Nope, Nintendo has no problem with that. It's when the video is monetized using their content that they have a problem. Like how if you make a shirt with Disney characters on it, cool, but if you sell it without the consent from Disney to use their property, then you're going to have problems. Joe knew Nintendo's policy on this and did it anyway, and when they wouldn't let him make money off of the video he pulled it and started ranting.
I'm fairly confident he continued to make Ninty content anyway knowing the regulations of the program if only just to get heat off of his "grand declaration" of stopping making the videos he already knew would be taken down.
I think this is a crummy policy but Nintendo is a huge company with their own advertising budget--budgets that indie studios couldn't dream of. Whereas indies may depend on whatever exposure they can get, Nintendo feels as though they want more say in how their brands are represented.
Actually, I might need to turn off the stove and start posting for a change.... CUZ THAT WAS ONE SICK BUUUURRRRNN!!!!
I love Nintendo right now. I don't own any of their current systems but I actually want to see what they do next. They'll do anything to make money off of anything. It's like if you gave Gene Simmons a video game company.
Doesn't have to be. All videos go through Youtubes automatic ID system. If the content matches some known assets (for example a song, part of a movie, etc) the decision for monetizing goes to that IP-holder. So even if you didn't intent to put ads in front of your video, if it gets matched a company can decide to automatically put their ads in front of it.
True, but the ad ones go in first.
In the case of MysteriousMrEnter, CID actually forced ads on a video without them. So they are making money via free content. Oh the irony.
Oh. That's what you were posting. Took long enough, for a while it was just my quote.
Actually, I might need to turn off the stove and start posting for a change.... CUZ THAT WAS ONE SICK BUUUURRRRNN!!!!
I love Nintendo right now. I don't own any of their current systems but I actually want to see what they do next. They'll do anything to make money off of anything. It's like if you gave Gene Simmons a video game company.
You really can't compare sports to this in any fashion imo. The reason being is that the person is actually playing the game, not just watching and broadcasting it. They have contributed to the product as without a player its nothing. Sports are different as they are 100% observation rather than any input.
It would be interesting to see some one do a really in-depth legal review of this. I would be interested to see where the legal grounds actually sit, youtube policies aside.
You really can't compare sports to this in any fashion imo. The reason being is that the person is actually playing the game, not just watching and broadcasting it. They have contributed to the product as without a player its nothing. Sports are different as they are 100% observation rather than any input.
It would be interesting to see some one do a really in-depth legal review of this. I would be interested to see where the legal grounds actually sit, youtube policies aside.
He really states that he bought the console with his own money, while the reality is that his fans funded his WiiU. Did I understand that correctly?
And since when does making recommendations cost money? I recommended the WiiU multiple times and I didn't have to pay Nintendo anything. I don't get that analogy.
So for any game on that list there's about a 50/50 chance you own it. Can I make some guesses? Funky Barn? Just Dance 4? Angry Birds Trilogy? Or how was Hello Kitty Kruisers?
Have fun! I hear that DeNA's changing Mario's job title from "plumber" to "cow clicker"
But they are letting people make money by doing the videos. They just want a small cut of the ad revenue and want to make sure you're not being a total shithead with their IP on the internet.
I'm not sure I'd call 40% a small cut of the revenue (unless your channel is solely dedicated to Nintendo, in which case it's 30%).
At that rate, they're taking just under half of what you earn for themselves. That's pretty abysmal, especially compared to how other publishers and developers are handling it.
I think Nintendo should get to exert as much or as little control as they want. And they aren't "dicks" because they aren't as relaxed as other companies. I'm pretty sure I recall reading that other companies don't want excessive cussing or inappropriate content broadcast alongside or during their content. That is a form of control Nintendo is exerting, along with receiving some profits.
I don't even think it is all about the money for Nintendo. But, in any case it is their right and I think more respect should be showed for their rights. He shouldn't have uploaded a video, fully aware of the potential consequence, just to see if Nintendo would respond the way he expected them to respond. And then call them dicks for responding the way he expected them to respond. It is like he assumed they were just fucking around when they announced the creators program. Like he expected them to respond with "LOL we were just joking about the program, go right ahead Angry Joe - do whatever you want cause you're too big to take action against".
