YouTube's copyright policy defaults ad revenue to Nintendo, and not content creators.
http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/news/34204
Nintendo started to issue ID Claims on various videos on YouTube that include footage from their games, including popular "Let's Play" videos, as well as produced game coverage.
Since YouTube does not have a system in place for dual revenue sharing, companies that claim copyright can collect the ad revenue made from the video in question, instead of the content creator. This is different from copyright claims where Nintendo could just delist videos containing video from their games.
"As part of our on-going push to ensure Nintendo content is shared across social media channels in an appropriate and safe way, we became a YouTube partner and as such in February 2013 we registered our copyright content in the YouTube database." says a Nintendo representative, speaking to GameFront. "For most fan videos this will not result in any changes, however, for those videos featuring Nintendo-owned content, such as images or audio of a certain length, adverts will now appear at the beginning, next to or at the end of the clips. We continually want our fans to enjoy sharing Nintendo content on YouTube, and that is why, unlike other entertainment companies, we have chosen not to block people using our intellectual property."
Nintendo has yet to comment on the situation involving ad revenue no longer going to the content creators.
I wish i could play games all day and get paid.
And then get to complain i don't get paid enough.
I think they said PS4 streaming will be restricted by length.
people will no longer make these videos for Nintendo's first-party games as there is no incentive to do so.because let's play didn't exist until youtube started paying people for videos.
I guess video game reviews should be banned too!Of courshe!
Evil Nintedo even banned dancing, did you know?Your recent spate of "Thanks Iwata" posts have had me in stitches, sir. Well Done! :D
Thanks Iwata!
I think this is a bad idea from a PR perspective but I think it's baffling that people are so worked up about making sure these people have the right to profit off of other people's copyrighted work.Lets Players however do deserve some cut for their part in the way that work is presented in videos imo.
I think this is a bad idea from a PR perspective but I think it's baffling that people are so worked up about making sure these people have the right to profit off of other people's copyrighted work.LP's would fall under fair use and derivative works. The work has been transformed where the LP has their own copyright on the resulting work. In essence it is now Nintendo profiting off other peoples copyrighted work.
I wonder if anyone has gotten the idea to separate the audio track to get revenue off that. Too much work?It isn't just the audio, there is the editing of the videos and subtitles. There there is the performance art aspect of the video where a player of great skill is demonstrated. An LP is the complete whole, not just what one can strip off into different tracks.
LP's would fall under fair use and derivative works. The work has been transformed where the LP has their own copyright on the resulting work. In essence it is now Nintendo profiting off other peoples copyrighted work.
Rifftrax is different. There is no transformation. The commentator's work is clearly definable. Games aren't movies that play exactly the same everytime. It's not like a Rifftraxer can jump in to a movie to change the resulting events without destroying the movie and the entire purpose of the Rifftrax.
i think they have a right to do this but at the same time people depend on those videos for their livelyhood,
I would give my opinion on this, but some butt-hurt posters (including a certain bully in this thread) would accuse me of being a corporate white knight. I will just say that Nintendo profiting off of their copyrighted videos is vastly better than their legal right to have the videos removed from YouTube (like most companies do).Stop being passive agressive and just spit it out.
i think they have a right to do this but at the same time people depend on those videos for their livelyhood,
I don't think there are any people making their sole income from advertising fees on YouTube videos. And even if they were, it's their own fault. Nintendo is within their right to have the videos just taken down because they are copyright violations, but Nintendo isn't doing that (a lot of game publishers and media companies in general are not so generous). If anybody is focusing on posting copyrighted videos on YouTube as their only way to make money, maybe they should try doing something original to make money.
I can't do something like buy DVDs and charge people to watch it, then expect to not get sued by the studios.
That is a self solving problem. A game like Portal is linear, but if the LPer can't make it interesting enough, it's not going to get enough views to get monetized. Any good LP of a game like Portal is either going to be a speedrun, glitch/tool-assist run or a complete secret + alternate solution + commentary run. Then there are your internet stars that have their own fan bases that do things like drunk runs or non-gamer blind/fail runs that can be quite funny and different. Plus for videogames we don't really know where the line is when something becomes a transformative work.
While previously the problem by in large solved itself by using the number of views as the base metric, the new framework makes no distinction how unique something is. While the previous regime might have been sided somewhat towards LPs, the new one is completely onesided for Nintendo. If you were to look into the "Justness" or "Fairness" of the situation the former is more fair than the latter.
If you are watching an LP, you probaly weren't going to/couldn't/wouldn't buy/play it in the first place or have already brought it and watching it for the unique experience the LPer offered.Just to add to discussion i sometimes watch Let's Plays when i stuck in the game. It's faster than reading up on wikis or playthroughs or something.
If you are watching an LP, you probaly weren't going to/couldn't/wouldn't buy/play it in the first place or have already brought it and watching it for the unique experience the LPer offered. That is certainly why I watch an LP. So if I was never a possible sale in the first place, it was never determinatel to sales.my copy of kirby super star ultra says hi
Actually, it's not unfair at all. Why should people get paid for someone else's work? Whether you think it's fair or not, those people are committing copyright violations. Instead of having YouTube take those videos down (which is within Nintendo's legal right), they are just rightfully getting the ad revenue from them (not that it's much anyways). The videos can stills stay up. And your example is faulty because you can review something without breaking the law (fair use doesn't apply when you have 20+ minutes of copyrighted content).
