SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic - Nintendo claims ad revenue on Let's Players content

Joined: Aug 04 2009 Posts: 2515

http://mynintendonews.com/2013/05/16/nintendo-claiming-ad-revenue-on-lets-players-youtube-content/

Quote:

Cat videos and internet memes are not the only content to have had massive success on YouTube, Let’s Play content has also shared in the madness, with Notch-born Minecraft taking up a whole whack of space on the user-generated website. But now it appears, Nintendo are allegedly beginning to monopolise on the success of Let’s Players who specifically play any Nintendo-owned content.

YouTube Let’s Player Zack Scott - who is currently playing through Luigi’s Mansion 2 - recently noticed that many of his Nintendo-related videos were issued with content ID matches, which prevented him from producing any money from ad revenue on his videos. Content ID matches are less severe than copyright claims, they serve a purpose to enable the publisher to monetize on content of and relating to what the publisher owns. With this in mind, Scott turned to Facebook, sending a message to his subscribers, and as an open message to Nintendo, explaining the issue. A portion of what he said is stated below:

“I think filing claims against LPers is backwards. Video games aren’t like movies or TV. Each play-through is a unique audiovisual experience. When I see a film that someone else is also watching, I don’t need to see it again. When I see a game that someone else is playing, I want to play that game for myself! Sure, there may be some people who watch games rather than play them, but are those people even gamers?

“Since I started my gaming channel, I’ve played a lot of games. I love Nintendo, so I’ve included their games in my line-up. But until their claims are straightened out, I won’t be playing their games. I won’t because it jeopardizes my channel’s copyright standing and the livelihood of all LPers.”

In a bid to set the record straight, Nintendo issued a statement to web publication Game Front, saying that they do not wish to block user-generated content from Nintendo material but will take ad revenue from Nintendo-owned content of a certain length. Do you think Nintendo should be monopolising on video content from YouTube? And what do you think this will mean for Let’s Players in the future? Let us know in the comments below.

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. 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 Representative

My thoughts: I am not sure if what they are doing is right, though honestly, it doesn't really effect me so I don't really care. I do see their reasons for doing it though.

I know a lot of people on here put videos on youtube, and to the best of my knowledge (though i may be wrong) no one here uses youtube to make money. The thing that pissed me off was the guy who was like "this is my livelihood".

Really? Your livelihood? Not to turn into an old gramps Abner but get a real fucking job. Shouting stupid shit over video games isn't a livelihood. Expecting to get paid money for talking over copyrighted material is ridiculous.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: May 16 2013 10:31 am

What's they have made claims on is the music. They've done it on a few of my videos. They can't actually claim the video (it's code output, the claim is on the code), I'm not sure of the legal status of the claim on the music. I know Square has done it too.

Personally, I don't mind.

Joined: Aug 04 2009 Posts: 2515

Yeah I mean I have had claims before about music etc.

I don't claim to have a legal knowledge of copyright claims but to the best of my knowledge:

Every game you buy, you own the game but you don't own the copyrights for that game, e.g. Mario is a copyrighted character so you can't legally make money off that character which I guess is what LPers are doing. The LP doesn't own the name Mario, his vocal sounds or his image. So Nintendo I guess has the right to stop that.

I think the issue may be that Nintendo has the right to get the videos removed completely but they haven't and instead decided that they will make money on the content. So this seems to have created this idea that they are just being greedy.

That being said. That is why I disagree with the whole concept that the LPers should be allowed to make money off it, because it's their livelihood. That isn't an argument. The law is the law.

Joined: Oct 19 2009 Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 1479

As someone who has studied copyright law, let me say that Nintendo has the clear legal right to do this if they want to. Copyrights cover "derivative works," and a Let's Play of a game is nothing if not a derivative work.

I'm not sure it's a smart move, though, as I doubt the revenue they generate from this will be worth the frothing nerdrage entitlement shitstorm of gawker network asshattery that is certain to be incoming.