I think this whole controversy was something angryjoe wanted to happen and fully expected it. Without controversy he doesn't get news articles. He is just another youtuber/twitch streamer. When there is controversy, he capitalizes on it - which is smart as fuck - but still a bit shameful at the same time.
Angry Joe does a good job creating content for his audience. Drama = exposure = views and people who love that type of stuff will love his channel's content. If he wanted to expand to Nintendo's games, he could have chosen the proper route regardless of shared revenue - or he could have chosen to stay away from it.
Yes, that's what I meant. It is all automated, so the IP-holder just sets their setting to 'put ads in front of everything that matches my stuff'. Or however that goes in Youtubes system.
Youtube had to do stuff like this because otherwise they would get sued to hell and back by all the media companies that see their stuff on their. Gaming companies are mostly OK with it (Nintendo excepted), but certainly not in every way. Some game trailers will also get you matched for example. But they leave Let's Plays alone for the most part.
You really can't compare sports to this in any fashion imo. The reason being is that the person is actually playing the game, not just watching and broadcasting it. They have contributed to the product as without a player its nothing. Sports are different as they are 100% observation rather than any input.
It would be interesting to see some one do a really in-depth legal review of this. I would be interested to see where the legal grounds actually sit, youtube policies aside.
This is the big question. Does playing the game make that video it's own thing, so the rights transfer? We won't have a rule for that until someone takes this to court and see what a judge says, but I doubt that will happen anytime soon. Until then, that decision is up to the game company.
Got Mad? Content ID is completely automated so emotions play no part. NCL uploaded the MP10 OST to google servers, said OST was used in video, content ID hit the end.
Yes it is true the OST uploading part needed a human to happen but it was likely google that gave Nintendo the idea in the first place. This is because Notch was invited to content ID minecraft videos and notch decided to refuse. So why would youtube want content ID to be a thing? Avoids legal problems and leads them to goal of making youtube profitable (google were really sold a white elephant) which requires ads on as many videos as possible.
Disclaimer: I hate the current implementation of content ID. Especially with so many cowboys taking other peoples copyrights (sometimes this is due to the automated nature of the system) and lost revenue not being paid back in such cases.
So for any game on that list there's about a 50/50 chance you own it. Can I make some guesses? Funky Barn? Just Dance 4? Angry Birds Trilogy? Or how was Hello Kitty Kruisers?
Have fun! I hear that DeNA's changing Mario's job title from "plumber" to "cow clicker"
You really can't compare sports to this in any fashion imo. The reason being is that the person is actually playing the game, not just watching and broadcasting it. They have contributed to the product as without a player its nothing. Sports are different as they are 100% observation rather than any input.
It would be interesting to see some one do a really in-depth legal review of this. I would be interested to see where the legal grounds actually sit, youtube policies aside.
This is still the same case, they're still broadcasting the game. Their input doesn't really mean anything to what is being shown on screen. As far as Nintendo knows it could be a game of 4 CPUs playing against each other.
You really can't compare sports to this in any fashion imo. The reason being is that the person is actually playing the game, not just watching and broadcasting it. They have contributed to the product as without a player its nothing. Sports are different as they are 100% observation rather than any input.
It would be interesting to see some one do a really in-depth legal review of this. I would be interested to see where the legal grounds actually sit, youtube policies aside.
As mentioned there is no way you can play the game that wasn't directly created by the company. You're playing but it's not transformative, it's still within the confides of the game design. Sports is not really an applicable analogy in that situation.
The NCAA is full of a-holes indeed. The students do not even get a paycheck. They create the content so they can go to school. They still got to pay for books and food.
Although that is pretty deep into the overall issue.
I'm not reading through 38 pages so I'll say this.
Despite Nintendo saying it would be 48 hours before a video is approved I am not aware of anybody having any videos approved yet. It has been months as well.
That is as big a problem as everything else with the program. I like to think
not approving anything is NOAs way of rebelling against NCL (Kyoto court listed in the terms and conditions implies it is their idea) by producing such a huge backlog that the only way to clear it is to employ additional staff which exceed the cost of the ad revenue at which point they'll close the program, give content ID the middle finger and google will have to find another way to make youtube profitable.
