform pushing racism and Nazis).

 

[Majukun]

You can't apply transformative legal interpretation to something that can't be copyrighted in the first place, that being gameplay mechanics.

So that leaves the rest of the work which can be copyrighted, which is the music, writing, art, and animation, and in no way is the Lets Player transforming any of those, which is defined as "a new or unexpected use of the work". They're just redistributing those 1:1. As such, Let's Plays are clearly a Derivative Work at best, because it depends on using the whole entire or the vast majority of someone else's copyrighted work, and cannot stand as it's own work.

let's just agree to disagree on this part, we clearly see the "let's player" job in different ways.

 

[collige]

You can't apply transformative legal interpretation to something that can't be copyrighted in the first place, that being gameplay mechanics.

So that leaves the rest of the work which can be copyrighted, which is the music, writing, art, and animation, and in no way is the Lets Player transforming any of those, which is defined as "a new or unexpected use of the work". They're just redistributing those 1:1.

Redistributing the assets 1:1 would be uploading ripped models or music to a file hosting site, they don't exist as is as part of the distributed product to consumers. For example, the Picasso estate still owns the copyright on all his paintings, but me uploading a video to Youtube of someone dancing through a museum of Picasso paintings wouldn't really be "redistributing" them.

 

[Weltall Zero]

The point about Coke or the clothes makes zero sense. It's another slippery slope argument that doesn't hold water.

Slippery slope is the exact term I was going to use the example described in the OP about Warner Bros. People that applaud the Firewatch devs are doing so because they believe it's for a valid reason. If Warner Bros. threatened youtubers that gave them bad reviews, the backlash would be monumental.

I think there are two discussions here:
1) Should devs be able to contest content for any reason they want? The answer is yes, as long as they're willing to face the consequences and potential backlash if any (the Firewatch devs certainly are, and in this case I applaud them).
2) Should these contestations be legally admitted? This is a separate issue and it's for lawyers and judges to decide; not us, not devs, and not youtubers.

 

[Chainsawkitten]

I don't expect this to hold up in a court of law if it were to actually go that far (it won't). Campo Santo explicitly gave consent to streaming / let's playing. They can relicense but that only affects future works, not ones already created. And that's the way it should be.

As a programmer, I use third-party libraries. The reason I am able to do that is because licensing, which doesn't explicitly state it can be revoked, can't be revoked. If a library I use were to change their license to require a massive payment, I would still be able to use the old version of the library which is still under the old license. Licensing would be an impossible mess if no library was every safe to use since it could be relicensed at any time.

Whether let's plays are covered under fair use doesn't really come into the picture in this specific case. Campo Santo forfeited their rights when it came to streaming. Their only hope would be to argue that them previously giving permission was somehow invalid for some reason.

 

[Yaska]

difficult stance to sell since people tune in for the streamer and not the game..and we know they do since otherwise you wouldn't have more and less successfull youtubers since the game is the same for everyone....it's the way people play and the commentary they add that makes the content,and that is, indeed, a transformative act, no doubt about it.



the right on the content is lost the moment you sell the copy to the user..you can decide to not sell your work to the guy,but once you do,you don't have the right to stop what he does with your game.

of course if we are talking about ideal "right" and not just what youtube decides because it's their website on their server.

tell me another business where if you do something using someone else's work (which is pretty much everything, from the guy who has a store built by someone else's hands, to the taxi driver that drives a car made by someone else's factory), that "someone else" still keeps the ability to veto your work.

No. What one buys is a license to use software not the software itself. It doesn't matter with the IP rights. Actually when you upload content to social media, you are actually giving the sites rights to your stuff as well. Games, movies, heck even books are being turned more and more into software licenses instead of actual copies you buy. And even then there are limits on what you can do to your copy as such.

The IPR is messed up. I know, I am a copyright lawyer.

 

[Weltall Zero]

With these enemies of the state?

Mother of god.

 

[James Scott]

What PewDiePie did was awful, but Firewatch devs bassicaly threw entire streaming/YouTube community under the bus with their DMCA. Because unless Google decides not to honor it, it means that every "we're giving you permission to stream with revenues" statement by devs is utterly worthless.