Joined: May 22 2008 Location: Goshen, VA Posts: 6544

Yeah, once you start making thousands of dollars off shouting into a microphone while you show every second of gameplay of a 60 dollar brand new game, then start crying about your livelihood is when I stop feeling sorry for you. Get a fucking job.

Posted: May 16 2013 11:53 am

People are mad over this because they think it means that Nintendo will get money that the Let's Players should be getting instead. Let's Players shouldn't be getting a cent unless all content in their videos is either their own or royalty-free. More companies should be doing this; those Let's Players who are doing it for themselves don't deserve anything if they're not getting sponsored. The ones who do it under the claim of free advertising for the games/companies should be thrilled that they are directly benefiting them.

Before you know it, some of the more vocal Let's Players will attack Nintendo or whatever companies follow suit, saying that they "owe them" and they should be getting money back from them. Or has it happened already?

JoshWoodzy wrote:

show every second of gameplay of a 60 dollar brand new game

I always figured that this kind of Let's Play resulted in at least a few lost sales, because, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the original purpose of Let's Play to "play the games so you don't have to"?

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: May 16 2013 12:06 pm

LeshLush wrote:

As someone who has studied copyright law, let me say that Nintendo has the clear legal right to do this if they want to. Copyrights cover "derivative works," and a Let's Play of a game is nothing if not a derivative work.

I'm not sure it's a smart move, though, as I doubt the revenue they generate from this will be worth the frothing nerdrage entitlement shitstorm of gawker network asshattery that is certain to be incoming.

Okay, can you tell me if I'm right about the copyright being on the code and not on the video output? And clarify for me about the music?

I'm pretty sure about the code because I know reverse engineering is a thing, and it's perfectly legal to write your own code to produce the same result so long as you don't use the copyrighted code.

Joined: May 22 2008 Location: Goshen, VA Posts: 6544

The-Excel wrote:

JoshWoodzy wrote:

show every second of gameplay of a 60 dollar brand new game

I always figured that this kind of Let's Play resulted in at least a few lost sales, because, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the original purpose of Let's Play to "play the games so you don't have to"?

Yeah, I mean don't get me wrong here. I love LP's of older PC games and more obscure games that just can't be run on today's hardware or are impossible to find/not being sold anymore. But really, for every person who says "I bought the game after watching an LP!" there are 10 who say "LOL that game sucked so bad, never buying that now!". It's just disheartening to see so many people be lazy about it and not give games a chance based on some neckbeard yelling at a computer monitor for an hour.

Joined: Oct 19 2009 Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 1479

UsaSatsui wrote:

LeshLush wrote:

As someone who has studied copyright law, let me say that Nintendo has the clear legal right to do this if they want to. Copyrights cover "derivative works," and a Let's Play of a game is nothing if not a derivative work.

I'm not sure it's a smart move, though, as I doubt the revenue they generate from this will be worth the frothing nerdrage entitlement shitstorm of gawker network asshattery that is certain to be incoming.

Okay, can you tell me if I'm right about the copyright being on the code and not on the video output? And clarify for me about the music?

I'm pretty sure about the code because I know reverse engineering is a thing, and it's perfectly legal to write your own code to produce the same result so long as you don't use the copyrighted code.

Not really. You're kind of confusing the difference between copyrights and patents. Reverse engineering is a patent law thing. As far as copyrighted materials are concerned, it doesn't matter how it's recorded or broadcast.

Before napster went down, they tried to argue in court that there's a difference between music and a handful of ones and zeroes that might incidentally be able to be turned into music by a computer, but that logic is absolute garbage. Because a CD is just ones and zeroes expressed in the form of microscopic pits on the disc. And a vinyl record is just bumps stationed between a series of grooves that a turntable can convert into electricity that speakers can turn into sound. And sheet music is just a series of dots no less arbitrary than binary code that can be turned into sound by someone who knows how to read it.

