YouTube and the Let's Play copyright fiasco

[GetInTheTruck]

You take content from the copyright holder, make a video, upload it to youtube then haul in the ad money. Yet when copyright holder wants a cut you put on a down and gloom show like it is the fukking dark ages

It is only fair for the content creator to get a cut. Would you like it if i took your videos edited them and monetized them without giving you a cut?

Pretty much.

I play video games but I swear gamers are such whiny self absorbed fakkits.

I was reading a little about this on neogaf and see people saying shyt like "bbbut I watch those videos because he's a really cool guy, not for the game!!" yeah, sure you do.

If these clowns were actually depending on sitting around and playing games as a primary source of income then that's their fault for being that stupid.

 

[winb83]

Stop talking about rights to this or that. The only right you have is to 'buy' that game 'play' and possibly sell it. You may not extract content from the game edit it then upload it too and make money. If you use game content then surely whoever made that game deserve a fair cut right?

I could make the argument about movies where would you draw the line? It is rather intricate that line of legal and not legal.

Like i said earlier im all for youtube people getting money and promoting games. It is beautiful really. But if you going to make money of ads then the game devs, and youtube deserve a cut plain and simple.
This issue is rather complicated and youtubes method for dealing with it is unfair and dumb. Some people live off it and if they have bad luck some random will just flag their video and down it goes. Does not even need to be the real copyright holder how fukking unfair is that!

and what i'm telling you is legally what you're saying hasn't been proven in a court of law. there is no precedent for this because its something that people invented outside of copyright law through use of technology.

the ad revenues people get on Youtube are because they as content creators make videos and upload them to partnered channels. they aren't being paid to play video games they're being paid to upload videos to a channel and the audiences they built are there to watch their videos. if they can legally make said videos then the fact of monetizing them is irrelevant and game developers don't deserve a cut because they got their cut when the channel owner bought the game. saying game developers deserve a cut of this is like saying game developers deserve a cut of a game you sell on eBay or trade it in to Gamestop because after all they made the game and whatever happens with something they made after the fact they deserve a cut of.

personally i don't believe software development companies own your interaction with their software. they own the software itself but if i film a video of myself typing up a song on Microsoft Word and it goes viral on Youtube and makes me millions Microsoft doesn't deserve a cut just because i used their software in the video. if that song goes on to be sung by a popstar and makes more millions again the video was something i made.

 

[iamstr8fire]

and what i'm telling you is legally what you're saying hasn't been proven in a court of law. there is no precedent for this because its something that people invented outside of copyright law through use of technology.

the ad revenues people get on Youtube are because they as content creators make videos and upload them to partnered channels. they aren't being paid to play video games they're being paid to upload videos to a channel and the audiences they built are there to watch their videos. if they can legally make said videos then the fact of monetizing them is irrelevant and game developers don't deserve a cut because they got their cut when the channel owner bought the game. saying game developers deserve a cut of this is like saying game developers deserve a cut of a game you sell on eBay or trade it in to Gamestop because after all they made the game and whatever happens with something they made after the fact they deserve a cut of.

personally i don't believe software development companies own your interaction with their software. they own the software itself but if i film a video of myself typing up a song on Microsoft Word and it goes viral on Youtube and makes me millions Microsoft doesn't deserve a cut just because i used their software in the video. if that song goes on to be sung by a popstar and makes more millions again the video was something i made.

I would agree with you on the ad revenue piece if the content creators gained a following strictly off the strength of their personality. All of the Let's Play videos I have personally watched have been b/c I searched for a certain game. At one point I was subscribed to like 3 but it was only b/c they played similar games to me and their commentary was either minimal or unobtrusive. I know that some people will follow dudes b/c of personality or what have you but odds are these dudes wouldn't have been discovered without running a Let's Play on certain games.

In terms of software companies owning your interactions you are right they dont. Here is the problem with that though. 99% of the stuff on the screen during the video is gameplay. 99% of the audio is game audio (unless the dude just won't shut up). Once in a blue moon these cats will do a 'face behind the name' type deal and show their setup or whatever but the vast majority of the content that people show up for is stuff they didn't make.

Ultimately, I think the companies that go after this will end up with a cut. They created the product and its being put on full display by someone else and having revenue generated from it. Probably will end up on some NFL type 'the content created within is not intended for re-broadcast for profit' type stuff.

Nintendo, imo is going about this the wrong way though. 100% is begging for negative backlash. They could easily partner up with these dudes, help them out with marketing, and make even more cash. That seems like a much smarter solution that bullying guys who are sitting around in their underwear playing games.

 

[Spliff]

Judging off what my current subscriptions been saying, "Let's Play" uploaders and games with a lot of music getting flagged the most.

If they need Let's Play money that bad, they'll go to Twitch. Actually, they probably already are on Twitch and double-dip with Youtube.