Nah, it means the dev is cool with streamers monetizing it normally.
It's a dig at companies that use content ID.
As long as they don't say that and use it to take down a review, don't think it matters.
"Slipper slope" has been invoked a lot and it doesn't make much sense here

you might as well say you agree with digital homicide if you think this is okay. get ready for ubisoft and other publishers to take down videos next.

PDP's videos aren't being taken down due to criticism; it's because he's a bad person and the company doesn't want to their brand attached to it
Probably easy to understand if one gave it a minute of thought

I don't expect this to hold up in a court of law if it were to actually go that far (it won't). Campo Santo explicitly gave consent to streaming / let's playing. They can relicense but that only affects future works, not ones already created. And that's the way it should be.

As a programmer, I use third-party libraries. The reason I am able to do that is because licensing, which doesn't explicitly state it can be revoked, can't be revoked. If a library I use were to change their license to require a massive payment, I would still be able to use the old version of the library which is still under the old license. Licensing would be an impossible mess if no library was every safe to use since it could be relicensed at any time.

Whether let's plays are covered under fair use doesn't really come into the picture in this specific case. Campo Santo forfeited their rights when it came to streaming. Their only hope would be to argue that them previously giving permission was somehow invalid for some reason.

This was discussed earlier by an actual lawyer and that statement meant nothing Illegally

 

[James Scott]

.

 

[TriAceJP]

This is more a fight of Youtube removing problematic content creators than game developers taking things into their own hands.

 

[Dragon_Rocks]

A skateboard isn't governed by copyright law. A video game is. That's a very fundamental difference.

If you disagree with the existence of copyright law, that's a different argument, but it does exist in the world today.

So if someone makes an app or software using a legally purchased commercial license of Java or C# or any other programming language etc. and make money by selling that app/software, should Oracle or Microsoft etc. have the right to take down that app/software because they do not like the way the app creator behaves?

 

[James Scott]

A physical skateboard does not fall under The Digital Millennium Copyright Act

 

[hodgy100]

Youtube should provide a way to dispute a video with their content outside of DCMA's that is then reviewed before its taken down I believe a company or individual has the right to disassociate themselves from other if they wish.

 

[Chainsawkitten]

This was discussed earlier by an actual lawyer and that statement meant nothing Illegally

Could you link me to the post? I presume it's because the full license is in the EULA and the website post is merely meant to be a summary/FAQ of that rather than a legal statement (or whatever the proper words are)?

 

[James Scott]

Could you link me to the post? I presume it's because the full license is in the EULA and the website post is merely meant to be a summary/FAQ of that rather than a legal statement (or whatever the proper words are)?

Here's his tweet

Tweet about the wording on their site

 

[Chindogg]

Did anyone ever wonder if Nintendo's partner program was actually made to prevent this kind of shit from happening?

I recall them getting shit on by quite a few on GAF when PDP said he wasn't going to play their games anymore.

 

[Dragon_Rocks]

If someone made a video about Coke and how great it was whilst also shouting out racial slurs im damn sure Coke would have it taken down fast.

So basically what you are saying here is that Coke has the right to decide that whether you can like/dislike or have an opinion on their product.

Games are not bikes or skateboards

But the concept is the same. I use bike or skateboard created by someone else to do activities which I record and then upload on youtube and make money. Why shouldn't those companies get the same right as developers?

 

[Brawndo Addict]

This is a very interesting question and I'm not sure where I fall on it. Streaming and monetization of digital licensed content is still very much in the Wild West days, both in terms of how relatively undeveloped the law is and in how corporations approach the issue contractually. I think one of the major problems is that we still don't have a very robust mechanism for revenue-sharing which causes a lot of unnecessary friction between the parties. If you can guarantee that all the stakeholders will be profiting from the activity, it makes it much easier to find common-ground on issues like content moderation.

Personally I'm somewhat partial to a solution that involves hosting sites contracting directly with corporate license-holders with respect to permissions, content-controls, and revenue-sharing/monetization. These contractual obligations would then be passed on to the individual user by the hosting platform if they want to benefit from monetization of licensed content. Having to rely solely on the DMCA to provide a legal framework for working through all these issues and problems is just an exercise in frustration.