I haven't been keeping tabs on it, but I feel like I read somewhere that a few people got approved, though it took weeks.
Personally, the top videos I do are in the style of "Clueless Gamer", and thus about 15 minutes of any given game, it's much easier to just play the 3-5 Wii U games a year that are actually worth playing, and use a handful of tricks to try and skirt audio/visual fingerprinting (blurring, off-camera audio)
And if they still get hit, oh well, take the loss. The audience still deserves to see it, and Nintendo can have that measly 5 bucks.
I could see it being a lot more difficult if you do full LPs.
Outside of Content ID trolls or MCNs, I've only ever been hit by 3 companies, Nintendo, EA, Capcom.
For sure, but they are already being compensated for being in the video/sport (handsomely )already and the league wouldn't shut down their own players posting videos on youtube at all, not that they wouldn't. Again, its not a proper comparison at all.
You really can't compare sports to this in any fashion imo. The reason being is that the person is actually playing the game, not just watching and broadcasting it. They have contributed to the product as without a player its nothing. Sports are different as they are 100% observation rather than any input.
It would be interesting to see some one do a really in-depth legal review of this. I would be interested to see where the legal grounds actually sit, youtube policies aside.
How is it different? There is absolutely no legal difference between what you just described. Nintendo owns the copyright on the game itself; AJ does not own a copyright on his systemic playing of the game/how he plays the game (that's absolutely preposterous. Can you even cite anything on that?). His use is his commentary, logos, animations, etc.
Assuming you are seriously asking, of course not. There is no copyright material here, and any screenshots would clearly not be a copyright violation under fair use.
Speaking of fair use, I am surprised angry joe and others haven't been claiming let's plays are fair use any longer.
Did you guys know that apparently Nintendo got on Two Best Friends Play's ass because they were doing a video on Mario (3D World?) and they were promoting a bad atmosphere by trying to screw each other over.
Let's not act like Nintendo are some arbiters in Let's Play videos.
--
On a personal note,
I've bought tons upon tons of games that people LP, and normally the thing that pushes me to actually buy a game, as opposed to borrowing from a friend, are LPs.
--
Also note,
Minecraft exists because Seananners and Cpt. Sparklez were spreading info about the "new game" that nobody knew about on Machinima/their own channels. It blew up.
That and other big companies with their heads not up their own asses let this slide because the free advertising helps a lot with sales.
Without a doubt, CoD wouldn't be as big if they didn't have a platform in which content producers were able to make a living off this stuff.
--
I'm glad I can appreciate Nintendo's games despite loathing their business decisions.
golly gee I just do not fucking care about people getting mad that they don't get to be paid as much money as they used to for playing games on YouTube
not sure why but I just can't muster up any ability to give a shit
Oh. That's what you were posting. Took long enough, for a while it was just my quote.
Actually, I might need to turn off the stove and start posting for a change.... CUZ THAT WAS ONE SICK BUUUURRRRNN!!!!
I love Nintendo right now. I don't own any of their current systems but I actually want to see what they do next. They'll do anything to make money off of anything. It's like if you gave Gene Simmons a video game company.
Regardless of stance you should stop being so obnoxious to everybody that disagrees with your "point." I put it in quotes because, unlike most people in this thread who were able to actually reason and articulate their stance on the subject matter, you've just been shitposting garbage you perceive as witty with little point beyond "Fuck Nintendo" actually getting across.
You really can't compare sports to this in any fashion imo. The reason being is that the person is actually playing the game, not just watching and broadcasting it. They have contributed to the product as without a player its nothing. Sports are different as they are 100% observation rather than any input.
It would be interesting to see some one do a really in-depth legal review of this. I would be interested to see where the legal grounds actually sit, youtube policies aside.
This is still the same case, they're still broadcasting the game. Their input doesn't really mean anything to what is being shown on screen. As far as Nintendo knows it could be a game of 4 CPUs playing against each other.
Could be, I really don't know where the legal line is. Id be interested in seeing where it sits though. The number one thing I don't get is why they are trying to monetize other peoples work when they are complaining about people monetizing theirs lol. Its the pot calling the kettle black.