 

[Audible101]

and what i'm telling you is legally what you're saying hasn't been proven in a court of law. there is no precedent for this because its something that people invented outside of copyright law through use of technology.

the ad revenues people get on Youtube are because they as content creators make videos and upload them to partnered channels. they aren't being paid to play video games they're being paid to upload videos to a channel and the audiences they built are there to watch their videos. if they can legally make said videos then the fact of monetizing them is irrelevant and game developers don't deserve a cut because they got their cut when the channel owner bought the game. saying game developers deserve a cut of this is like saying game developers deserve a cut of a game you sell on eBay or trade it in to Gamestop because after all they made the game and whatever happens with something they made after the fact they deserve a cut of.

personally i don't believe software development companies own your interaction with their software. they own the software itself but if i film a video of myself typing up a song on Microsoft Word and it goes viral on Youtube and makes me millions Microsoft doesn't deserve a cut just because i used their software in the video. if that song goes on to be sung by a popstar and makes more millions again the video was something i made.

So what you saying is that they are employes of partnered channels then? So if i upload i video of me playing a game and monetize it im not being paid to play a game? I don't see your logic, nor how that is relevant.

I buy a game retail. Rip the contents and distribute it via torrent. That is ok then right? i mean i bought the game why do the devs deserve a cut i bought the game. Or any software word photoshop etc.

Ok you typed a lyrics in Word and somebody took your lyrics and made a song. it made millions. would you not want a cut? i mean you wrote it, without you they could not have made a dime. Would you not want to be compensated?

Im not a lawyer i do not know the terms and conditions of using software. I mean they are a tool to enable you to create something. I go out and buy a 'black and decker' table saw. With this table saw i make cabinets and sell them to customers. Doee 'black and decker' deserve to be paid? You cannot use that argument for games.

 

[GoldenGlove]

 

[Champion]

Angry Joe is a faggit.

 

[GoldenGlove]

Angry Joe is a faggit.

 

[itsyoung!!]

this is what I dont get..

if im youtube, owned by google and a game company came to me and tried to fukk with my ad revenue from these videos I would just threaten to buy the game company or tell them to fukk off.. I mean really none of these game company money is nearly as long as google and outside of Activision/Blizzard none would ever have a chance in court

How will this effect Twitch

@Liquid @GoldenGlove @2gunsup @Malta @daze23 this is our chance to make a youtube / twitch tv type site

if I had the extra money laying around I would of BEEN made a twitch tv type site and would just offer the players more money for playing, every popular player would eventually come over its not like twitch tv was the first place to stream games anyway they capitalized off of xfire not trying to pay the gamers

 

[daze23]

Stop talking about rights to this or that. The only right you have is to 'buy' that game 'play' and possibly sell it. You may not extract content from the game edit it then upload it too and make money. If you use game content then surely whoever made that game deserve a fair cut right?

I could make the argument about movies where would you draw the line? It is rather intricate that line of legal and not legal.

are you aware of the concept of "fair use"?

 

[daze23]

 

[Audible101]

are you aware of the concept of "fair use"?

Concept or Law? either way educate me

 

[daze23]

Concept or Law? either way educate me

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

 

[daze23]

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/bl...ike-in-youtube-copyright-claims/1100-6416659/

[UPDATE] Following the publication of this story, a YouTube representative provided a statement on the matter to GameSpot.

"We recently enabled Content ID scanning on channels identified as affiliates of [Multi Channel Networks]," the YouTube representative said. "This has resulted in new copyright claims for some users, based on policies set by the relevant content owners. As ever, channel owners can easily dispute Content ID claims if they believe those claims are invalid."

The original story is below.

Major publishers Blizzard, Ubisoft, Capcom, and Deep Silver have extended a helping hand to YouTube presenters this week after various producers reported a huge spike in copyright claims. This uptick in claims is believed to be the result of a new system that automatically detects content that is determined to be in breach of copyright.

Various YouTubers reported a huge spike in copyright claims from their walkthrough and Let's Play videos this week. Enough strikes can mean a channel will be shut down, bringing to an end an opportunity to monetize content through the Google-owned video site.

The four major publishers offered help to users facing the copyright claims. Blizzard wrote through the Diablo Twitter channel, "If you're a YouTuber and are receiving content matches with the new changes, please be sure to contest them so we can quickly approve them. We are working on a long term solution, but that is the quickest way to solve issues immediately."

Meanwhile, Capcom said, "YouTubers: Pls let us know if you've had videos flagged today. These may be illegitimate flags not instigated by us. We are investigating." Deep Silver international community manager Maurice Tan wrote, "If you are a YouTuber & get copyright claims on a walkthrough/LP of Deep Silver games, let me know. Especially if the claim is not from us."

Internet entertainment network Machinima also was apparently unaware of the any new YouTube policies regarding copyrighted material. "I share your frustration. Had we been informed, you would have heard. Got your backs and will be on the grind until it's resolved =)," a Machinima representative said on Twitter.

Lastly, Ubisoft issued the following statement on the matter.

"If you happen to be hit with claims on any of your Ubisoft content, it may be that some of the audio is being auto-matched against the music cataloge on our digital stores - it might show up as being claimed by our distributor 'idol'. In such cases please take the following steps and we can get it cleared for you.

• 1. Leave the video live for now.
  
  
• 2. Send us the URL of the affected video and let us know who flagged it.
  
  
• 3. We'll get it cleared hopefully same day."
  

Walkthrough and Let's Play videos are somewhat problematic from a copyright perspective, as the presenters do not in fact own the content they are promoting. The presenters behind some of the most popular channels, who can earn thousands of dollars per month through advertising, claim that their videos fall under the fair use doctrine.

 

[daze23]

even the publishers are

it seems this is just a change in youtube policy, and their automated system going crazy because of it