×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Nintendo Hijacks Ad Revenue From Fan-Created YouTube Playthroughs

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the pay-it-backward dept.

Nintendo 297

mcleland writes "The BBC reports that Nintendo is now using the content ID match feature in YouTube to identify screencap videos of people playing their games. They then take over the advertising that appears with the video, and thus the ad revenue. Nintendo gets it all, and the creators of these videos (which are like extended fan-made commercials for the games) get nothing. Corporate gibberish to justify this: 'In a statement, the firm said the move was part of an "on-going push to ensure Nintendo content is shared across social media."'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

297 comments

Not going to help them (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43757137)

Now we can safely say no one will ever post a video with a Nintendo game in it again.

Re:Not going to help them (4, Insightful)

flyneye (84093) | about a year ago | (#43757277)

Or how about a class action lawsuit? Do clothing designers take Hollywood profits because their clothes are on actors?
I think in fact not only should Nintendo not get ANY money, because they already did when they sold the movie making tool to the customer, but they should have to pay for product placement. Stick that in your court and litigate it. Remember Hollywood will be watching that one closely, and could even donate some shysters to the cause.

Re:Not going to help them (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43757315)

Do clothing designers take Hollywood profits because their clothes are on actors?

They usually pay Hollywood to put those clothes on their actors because they know they'll make money that way.

Nintendo are apparently trying to lose money by discouraging people from uploading videos that promote their games.

Re:Not going to help them (5, Interesting)

RyoShin (610051) | about a year ago | (#43757781)

Nintendo are apparently trying to lose money by discouraging people from uploading videos that promote their games.

While I'm sure that people liked the ad revenue that they got from their video being viewed (anyone have any idea how much they get?), my understanding of LPs is that they are almost always a labor of love, not of cash. So Nintendo taking away the ad revenue might discourage some that were using it as a business (though if your business relied entirely on one company's completed product, protected under copyright, you need to rethink your business plan), but the majority will probably continue doing what they do.

In fact, this might even increase LPs: while I don't imagine it was a huge group, there might be some worried about a lawsuit for using Nintendo's IPs. By Nintendo taking the ad revenue, this is explicit permission to use video of their properties, which may bring more people to the table who just wanted to share but were concerned over copyright.

On the face of this, I'm of two minds: on the one hand, the videos don't exist without the users who spent their time to edit and upload them, and they do act as free advertising (or the opposite, if the game turns out to be bad and the videos show that off). On the other, the user would have nothing to upload if not for Nintendo's product, and they do properly own the copyright on those games. Personally, I think it should be split (50/50 sounds good, though I'm sure both sides would prefer a larger slice,) but the power is all with Nintendo here (the big company, the copyright holder, etc.), so that's not going to happen.

Full disclosure: I've done one basic LP (Bioshock Infinite), posted to Livestream, got no ad revenue. (And it doesn't exist anymore since I had a free account.)

Re:Not going to help them (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43757885)

Just because they made money on your video does not prevent them from suing you for violation of their copyright, should they decide to and have a case. All it does is sort of seem like it would be "fair" to not sue you. Business people don't believe in "fair". They believe in making money. They also believe in not allowing any excuse to allow someone else to use their property.

Re:Not going to help them (1)

flyneye (84093) | about 10 months ago | (#43757999)

Yes,but once Nintendo set the precedent, what mushrooms from that? Whatever's acceptable stays that way till litigation or legislation. Hmm.. let's think... what other filmmakers could that affect if you can't use certain media, maybe you can't use certain locations or those locations can't have certain elements. Will a company be able to sue successfully because it's product appears in a scene of a movie it dislikes? Maybe they just want a huge chunk of the revenue when they see their element in a movie like Nintendo. This has just been a minute of thinking by me. How about legal dept. everywhere taking some time to think of the possibilities.
It would be in Hollywoods best interest, any filmmakers best interest to snip Nintendos testes right now.

Re:Not going to help them (2)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | about a year ago | (#43757799)

Lets say you are selling a car. Then you find out thousands of people are showing themselves driving your car, and talking about how awesome it is. That is free advertising. Now swooping in and going,"Give me all the profits from those videos." is something a cartoon villain like Monty Burns would do.

Re:Not going to help them (1)

damnbunni (1215350) | about a year ago | (#43757881)

Let's say you're selling a book. People are making films of themselves reading your book, with all the words visible onscreen, and putting up ads and making money off of reading your book.

Instead of having their video yanked and suing their infringing ass into oblivion, you clear your throat and coopt the ad revenue, but let the video stay up.