As mentioned there is no way you can play the game that wasn't directly created by the company. You're playing but it's not transformative, it's still within the confides of the game design. Sports is not really an applicable analogy in that situation.
golly gee I just do not fucking care about people getting mad that they don't get to be paid as much money as they used to for playing games on YouTube
not sure why but I just can't muster up any ability to give a shit
They still get paid the same amount of money, but they need to play other games or create other content. It's not really a big deal in my view but hey more power to them for standing up for themselves and trying to get Nintendo to change their stance.
Yeah I just hope the people responsible for this nonsense get their balls kicked. To demand a cut of revenue from content creators is one thing but the ultimate risk of censorship is plain out disgusting. I really can't understand how so much incompetence can be concentrated in this company especially considering the positive role models from the competition. Get your shit finally together, Nintendo!
golly gee I just do not fucking care about people getting mad that they don't get to be paid as much money as they used to for playing games on YouTube
not sure why but I just can't muster up any ability to give a shit
Er, not at all the same. That shows a gross misunderstanding of copyright.
It's not transformative. Running the content in the background and talking over it isn't a new thing, MST3K paid for licensing for example. This isn't different.
I don't see how it is derivative either. There's substantial commentaries over it, entertainment, and it also involves far more input than merely showing pages of a book or excerpts of a movie with some commentaries over it would. Press start and nothing happens. You still need to play the game.
How is it different? There is absolutely no legal difference between what you just described. Nintendo owns the copyright on the game itself; AJ does not own a copyright on his systemic playing of the game/how he plays the game (that's absolutely preposterous. Can you even cite anything on that?). His use is his commentary, logos, animations, etc.
I never said there was a legal difference, I am asking if there is. In the end it wouldn't it end up being a youtube policy more than anything as well due to different regional laws?
Those TV networks do get a license and then they can put commercials on the air that they get the charge for. I don't have an issue with fees being paid at all, just where the legal line is being drawn.
As for playing some games as magic... just watch some of Bloodborne stuff... its magical haha.
Wasn't he talking about all the extra stuff he bought for his party? At least, I got it like that (as in a console - a second one maybe? - a bunch of Pro controllers/Wiimotes, and some games).
Regardless if it's fair or legal for Nintendo to do this or not it just seems silly for Nintendo to nix free advertising and exposure especially for a game like Mario Party which doesn't have a story or an ending so watching people play it can only help move copies. And Joe deserves to get paid because he is the one recording, editing, uploading, and providing the commentary in the videos, all Nintendo is supplying is the backdrop.
Actually I was trying to be polite. If I were posting the more direct version of what I posted, it would be:
Be grateful you're getting any money at all for doing something that basically deserves no compensation at all, and just get over the fact that the free ride is over. Posting LPs is not a transformative work, it's not "free advertising," and it is not the right of just anyone to fucking throw videos of themselves using someone else's IP in entirety on the Internet and demand full compensation.
Reviews and previews and playing little bits of games is one thing, and those shouldn't be flagged. But you cannot just put yourself playing a whole game online and honestly believe that doing it means you deserve money.
Regardless if it's fair or legal for Nintendo to do this or not it just seems silly for Nintendo to nix free advertising and exposure especially for a game like Mario Party which doesn't have a story or an ending so watching people play it can only help move copies. And Joe deserves to get paid because he is the one recording, editing, uploading, and providing the commentary in the videos, all Nintendo is supplying is the backdrop.
And if Joe follows the appropriate guidelines, he will get paid. This whole thread started because Joe thinks he is entitled to receive 100% of the profit derived (in part) from someone else's IP.
Regardless if it's fair or legal for Nintendo to do this or not it just seems silly for Nintendo to nix free advertising and exposure especially for a game like Mario Party which doesn't have a story or an ending so watching people play it can only help move copies. And Joe deserves to get paid because he is the one recording, editing, uploading, and providing the commentary in the videos, all Nintendo is supplying is the backdrop.
Be grateful you're getting any money at all for doing something that basically deserves no compensation at all, and just get over the fact that the free ride is over. Posting LPs is not a transformative work, it's not "free advertising," and it is not The right of just anyone to fucking throw videos of themselves using someone else's IP in entirety on the Internet and demand full compensation.