EDIT: Also, people go after the sound in youtube videos because it's easier. Technically, any copyrighted work should be protected from streaming because it violates public performance rights, public display rights, and distribution rights. This is the case, there is legal precedent, and anyone who would argue otherwise engaging in wishful thinking from the dark recesses of their pirate hearts, because they clearly don't know the law.

However, after Napster, everybody decided they needed to make it more clear by adding a sixth exclusive right for copyright holders: digital transmission rights. Unfortunately, Congress was monstrously short-sighted when they amended the law, and thinking only about Napster, decided to enumerate "digital audio transmission rights." So all digital transmission is an exclusive right (Ones and zeroes mean nothing. Otherwise you could freely pirate digital cable), but only digital audio transmission is specifically enumerated, which unfortunately makes things a little bit harder for other things. And that's why in the interest of pragmatism copyright holder will sometimes just go after audio.

Posted: May 16 2013 10:07 pm

The-Excel wrote:

JoshWoodzy wrote:

show every second of gameplay of a 60 dollar brand new game

I always figured that this kind of Let's Play resulted in at least a few lost sales, because, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the original purpose of Let's Play to "play the games so you don't have to"?

And since games these days are very story-driven, it's not that much different from posting a stream of a movie that's currently in theaters on YouTube. Let's Watch Iron Man 3! That would never fly.

Title: Comic Author Joined: Dec 12 2008 Posts: 1179

At least Nintendo is only taking profits, instead of outright shutting down videos like Sega had been doing with the Shining Force nonsense. Goes back to the Napster episode of South Park... which is more important, getting money for it, or having your work out there for people to enjoy? The majority of people this is happening to probably weren't even getting money in the first place, the only way I know of to get LP videos monetized on youtube is to be partnered with one of the groups who pay for the copyrights, like Fullscreen, Machinima, or Zoomin.TV.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: May 17 2013 01:23 am

LeshLush wrote:

UsaSatsui wrote:

LeshLush wrote:

As someone who has studied copyright law, let me say that Nintendo has the clear legal right to do this if they want to. Copyrights cover "derivative works," and a Let's Play of a game is nothing if not a derivative work.

I'm not sure it's a smart move, though, as I doubt the revenue they generate from this will be worth the frothing nerdrage entitlement shitstorm of gawker network asshattery that is certain to be incoming.

Okay, can you tell me if I'm right about the copyright being on the code and not on the video output? And clarify for me about the music?

I'm pretty sure about the code because I know reverse engineering is a thing, and it's perfectly legal to write your own code to produce the same result so long as you don't use the copyrighted code.

Not really. You're kind of confusing the difference between copyrights and patents. Reverse engineering is a patent law thing. As far as copyrighted materials are concerned, it doesn't matter how it's recorded or broadcast.

Before napster went down, they tried to argue in court that there's a difference between music and a handful of ones and zeroes that might incidentally be able to be turned into music by a computer, but that logic is absolute garbage. Because a CD is just ones and zeroes expressed in the form of microscopic pits on the disc. And a vinyl record is just bumps stationed between a series of grooves that a turntable can convert into electricity that speakers can turn into sound. And sheet music is just a series of dots no less arbitrary than binary code that can be turned into sound by someone who knows how to read it.

EDIT: Also, people go after the sound in youtube videos because it's easier. Technically, any copyrighted work should be protected from streaming because it violates public performance rights, public display rights, and distribution rights. This is the case, there is legal precedent, and anyone who would argue otherwise engaging in wishful thinking from the dark recesses of their pirate hearts, because they clearly don't know the law.

However, after Napster, everybody decided they needed to make it more clear by adding a sixth exclusive right for copyright holders: digital transmission rights. Unfortunately, Congress was monstrously short-sighted when they amended the law, and thinking only about Napster, decided to enumerate "digital audio transmission rights." So all digital transmission is an exclusive right (Ones and zeroes mean nothing. Otherwise you could freely pirate digital cable), but only digital audio transmission is specifically enumerated, which unfortunately makes things a little bit harder for other things. And that's why in the interest of pragmatism copyright holder will sometimes just go after audio.