Seems reasonable to me.

Which path do you think the Tolkein Estate would take?

Re:Not going to help them (5, Insightful)

hawguy (1600213) | about 10 months ago | (#43757977)

Let's say you're selling a book. People are making films of themselves reading your book, with all the words visible onscreen, and putting up ads and making money off of reading your book.

Instead of having their video yanked and suing their infringing ass into oblivion, you clear your throat and coopt the ad revenue, but let the video stay up.

Seems reasonable to me.

Which path do you think the Tolkein Estate would take?

The difference between publishing the words to a book and showing a game is that everyone buys a book to read the words, but few (?) people buy a game just to watch someone else play it. Otherwise, game makers wouldn't have to actually create games, they could just sell pre-canned videos of what game play would look like if they actually produced the game.

Re:Not going to help them (2)

SuperTechnoNerd (964528) | about 10 months ago | (#43757979)

Ford tried something similar to this several years ago. They claimed rights to any photo with a Ford product in it.

Re:Not going to help them (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43757409)

Or... Look Nintendo, I can do that too! I'll take your game, make a copy of it, sell it and keep all the profits! Thank you for helping out with the business plan!

copyright exempt? (3, Interesting)

Titus Groan (2834723) | about a year ago | (#43757171)

Aren't walkthroughs a type of review? If so then they're fair use under american copyright law aren't they? Give the ad revenue back to the person that put in the effort to record and post the video.

Re:copyright exempt? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43757329)

No, they're not a type of review. A review wouldn't have to contain all THAT much footage from the game.

These are people that play an entire game, start to finish, and babble commentary over top of it.

There's absolutely no way anyone can realistically claim an LP isn't a 'derivative work' under copyright. As such, the game's maker -could- have the videos pulled and sue their ass into oblivion.

LPs contain far too much footage of the games in question to count as fair use. A couple of minutes in a review is fine; hours and hours of start to finish video is not.

Re:copyright exempt? (1)

PoolOfThought (1492445) | about a year ago | (#43757453)

I'm only commenting to bring your comment to light for those that browse with anonymous cowards hidden. I don't know if you're "right" because this isn't my area of expertise, but I will say the comment is very informative, if it is indeed accurate.

Re: copyright exempt? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43757545)

Ladies and gentlemen.. We have a corporate troll. Who do you work for? As no 'non-industry' person would type such laughable nonsense.

Re:copyright exempt? (5, Insightful)

Baloroth (2370816) | about a year ago | (#43757785)

There's absolutely no way anyone can realistically claim an LP isn't a 'derivative work' under copyright. As such, the game's maker -could- have the videos pulled and sue their ass into oblivion.

LPs contain far too much footage of the games in question to count as fair use. A couple of minutes in a review is fine; hours and hours of start to finish video is not.

The amount of footage isn't really relevant here. It's patently ridiculous to argue that a video recording of someone playing a game is anything remotely close to the experience of playing that game (i.e. the LP videos are not the game itself). A video recording of a movie is that movie, but a video recording of a game is not the game. Therefore it's not at all clear that a LP video would not be fair use, since the presentation is highly transformative (since the experience of playing the game and watching someone else play it are completely 100% different). To quote Judge Pierre N. Leval (as used by the SCOTUS in their explanation of fair use):

The use must be productive and must employ the quoted matter in a different manner or for a different purpose from the original. ...[If] the secondary use adds value to the original—if the quoted matter is used as raw material, transformed in the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings—this is the very type of activity that the fair use doctrine intends to protect for the enrichment of society.

I would say that LP videos fit that understanding exactly. Standard disclaimer: IANAL.

Oh, and this is incredibly and unarguably a stupid decision on Nintendo's part. That much is certain.

Re:copyright exempt? (1)

Kielistic (1273232) | about 10 months ago | (#43757989)

I can assure you the development company owns the copyright on the story and not just the game as you shoehorn it to be. I wouldn't really call playing the game as it was intended to be played a "transformation".

But I completely agree about this being a stupid decision on their part. Even if I think the law gives them the "right" to do this.

Re:copyright exempt? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43758001)

They (the LPers) are PROFITING off of it. That makes it pretty clearly NOT fair use.

Re:copyright exempt? (2)

idontgno (624372) | about a year ago | (#43757815)

So, MST3K was a huge lucrative ongoing copyright violation?

Actually, I guess this non-car non-pizza analogy points out an interesting difference. I'm certain that MST3K's producers made fully sure that the rights to play the movie in syndication were fully paid up, no different than your local TV station showing the "Early Saturday Afternoon Matinee" show... they just did something interesting over it (riffing, goofing off, faux shell story surrounding the movie bits).