So for a simplified example, Twitch/Youtube and Bluehole (PUBG developer) come to a contractual agreement which gives Twitch/Youtube permission to host streams of their licensed content and run advertisements. In exchange, Twitch/Youtube agrees to send Bluehole a portion of the ad revenue and to enforce content controls on their users. Twitch/Youtube then earns $100 in ads for PUBG on a platform basis; a third is kept by Twitch/Youtube, a third goes to the individual users, and a third goes to the developer Bluehole.

A monetized streamer then breaks the content rules agreed upon by Twitch/Youtube and Bluehole. Twitch/Youtube has a contractual obligation to enforce those rules/restrictions on their users and if they fail to do so Bluehole could pursue legal action to compel contract performance or receive damages per the terms of their contract. I would like for there to be greater freedoms for non-commercial users, although I admit corporations would have little incentive or obligation to do so.

 

[James Scott]

So basically what you are saying here is that Coke has the right to decide that whether you can like/dislike or have an opinion on their product.



But the concept is the same. I use bike or skateboard created by someone else to do activities which I record and then upload on youtube and make money. Why shouldn't those companies get the same right as developers?

A physical skateboard does not fall under The Digital Millennium Copyright Act

.

 

[LegendofLex]

I'd argue that there's no reason why fair use protections - which are in reality the legal "basis" for streaming - have to apply to offensive speech. Especially when the offensive speech in question doesn't have a "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" element to it, and instead exists for entertainment purposes.

This isn't a government coming in and taking away someone's right to offensive speech; this is a private entity saying "I don't think this use of my product qualifies as fair use." PDP is still free to use whatever offensive language he wants, since his ability to do so doesn't have to be tied to Campo Santo's work.

 

[Dragon_Rocks]

A physical skateboard does not fall under The Digital Millennium Copyright Act

What about my question posted above regarding app/software created by using programming language owned by other companies?

Or what about Microsoft, Apple etc. suddenly deciding that people using their OS platforms, creating/uploading videos on youtube and making money is not okay if they are behaving badly?

 

[Yaska]

A physical skateboard does not fall under The Digital Millennium Copyright Act

Physical skateboard however can fall under the protection (if it's a clear artistic version of a skateboard, for example a unique deck) of the Bern convention and the WIPO agreement (latter which is basically basis for U.S. DMCA).

Programming languages may have copyright or patent protections, computer programs have copyright protections. Code however rarely has copyright protection.

 

[benicillin]

There is no legal basis for Let's Plays to exist, which is why citing fair use is totally pointless. It's completely unproven in court. Stop making that argument like it's worth anything. There's a reason why TB and Jim Sterling are really worried this would make it's way to a courtroom - because there's a very good chance they'd lose, and the entire bottom on YouTube's industry would fall out. It would make the ad-pocalypse look like a minor blip.

Up until now it's been a mutually beneficial arrangement that, because YouTube and Twitch are unwilling to do literally anything to moderate their platform, is rapidly becoming unsustainable.

 

[Chindogg]

I'd argue that there's no reason why fair use protections - which are in reality the legal "basis" for streaming - have to apply to offensive speech. Especially when the offensive speech in question doesn't have a "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" element to it, and instead exists for entertainment purposes.

This isn't a government coming in and taking away someone's right to offensive speech; this is a private entity saying "I don't think this use of my product qualifies as fair use." PDP is still free to use whatever offensive language he wants, since his ability to do so doesn't have to be tied to Campo Santo's work.

But the government defines what is fair use, so it gets dicey from there.

The concept of fair use is so vague and shaky that these debates are constantly going to come up. Almost as if the US copyright and patent system was completely fucked.

There is no legal basis for Let's Plays to exist, which is why citing fair use is totally pointless. It's completely unproven in court. Stop making that argument like it's worth anything. There's a reason why TB and Jim Sterling are really worried this would make it's way to a courtroom - because there's a very good chance they'd lose, and the entire bottom on YouTube's industry would fall out. It would make the ad-pocalypse look like a minor blip.

Up until now it's been a mutually beneficial arrangement that, because YouTube and Twitch are unwilling to do literally anything to moderate their platform, is rapidly becoming unsustainable.

There's this argument as well. It's a very real possibility that Let's Plays aren't fair use and that'll destroy basically the majority of Youtube and Twitch monetization in one fell swoop.

An asshole that made the industry viable will potentially be it's downfall.