Okay, but the thing about a video game is that every time it's played, it's going to be completely different every time. I can see the sound being covered (yeah, I suppose if you compare it to like a record or something), but it's not like film or television where what you put in comes out the same every time. Every single game of, say, Super Mario Bros is going to look different. Are you telling me that Nintendo owns the copyright to every single possible game screen Super Mario Bros could possibly spit out?

Posted: May 17 2013 09:05 am

JoshWoodzy wrote:

The-Excel wrote:

JoshWoodzy wrote:

show every second of gameplay of a 60 dollar brand new game

I always figured that this kind of Let's Play resulted in at least a few lost sales, because, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the original purpose of Let's Play to "play the games so you don't have to"?

Yeah, I mean don't get me wrong here. I love LP's of older PC games and more obscure games that just can't be run on today's hardware or are impossible to find/not being sold anymore. But really, for every person who says "I bought the game after watching an LP!" there are 10 who say "LOL that game sucked so bad, never buying that now!". It's just disheartening to see so many people be lazy about it and not give games a chance based on some neckbeard yelling at a computer monitor for an hour.

If it's not on GOG or otherwise can't be bought, then no one should have a problem with old or free games being played. In the case of free games, sometimes Let's Play is the best (or only) advertising it can get.

UsaSatsui wrote:

Okay, but the thing about a video game is that every time it's played, it's going to be completely different every time. I can see the sound being covered (yeah, I suppose if you compare it to like a record or something), but it's not like film or television where what you put in comes out the same every time. Every single game of, say, Super Mario Bros is going to look different. Are you telling me that Nintendo owns the copyright to every single possible game screen Super Mario Bros could possibly spit out?

The graphics that the Super Mario Bros. code outputs every time is subject to copyright, so yes. All the individual sprites in a screenshot of Super Mario Bros. is copyright Nintendo, no matter how they're arranged.

YouTube's rules make it quite clear that any footage of computer software is copyrighted, even if derivative:

Quote:

Which types of work are subject to copyright?

When a person creates an original work that is fixed in a physical medium, he or she automatically owns copyright to the work. Copyright ownership gives the owner the exclusive right to use the work in certain, specific ways. Many types of works are eligible for copyright protection, including:

1. Audiovisual works, such as TV shows, movies, and online videos
2. Sound recordings and musical compositions
3. Written works, such as lectures, articles, books, and musical compositions
4. Visual works, such as paintings, posters, and advertisements
5. Video games and computer software
6. Dramatic works, such as plays and musicals

And I'm fairly certain that the Fair Use argument doesn't hold water for video of, say, more than one level.

Joined: May 22 2008 Location: Goshen, VA Posts: 6544

UsaSatsui wrote:

Okay, but the thing about a video game is that every time it's played, it's going to be completely different every time. I can see the sound being covered (yeah, I suppose if you compare it to like a record or something), but it's not like film or television where what you put in comes out the same every time. Every single game of, say, Super Mario Bros is going to look different. Are you telling me that Nintendo owns the copyright to every single possible game screen Super Mario Bros could possibly spit out?

I think that would be the weakest argument in a courtroom ever.

"Your honor, I jump in Super Mario Bros. in a far different manner than most people, I'm exempt from any and all copyright laws."

Title: Sir! Joined: Jul 19 2012 Location: Utah Posts: 66

What a bunch of crap. I usually watch LP's on YouTube whenever I get stuck in a game, and the various walkthroughs found online don't quite tell me exactly what I should or should not be doing.

In my opinion 90% + of the stuff found on YouTube consists of some kind of copyrighted material. People make home movies and then overlay them with popular music. Then you have people that play popular songs or video game music on guitars, keyboards, or their ass cheeks.