This makes the current "Let's play" YouTube case different in a couple of ways: it turns out that the "original" content (the Nintendo-provided bits) are actually BETTER than the "overlaid" content, which is usually either painfully or awkwardly antisocial, and MST3K was able to play and pay within the system, whereas the LPers haven't.

Re:copyright exempt? (4, Informative)

steveha (103154) | about 10 months ago | (#43758033)

I'm certain that MST3K's producers made fully sure that the rights to play the movie in syndication were fully paid up

Yes, MST3K made sure they had a legal ability to do what they were doing. Cinematic Titanic continues this tradition. This is one reason why the movies they show tend to be bad: bad movies are cheap to license.

That's the brilliant part about Rifftrax. Since they are not redistributing the movie, they don't need rights. Thus they can do any movie they want, including Star Wars movies, Lord of the Rings, anything. They don't have to pay anything and they don't need to get permission first. (I don't think George Lucas would give permission to Rifftrax to mercilessly rip Episode 1...)

I'm just waiting for home Blu-Ray players to start offering an option to play an externally-downloaded audio track while playing a disc, or for AppleTV sort of products to do the same for general media files. There is no technical reason why this could not be done, and it would mean that when you pause the movie the Rifftrax pauses as well, much more convenient for the user.

Re:copyright exempt? (1)

tmosley (996283) | about a year ago | (#43757855)

Ri~ight, so extensive and in-depth reviews, like those made by Redlettermedia (Mr. Plinkett's Reviews) aren't reviews either, I guess? They are often longer than the movie he is reviewing, and clearly take a lot of effort to make. More germane to this particular article, Angry Video Game Nerd would probably be pretty pissed at this.

Looks like bullshit. Feels like bullshit. Smells like bullshit. Tastes like bullshit. Oh yeah, diarrhea dump in the ear confirms that it sounds like bullshit too. 5/5.

Re:copyright exempt? (1)

Merk42 (1906718) | about 10 months ago | (#43758019)

Do Redlettermedia / Angry Video Game Nerd show the entire Movie / Game from start to finish?

Re:copyright exempt? (2)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | about a year ago | (#43757537)

I always thought a video game play through is owned by the game player. Just like a video game guide is owned by the author. Is Nintendo going to tell people they can't stream on Twitch.tv now?

Re:copyright exempt? (2, Informative)

yincrash (854885) | about a year ago | (#43757575)

It's a shared copyright. All the art is very much owned by Nintendo. The addition of commentary adds an additional copyright owner of the commentator, but since the footage definitely is full of Nintendo copyrighted material, they could easily be within their rights to have it removed. Basically, they've given these playthrough video makers a choice, either give Nintendo all the ad revenue, or take down the video that contains their copyrighted material.

Re:copyright exempt? (1)

yincrash (854885) | about a year ago | (#43757597)

You could also argue that all the actions that the player does is copyrighted by the player, but Nintendo still has a large stake in the copyright of the final product.

Re:copyright exempt? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43757691)

If it is actually a shared copyright, could they sue Nintendo for theft of revenue? Nintendo made the game. Nintendo didn't make the video.

Re:copyright exempt? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43757945)

What if I demand nintendo to remove their gameplay footage from under my review?

Re:copyright exempt? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43757635)

IINAL but I was under the impression that you never had the full legal right to stream games and such. It would just be silly to prosecute someone for this.

Reminder, all ads are evil (2, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#43757175)

Please adblock the hell out of everything. No one deserves money for letting somone mind control you.

Re:Reminder, all ads are evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43757291)

I didn't realise what a horrible place the un-ad-blocked Internet was until I tried web browsing on an Android tablet recently. It was slow as hell, and I thought it must be due to the crappy ARM CPU until I noticed the animated ads all over the place.

Re:Reminder, all ads are evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43757433)

May I recommend an app?
http://f-droid.org/repository/browse/?fdid=org.adaway

Re:Reminder, all ads are evil (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#43757441)

You can get adblock for firefox on the android. I hate firefox on android in terms of UI, but adblock is a necessity.

Re:Reminder, all ads are evil (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#43757519)

It was slow as hell, and I thought it must be due to the crappy ARM CPU until I noticed the animated ads all over the place.

Remember, unlike the iPad, Android can run Flash!

Enjoy!

Re:Reminder, all ads are evil (1, Interesting)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a year ago | (#43757775)

Please show me a link on how to install Flash on my stock Nexus 7. No sideloading, rooting or unlocking allowed.

