Topic: Nintendo Starting to Reverse YouTube Copyright Claims

[CurtDogg]

Let's Play... and let's monetize!

http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/news/34810

Nintendo has seemingly reversed its stance on claiming copyright and ad revenue on Youtube videos that contain footage of their games.

ZackScottGames, a "Let's Player" who was the first person to bring Nintendo's controversial decision to light, has said that the claims on his videos have disappeared, and he is able to receive ad revenue.

“I saw the revenue return and I had no further claims made on any of my other videos since the news broke," says Zack. "So I took the leap of faith.”

NOA President Reggie Fils-Aime had recently defended the policy at E3, saying â€śThe fans need to understand that we see the issue, we understand the issue, but, right now, all we’ve done is take the first step to protect our IP.” We have not received an official statement from Nintendo, but we will update this story once we do.

[TJ Spyke]

I still don't think fans should get to make money from other people's copyrighted work. You want to get paid money for playing others games and talking about it?

[Adrock]

That's kind of what video reviews are. I suppose there are two ways to look at it. You get into a gray area where you have to ask whether they're getting paid because of the game they're commenting on or because of the commentary on the game.

I have no real opinion on this. I typically don't watch those Let's Play videos unless I'm looking for a secret room/item or I just cannot figure out how to complete something and Gamefaqs didn't help.

[UncleBob]

I still don't think fans should get to make money from other people's copyrighted work. You want to get paid money for playing others games and talking about it?

Should websites like NWR get to make money from other people's copyrighted work?

[Pixelated Pixies]

I still don't think fans should get to make money from other people's copyrighted work. You want to get paid money for playing others games and talking about it?

It's called value adding. Let Players are not being paid to showcase the content that's already in the game, they're being payed for the content they themselves produce. The people who watch these videos in huge numbers in most cases aren't interested in viewing the games, they these videos to listen to the commentary. The reason Let Players are able to generate ad revenue in the first place is because they are creating value where none existed.
 
I'm not saying video game companies are wrong in trying to protect their IP, but let's be honest, without the people and personalities producing these videos who would want to watch gameplay of Sonic 06 or TMNT for the NES?

[Pixelated Pixies]

I still don't think fans should get to make money from other people's copyrighted work. You want to get paid money for playing others games and talking about it?

It's called value adding. Let Players are not being paid to showcase the content that's already in the game, they're being payed for the content they themselves produce. The people who watch these videos in huge numbers in most cases aren't interested in viewing the games, they watch these videos to listen to the commentary. The reason Let Players are able to generate ad revenue in the first place is because they are creating value where none existed.
 
I'm not saying video game companies are wrong in trying to protect their IP, but let's be honest, without the people and personalities producing these videos who would want to watch gameplay of Sonic 06 or TMNT for the NES?

[Pixelated Pixies]

Am I going crazy or has someone moved the modify button?

[TJ Spyke]

I still don't think fans should get to make money from other people's copyrighted work. You want to get paid money for playing others games and talking about it?

Should websites like NWR get to make money from other people's copyrighted work?

NWR doesn't post 2 hour videos of copyrighted content, adding nothing more than commentary.

[UncleBob]

I take it you haven't seen any of CurtDogg's Backlogg?

And why is it you're only concerned with posting two hours worth of copyrighted video?  Screen shots, box arts, sound files, art work, press releases - those are all copyrighted as well...

[Shaymin]

Am I going crazy or has someone moved the modify button?

It only seems to be in talkbacks and podcast discussion.

[Pixelated Pixies]

Am I going crazy or has someone moved the modify button?

It only seems to be in talkbacks and podcast discussion.

Ahh. Ok.
 
I keep clicking where 'Modify' is usually situated and end up accidentally quoting myself. It has happened like 3 or 4 times, lol.

[smallsharkbigbite]

I take it you haven't seen any of CurtDogg's Backlogg?

And why is it you're only concerned with posting two hours worth of copyrighted video?  Screen shots, box arts, sound files, art work, press releases - those are all copyrighted as well...

The website name is copyrighted as well and honestly NWR has no website without Nintendo content.  I view youtube as a form of video journalism so I think this is a very valid argument on why they shouldn't worry about it unless they try to shut down all fan sites.  I'm sure you can find some let's play videos where they add nothing, then I bet you can find some where they add alot.  Much like the good websites draw people to them, good let's play videos draw people to them. 


It doesn't make sense either.  Video games are not movies.  I want to produce my own interactive experience with them.  If they were movies, yes I can see wanting to shut them down but they aren't.  It's like free advertising for Nintendo products. 

[TJ Spyke]

"Nintendo" is trademarked, not copyrighted. Also, Nintendo allows it because it falls within fair use and is not demeaning. The pics on the site are almost always provided by the publisher. It's not fair use to post 2 hours of video.

[UncleBob]

So... BackLogg...?

[pokepal148]

I still don't think fans should get to make money from other people's copyrighted work. You want to get paid money for playing others games and talking about it?

So the NWR news segment should be shut down?

[pokepal148]

I still don't think fans should get to make money from other people's copyrighted work. You want to get paid money for playing others games and talking about it?

So the NWR news segment should be shut down?

along with any ad revenue from visiting the podcast page and the forums...
I think we'd be down in time for school to start if we followed your advice

[nickmitch]

News is different since Nintendo only has to put out a press release (side note: are those really copyrighted?) and NWR writes up the story and host a site that people like us will check everyday for news and discussions (like this one!).

Screens shots are also released promotionally and are more valuable because of news sites.

[UncleBob]

Virtually everything you create is copyrighted the moment you create it.