To quote:

1. Audiovisual works, such as TV shows, movies, and online videos.
- I see plenty of clips from all of these on YouTube

2. Sound recordings and musical compositions
- I hear copyrighted music all the time when I watch YouTube.

3. Written works, such as lectures, articles, books, and musical compositions
- I have not seen anything like this, but then again I am not really searching for lectures, or videos with someone reading a book to me. They probably do exist though.

4. Visual works, such as paintings, posters, and advertisements
- You see these in the background of home movies from time to time.

5. Video games and computer software
- We all know this is very prevolent on YouTube, hence the birth of this thread.

6. Dramatic works, such as plays and musicals
- I am sure people have posted videos of live performances, concerts, and the like.

My point is...that this content exists, despite the rules and policies set forth by YouTube. And if this really is a legal issue, then how is YouTube still in business? People seem to ignore the rules. I know YouTube will pull videos for various infringement violations, but there are enough of them available to lead me to believe that YouTube simply cannot police every single video that is uploaded.

Joined: Oct 19 2009 Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 1479

UsaSatsui wrote:

Are you telling me that Nintendo owns the copyright to every single possible game screen Super Mario Bros could possibly spit out?

Yes.

2011 SNES Champ Joined: Dec 04 2006 Posts: 1929

The only people affected are those who were leeching off of Nintendo, so I don't see any problem with this, or why they didn't go this years ago.

Posted: May 17 2013 08:32 pm

utahpunk wrote:

My point is...that this content exists, despite the rules and policies set forth by YouTube. And if this really is a legal issue, then how is YouTube still in business? People seem to ignore the rules. I know YouTube will pull videos for various infringement violations, but there are enough of them available to lead me to believe that YouTube simply cannot police every single video that is uploaded.

That's what the flag button is for.

Joined: Apr 09 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3112

JoshWoodzy wrote:

The-Excel wrote:

JoshWoodzy wrote:

show every second of gameplay of a 60 dollar brand new game

I always figured that this kind of Let's Play resulted in at least a few lost sales, because, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the original purpose of Let's Play to "play the games so you don't have to"?

Yeah, I mean don't get me wrong here. I love LP's of older PC games and more obscure games that just can't be run on today's hardware or are impossible to find/not being sold anymore. But really, for every person who says "I bought the game after watching an LP!" there are 10 who say "LOL that game sucked so bad, never buying that now!". It's just disheartening to see so many people be lazy about it and not give games a chance based on some neckbeard yelling at a computer monitor for an hour.

Always liked some of the rules on the SA forums, like the 3 month one, in which you're not allowed to LP a game unless it's been at least 3 months since its release, with some indie games/mods/similar small things being the exception, so it's not all just attention-grabbing dorks (though there are still a few there). Banned donations there are nice as well. I've gotten to see a few interesting hidden gems and some tabletop stuff (which I never got into at all) that I otherwise wouldn't have seen. And I didn't see some idiot with a camera pointing at himself screeching at Slender for 40 videos straight. With nobody profiting off of it with either clout or money, all you have is software companies trying to shut LPers down with the shaky excuse of "well, it's probably losing us sales!" when the video has like 300 views.

Don't get me wrong, SA is still obnoxious. They'll scream at you if you don't use the most autistic or expensive programs for capturing/editing, and the smugness there is almost edible. But 90% of the time, it's really about the game, and that's what keeps you from getting sued or looking a complete tool most of the time.

It just feels like it should be a hobby, and nothing more. No LPer really ever entertained me enough to want to give them money, or made me feel like they deserve to be paid for it or something (though some people like Research Indicates have come close for the latter). I'm interested in good videos, but I really couldn't give a shit about some goober's desire to make money with the least amount of effort, especially if he's using copyrighted material for his own gain.

Joined: Jul 06 2008 Posts: 142

i wonder if one of the reason he is bitching is so people will watch his videos