 

[Chainsawkitten]

Here's his tweet

From that tweet chain, Leonard J. French (other US copyright lawyer) seems to take the same position as my understanding (albeit grey area): https://twitter.com/leonardjfrench/status/907103531232059392 .

Guess I'll have to wait until tomorrow to hear a more in-depth explanation. It's a very relevant topic for me as, for example, the game I'm making right now uses free sounds made by others. Although I'm Swedish, all major digital distribution platforms are American and so I have to abide by US law. Could I be forced to cease distribution if the creators were to change their license? Though I guess a very major difference is that eg. the Creative Commons license is a lot more specific about the conditions than some FAQ answer.

What about my question posted above regarding app/software created by using programming language owned by other companies?

Or what about Microsoft, Apple etc. suddenly deciding that people using their OS platforms, creating/uploading videos on youtube and making money is not okay if they are behaving badly?

I would assume YouTube's license already includes language stating they can take down a video for any reason so I don't think they'd have any legal issues doing so (after all, they do remove videos all the time for eg. sexual content or what have you).

 

[Yaska]

From that tweet chain, Leonard J. French (other US copyright lawyer) seems to take the same position as my understanding (albeit grey area): https://twitter.com/leonardjfrench/status/907103531232059392 .

Guess I'll have to wait until tomorrow to hear a more in-depth explanation. It's a very relevant topic for me as, for example, the game I'm making right now uses free sounds made by others. Although I'm Swedish, all major digital distribution platforms are American and so I have to abide by US law. Could I be forced to cease distribution if the creators were to change their license? Though I guess a very major difference is that eg. the Creative Commons license is a lot more specific about the conditions than some FAQ answer.

If your sound uses Creative Commons, you are safe. Also even if they change the license later, you are still safe as long as you can show that you abided by the license terms when you started using the sounds.

 

[LegendofLex]

But the government defines what is fair use, so it gets dicey from there.

The concept of fair use is so vague and shaky that these debates are constantly going to come up. Almost as if the US copyright and patent system was completely fucked.

What I mean when I evoke the term "fair use" is that if someone tried to defend PDP in court, that's absolutely the defense they'd use to challenge Campo Santo's action.

I think the concept of fair use makes sense and the fair use exceptions that have been defined are a pretty exhaustive list of areas where exceptions are needed, but obviously the question of "is this fair use really?" will be legally debatable until defined through legal challenges. It's more a quirk of the legal system than one of the copyright/patent system.

I don't think Let's Plays should be universally covered under fair use, btw. I don't think they're inherently critical/educational/informative works. They're a performance of a work.

 

[Dragon_Rocks]

I would assume YouTube's license already includes language stating they can take down a video for any reason so I don't think they'd have any legal issues doing so (after all, they do remove videos all the time for eg. sexual content or what have you).

Which is governed/controlled by youtube's license and policy and not the company whose product was being used.

I am saying Microsoft shouldn't suddenly be able to decide that someone should take down their video because the video creator is Linux/Unix fan and Microsoft is not okay with it. If developers are allowed to do this then this is where it will finally lead to.

 

[Yaska]

Which is governed/controlled by youtube's license and policy and not the company whose product was being used.

I am saying Microsoft shouldn't suddenly be able to decide that someone should take down their video because the video creator is Linux/Unix fan and Microsoft is not okay with it. If developers are allowed to do this then this is where it will finally lead to.

If it infringes Microsoft's copyright, Microsoft has full right to deny parts of video that show their content. Computer programs are protected in most countries as literary works themselves and they usually have pretty strong legal protection.

Also do note that Fair Use depends on your country, most countries in EU do not recognize it ( Nordic countries). And the applicable copyright law may depend on many things such as your country's legislation, the EULA of the game/program/artistic work and so on. Basic rule of thumb is that follow the rules and regulations of your own country unless you sign a contract which states otherwise (EULA and such).

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Which is governed/controlled by youtube's license and policy and not the company whose product was being used.

I am saying Microsoft shouldn't suddenly be able to decide that someone should take down their video because the video creator is Linux/Unix fan and Microsoft is not okay with it. If developers are allowed to do this then this is where it will finally lead to.