I never said there was a legal difference, I am asking if there is. In the end it wouldn't it end up being a youtube policy more than anything as well due to different regional laws?
Those TV networks do get a license and then they can put commercials on the air that they get the charge for. I don't have an issue with fees being paid at all, just where the legal line is being drawn.
As for playing some games as magic... just watch some of Bloodborne stuff... its magical haha.
Ah, well, no, there really isn't. The question hinges on the other things I mentioned, not what Joe does to the game (i.e. interacting with it).
As to regional, well, it's a difficult question. Things like the Madrid Protocol allow for a streamlined approach to filings. However, you're right that not every country has similar laws.
He makes money by spending his time streaming and making videos which are used to promote videogames.
His source of money is both AD revenue and fans who believe that his content is worth a tip.
After he got enough tips and enough feedback from his fans, asking him to finally get a Wii U, he did.
He's not going to do Nintendo videos, because he can be making more money by getting more of a cut doing other things, with companies who actually appreciate what he is doing.
It's really that simple, and some people are too backwards to understand this at all.
Actually I was trying to be polite. If I were posting the more direct version of what I posted, it would be:
Be grateful you're getting any money at all for doing something that basically deserves no compensation at all, and just get over the fact that the free ride is over. Posting LPs is not a transformative work, it's not "free advertising," and it is not the right of just anyone to fucking throw videos of themselves using someone else's IP in entirety on the Internet and demand full compensation.
Reviews and previews and playing little bits of games is one thing, and those shouldn't be flagged. But you cannot just put yourself playing a whole game online and honestly believe that doing it means you deserve money.
Regardless if it's fair or legal for Nintendo to do this or not it just seems silly for Nintendo to nix free advertising and exposure especially for a game like Mario Party which doesn't have a story or an ending so watching people play it can only help move copies. And Joe deserves to get paid because he is the one recording, editing, uploading, and providing the commentary in the videos, all Nintendo is supplying is the backdrop.
Something that needs to be made clear is that Joe could get paid by doing these videos by registering for Nintendo's Creators Program, but he refuses to do so because they take 40% of the profits.
In other words, he wouldn't earn as much money doing Nintendo videos as everything else. And at the end of the day, since this is his "job," it's all about the money.
Regardless if it's fair or legal for Nintendo to do this or not it just seems silly for Nintendo to nix free advertising and exposure especially for a game like Mario Party which doesn't have a story or an ending so watching people play it can only help move copies. And Joe deserves to get paid because he is the one recording, editing, uploading, and providing the commentary in the videos, all Nintendo is supplying is the backdrop.
Yeah, but that "backdrop" took a long time to make and cost them a pretty penny. Joe's video would simply not exist without them. I think Nintendo has some claim to some of the work. The option to exercise that claim is entirely something different.
This isn't anything new for the industry. Nintendo's just a new player in the old YouTube Content ID system.
I've had videos laid claim to (Tomb Raider and Bioshock Infinite come to mind). All my EA-related videos even had ads placed on them by EA. After a while I just got tired of all the legal stuff and stopped.
I understand AngryJoe needs money off his videos but I'm not seeing it being a major loss for either side. AngryJoe's viewerbase for the most part don't care for Nintendo systems and he hardly ever posts Nintendo-related videos, hence why he actually faced a claim now rather than months ago when the policy was introduced.
Plenty of other channels exist for Nintendo-related videos and they seem to be going fine. The terms for being able to upload Nintendo content is probably negotiable, if not we would've seen a lot more complaints.
Actually I was trying to be polite. If I were posting the more direct version of what I posted, it would be:
Be grateful you're getting any money at all for doing something that basically deserves no compensation at all, and just get over the fact that the free ride is over. Posting LPs is not a transformative work, it's not "free advertising," and it is not The right of just anyone to fucking throw videos of themselves using someone else's IP in entirety on the Internet and demand full compensation.
Both are content.
What happened on the field during an event is something created and by and large is owned by the league. You have paid for the privileged to experience it.
Video gameplay is the same. You only have the right to experience it within parameters. Same as buying a DVD movie those warnings telling you want is protected use.
The legal line is fairly clear Trogdor1123. It's part of the discussion that some want to pretend doesn't exist.