So, yes, press releases are copyrighted.  This prevents CompanyX from taking CompanyY's press release, swapping the name brand of the product, then releasing it as their own.

As for screen shots - many news/reviews sites create their own screenshots - which would seemingly fall under the same type of copyright as these videos.

TJ - let me ask you this, if you'll ever answer (still waiting for an answer about BackLogg)...  If I use a program, say Microsoft Word, to create a work, say a novel, should that novel be Microsoft's to profit from, since I used their copyrighted program in the process of creating my work?

[smallsharkbigbite]

"Nintendo" is trademarked, not copyrighted. Also, Nintendo allows it because it falls within fair use and is not demeaning. The pics on the site are almost always provided by the publisher. It's not fair use to post 2 hours of video.

Semantics.  Trademarks are protected as well and Nintendo has reason to keep their trademark strong. 


Doesn't the publisher publish the game?  Isn't any screenshot then released by the publisher?


These let's plays are no-more demeaning than a poor review or an opinion article about Nintendo's lack of creativity or poor choices, etc. 


The video is not the product.  The game is the product.  Literally, someone could show themselves beating the game and I'm not entirely sure why Nintendo would want to limit it.  I think it would be boring as crap and I wouldn't watch it, but I don't see how it would prevent people from buying the product.  I've never thought I would rather go home and watch somebody play Wii U on the internet instead of playing the Wii U. 


There are only 3 reasons to watch online.  1 - See if the gameplay is interesting and if I want to buy it (review) 2 - See how to beat a part in a game I can't figure out 3 - See an ending to a game that I can't/won't beat or has multiple endings and I don't want to play through it again.  There is no watch somebody play  the game in the entirety instead of purchasing.  That's why the analogy to music/movies is a bad one.  You get the entire product when you watch those. 

[pokepal148]

"Nintendo" is trademarked, not copyrighted. Also, Nintendo allows it because it falls within fair use and is not demeaning. The pics on the site are almost always provided by the publisher. It's not fair use to post 2 hours of video.

Semantics.  Trademarks are protected as well and Nintendo has reason to keep their trademark strong. 


Doesn't the publisher publish the game?  Isn't any screenshot then released by the publisher?


These let's plays are no-more demeaning than a poor review or an opinion article about Nintendo's lack of creativity or poor choices, etc. 


The video is not the product.  The game is the product.  Literally, someone could show themselves beating the game and I'm not entirely sure why Nintendo would want to limit it.  I think it would be boring as crap and I wouldn't watch it, but I don't see how it would prevent people from buying the product.  I've never thought I would rather go home and watch somebody play Wii U on the internet instead of playing the Wii U. 


There are only 3 reasons to watch online.  1 - See if the gameplay is interesting and if I want to buy it (review) 2 - See how to beat a part in a game I can't figure out 3 - See an ending to a game that I can't/won't beat or has multiple endings and I don't want to play through it again.  There is no watch somebody play  the game in the entirety instead of purchasing.  That's why the analogy to music/movies is a bad one.  You get the entire product when you watch those. 

or 4. you happen to enjoy the commentator, which could bring you to 1. or you are a person that wasn't going to buy it anyways

[smallsharkbigbite]

[size=78%]Screens shots are also released promotionally and are more valuable because of news sites.[/size]

Social media is now being utilized heavily to market products.  I'm not a big let's play video watcher, but I like to watch reviews online.  Some of them have have hundreds of thousands of views.  That makes the game valuable and doesn't give them the product.  Sure they could use their commentary to rail on Nintendo, but "news" sites do all the time as well. 

[Sundoulos]

FWIW, I've watched some of the videos on Zack Scott's youtube channel.  I don't normally watch LPs, but I do find him to be genuinely funny and entertaining.  Thus far, I've watched his videos on Telltale's The Walking Dead and Jurassic Park, as well as The Last of Us.  I guess I sort of enjoy his reactions to getting attacked by dinosaurs or zombies.

In the case of JP, I mostly watched it because it was a way to enjoy the game that I probably wouldn't have bought on my own (due to the reviews about the controls).  I was still curious about it, tbh, but I think I enjoyed it much more by watching Zack's playthrough.

[nickmitch]

Virtually everything you create is copyrighted the moment you create it.

So, yes, press releases are copyrighted.  This prevents CompanyX from taking CompanyY's press release, swapping the name brand of the product, then releasing it as their own.

As for screen shots - many news/reviews sites create their own screenshots - which would seemingly fall under the same type of copyright as these videos.

That's weird. A press release is not something I'd ever think of as copyrighted. Good to know.

[pokepal148]

I still don't think fans should get to make money from other people's copyrighted work. You want to get paid money for playing others games and talking about it?

It's called value adding. Let Players are not being paid to showcase the content that's already in the game, they're being payed for the content they themselves produce. The people who watch these videos in huge numbers in most cases aren't interested in viewing the games, they these videos to listen to the commentary. The reason Let Players are able to generate ad revenue in the first place is because they are creating value where none existed.
 
I'm not saying video game companies are wrong in trying to protect their IP, but let's be honest, without the people and personalities producing these videos who would want to watch gameplay of Sonic 06 or TMNT for the NES?

THIS

[Ceric]

I wonder if this was the only way for Nintendo to actually see how much they were leaving on the table and decide if that was effective marketing.  If one Let's Player is making $1 Million dollars off revenue then Nintendo be better off doing these in house but, if they make $100 Dollars its an effective marketing tool.  Google probably wouldn't tell them till they took the copyright.  Now that they know they are returning them.  Also a way to allow people to know Nintendo has a recourse if someone goes out of their way to really trash their image through Lets Play.