EDIT: This is probably legally incorrect, there should be some kind of general exception or safe harbor for incidental usage of copyrighted things. That said, I still agree with the principle of what I was saying which is that a youtube video and a tv show are still going to be subject to the same rules. Whether those rules are fair or not is a different question.

Why not though? We don't have the legal right to show a can of Pepsi in a tv show or film without a license agreement; that's why you see so many fictional brands of food/drink. I don't see any legal reason why Youtube videos should be treated differently. You can still talk about Pepsi or Microsoft and criticize them freely, you just can't show their copyrighted images/products.

 

[rudger]

What about my question posted above regarding app/software created by using programming language owned by other companies?

Or what about Microsoft, Apple etc. suddenly deciding that people using their OS platforms, creating/uploading videos on youtube and making money is not okay if they are behaving badly?

Typically software includes terms of use. If what you make falls within those terms you are fine. For instance, lots of free software on the internet explicitly states you cannot make commercial products using it. Lots of other software says it's fine to use the code for whatever you like.

 

[James Scott]

Why not though? We don't have the legal right to show a can of Pepsi in a tv show or film without a license agreement; that's why you see so many fictional brands of food/drink. I don't see any legal reason why Youtube videos should be treated differently. You can still talk about Pepsi or Microsoft and criticize them freely, you just can't show their copyrighted images/products.

I actually don't know if that's true, I think there are other reasons for that.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

I actually don't know if that's true, I think there are other reasons for that.

Hmm, yes, actually I think you're right now that I think about it more. I think there's a safe harbor like, if it's being used in the way the product was intended to be used or consumed, you're okay, or something along those lines. Obviously big corporations have good cause to play it super safe and just refrain from any gray area however small, plus there's no reason to give free advertising to someone when you can get paid for including the brand.

Maybe I'm thinking of commercials or advertisements where the inclusion of a copyrighted brand could be confused as an endorsement of the product or service and would thus be prohibited?

 

[legacyzero]

Cross post from the other thread (Didn't realize this one existed)

I do think there is a legit conversation to be had about Campo Santo DMCAing those vids. I personally would have been perfectly ok with devs saying "we will no longer support or provide keys to Felix, based on his racist outburst." That would have been perfect acceptable. And like I said, I'm very interested to see how many developers will stop showering PDP with gamekeys praying that he will cover it for that free press. Even I get like 2-3 game keys a week for video review/streaming in my email for my own channel. Devs trying to get that word out. But PDP is the HEAVEN of game exposure, and there's just no denying that.

I worry that devs like Campo Santo will DMCA him, and then find themselves in a losing legal battle. I'm not sure you wanna give PDP that high ground. H3H3 just had a great win for Fair Use themselves, I would hate to see racist PDP be any champion of fair use or DMCA in this situation. And unlike H3, PDP can afford it, and who's to say if he would or wouldn't go for it.

Leonard French weighed in too, and he seems to agree.

 

[Heigic]

If your game was used in a racist video I could understand, but using the DMCA to remove a video for something said in a completely different video seems a bit ridiculous especially after they have already given permission to stream / make LPs of their game.

The implications this will have on LPers and twitch streams will be interesting to see anyway.

 

[Maledict]

So basically what you are saying here is that Coke has the right to decide that whether you can like/dislike or have an opinion on their product.



But the concept is the same. I use bike or skateboard created by someone else to do activities which I record and then upload on youtube and make money. Why shouldn't those companies get the same right as developers?

No, I'm not at all. Which is exactly *not* the point I made, which means either I'm badly explaining something or you aren't listening.

People like things. Nazi's like coke. They like polo shirts. Neither of those is integral to who they are, what they do or stand for. A nazi seen drinking coke doesn't make people think "Coke, the drink of nazis!".

PDP isn't just playing a video game. His entire career and content output is about video games. Him playing a game is completely different to a nazi drinking a coke. Remove the coke and you've still got a nazi. Remove the game and PDP has nothing because thats all the "content:" he creates.

The only equivalence would be if Nazi rallies were taking place whilst they held up coke flags at the same time and were drinking it as the official coke of nazi's. Which they arent, which is why the comparison doesnt work at all.

 

[Dynasty]

Leonard French weighed in too, and he seems to agree.

He also had a discussion with Destiny about it.

FireWatch's DMCA Against PewDiePie

The beggining was pretty funny.