TJ - you keep making a claim, but I'm not sure I agree with it. Is Nintendo only putting content ID claims on videos where the video maker already had ads on them? I.e.: If I put up a Let's Play with no ads, will Nintendo still Content ID it?
because ones without ads are still violating copyright laws).This is your considered legal opinion, is it? Come to think of it, you have made a lot of claims in this thread about so-and-so violating copyright laws. I think maybe the basis of Nintendo's decision pre-supposes this, but I submit to you, learned friend, that the issue is open and wholly arguable for either side.
TJ - you keep making a claim, but I'm not sure I agree with it. Is Nintendo only putting content ID claims on videos where the video maker already had ads on them? I.e.: If I put up a Let's Play with no ads, will Nintendo still Content ID it?
Based on the original story, it sounds like Nintendo could do it with any video that features their copyrighted content, not just ones with ads already in them (which makes sense because ones without ads are still violating copyright laws).
It's not backstabbing to not want moochers to financially benefit from playing games that are copyrighted by someone else. If anything, you should be praising Nintendo for allowing these copyright violating videos to stay up. There is no justification in thinking these people should profit from them. It's enough that they are allowed to keep the videos up.
omw, who cares. Who even has time to watch a video of a whole videogame besides final fantasy fans[/size]
TJ - you keep making a claim, but I'm not sure I agree with it. Is Nintendo only putting content ID claims on videos where the video maker already had ads on them? I.e.: If I put up a Let's Play with no ads, will Nintendo still Content ID it?
Based on the original story, it sounds like Nintendo could do it with any video that features their copyrighted content, not just ones with ads already in them (which makes sense because ones without ads are still violating copyright laws).
But you keep name calling - like "moochers". If I made a Let's Play and did not monitize it, how would I be mooching?
By that logic I should be allowed to post an entire movie to YouTube and profit on it through ads as long as I add my own commentary track to it.that is the difficult thing, games by nature are interactive, it is virtually impossible to play through a game the same way as somebody else. the commentary is only half of the equation, the other half involves how the person plays the game (including dealing with the so called 'lets players' curse)
Fatty, you really think having 20 minutes+ of copyrighted content is not violating copyright laws? Please explain how it is "fair use".And give you free legal advice? Screw you, moocher!
Xero, I understand you think people should be able to illegally profit off of others work. I disagree. What Nintendo is doing is a nice compromise.
Xero, I understand you think people should be able to illegally profit off of others work. I disagree. What Nintendo is doing is a nice compromise.
Xero, I understand you think people should be able to illegally profit off of others work. I disagree. What Nintendo is doing is a nice compromise.
oh for heavens sake Tj give it a rest,
honestly...
a game is an interactive experience
a lets-play is literally a specific player's experience in the recorded playthrough of a game with commentary. you cannot own the rights to a persons experience of a game.
tj tell me something
is it mooching for me to reply to your post?
Xero, I understand you think people should be able to illegally profit off of others work. I disagree. What Nintendo is doing is a nice compromise.
(http://i.imgur.com/k4NUoUM.png)
It's not illegal to post videogame footage on Youtube. A game company can claim copyright if they want, sure, but virtually all non-shitty video game companies opt not to since it's better PR and probably better for business overall.
[/size]
Xero, I understand you think people should be able to illegally profit off of others work. I disagree. What Nintendo is doing is a nice compromise.There's that word again.
The videos are not being taken down (though you are wrong in saying it's not illegal to upload the videos, those people are violating copyright laws),
...so, you're mooching off of YouTube and everyone who works to post videos on there??
The videos are not being taken down (though you are wrong in saying it's not illegal to upload the videos, those people are violating copyright laws),
Fair use covers commentary/criticism/research/etc. A court would have to rule on it before it would be considered illegal.
Can you cite where in the YouTube TOS it says no adblocking?
You agree not to use or launch any automated system, including without limitation...i do believe adblock is an automatic system, Tj, care to enlighten me on this?
You agree not to alter or modify any part of the Serviceand ads are part of the service...
Considering I am using Google's web browser (Chrome), if they didn't want me to use it they would not allow it.yes they were, but i happened to see a little word called any followed by the words "including"
And regarding your first point, if you read on you would see that they are referring to systems that let you access videos in a way a human can't (i.e. boost a view count for videos).
You agree not to circumvent, disable or otherwise interfere with security-related features of the Service or features that prevent or restrict use or copying of any Content or enforce limitations on use of the Service or the Content therein.
pokepal, I wouldn't call the ad a "service" that YouTube provides.Google would, and if you get in a legal issue you will be facing them.
Considering I am using Google's web browser (Chrome), if they didn't want me to use it they would not allow it.WHAT?
the YouTube website or any YouTube products, software, data feeds, and services provided to you on, from, or through the YouTube website (collectively the "Service")
(http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/vizarch/vizarch1211/vizarch121100023/16572959-big-pile-of-money-isolated-on-white-dollar-version.jpg)Facepalm your mom, you took my last post seriously...
yeah, these ones