Re:Reminder, all ads are evil (2)

dicobalt (1536225) | about a year ago | (#43757695)

True, I did an experiment with my old netbook where I checked Firefox cpu usage with 4 tabs open. When ABP was on the cpu usage was around 4%. When ABP was off, CPU usage was around 40-60%.

Re:Reminder, all ads are evil (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year ago | (#43757447)

Please adblock the hell out of everything. No one deserves money for letting somone mind control you.

So I assume you're on Microsoft's side, not Google's, when it comes to the YouTube app on the Surface?

Re:Reminder, all ads are evil (1)

PoolOfThought (1492445) | about a year ago | (#43757499)

Tired of people mind controlling you via advertisements? Well, just click right here and buy our magic mind control blocker for just $14.95.

Re:Reminder, all ads are evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43758043)

Enjoy your web behind a paywall, or are you just an entitled baby?

Desperate times? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43757187)

The sign of a company that's running out of money and has limited sales.

Can PRS claim copyright to what I play on one of their guitars too?

Re:Desperate times? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43757367)

Nintendo has money in the bank. They aren't running out, so please stop running around crying Wolf. So sick of people saying that Nintendo is dying for the past decade.

If it was a copy right issue specifically, they would try to get the videos taken down. They are not doing that, and have even stated that they want people to continue to post videos. The videos that had ad revenue taken away from are for a small set of new games, instead of a blanketing action that everyone seems to think of.

Now, if they are going to continue on this route, they may want to state their outlines. Maybe they will make a policy of only targeting first-party game videos released in the past 3 or 6 months. That is would I would hope, but they haven't stated.

Re:Desperate times? (1)

mattventura (1408229) | about 10 months ago | (#43757957)

It's not a sign of them running out of money. It's business as usual. Just because a company has X amount of money doesn't mean they don't want to make more. Companies would ALWAYS like to make more money.
Besides, I'm 99% certain Nintendo isn't the first company to do this. I recall hearing about some of the scummier game companies doing this.

Their Game, Their Content (2)

Myu (823582) | about a year ago | (#43757201)

Hardly seems objectionable that they might take what's owed them for the work that they put in to actually make the content that people are profiting from. Hey, it's a massive improvement on the music industry: No, we're not going to sue you or other people who use what you've made publically available, or even take your material down; we'll just take the advertising money you'll earn from this point on..

Right of first sale (0, Offtopic)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year ago | (#43757223)

Right of first sale

Re:Right of first sale (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#43757259)

Right of first sale...

...is completely irrelevant to making derivative works and distributing those.

That's what you were going to say before you hit preview then submit too early, right?

Re:Right of first sale (1)

jandrese (485) | about a year ago | (#43757313)

I think he meant to say Doctrine of Fair Use.

Also, these are derivative works in most cases. They're not just putting FMV segments up, they're playing the game, adding content (commentaries for instance), and are getting stolen from just as much as Nintendo was previously. This would be like a cover band being required to pay all of their income to the original bands. Some sort of revenue sharing agreement is clearly needed.

Re:Right of first sale (2, Informative)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#43757423)

Fair use for LPs:

Academic: Hell no
Parody: Nope, except in the rarest of cases
Commercial nature or is for nonprofit: quite clearly commercial
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: usually they play through the whole game.
The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Possibly detrimental

I don't see any path for fair use in there. It doesn't really meet any of the requirements.

Re:Right of first sale (1)

Antipater (2053064) | about a year ago | (#43757513)

The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Possibly detrimental

Possibly detrimental, possibly beneficial. Watching a playthrough could make a viewer say "ew, that game looks terrible" or "hey, I want to try that!" I don't see how you can make a deterministic statement either way. Your other points are accurate, though.

Re:Right of first sale (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about a year ago | (#43757725)

The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Possibly detrimental

Possibly detrimental, possibly beneficial. Watching a playthrough could make a viewer say "ew, that game looks terrible" or "hey, I want to try that!" I don't see how you can make a deterministic statement either way. Your other points are accurate, though.

There's the additional "I've already seen the whole thing, why would I buy it now?".
Personally I've watched, instead of played, plenty of games in the last few years.

Re:Right of first sale (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43757511)

LPs have way too much of the original game in them to count as fair use.

Fair use would be some clips in a review. These things are more like a game version of Mystery Science Theater 3000.

Re: cover bands - music actually has special rules for this. It's called a 'compulsory license' and the rate for using it is REALLY high. (Which is why anyone with any sense negotiates a better license to use a song when they cover it.) But it basically means anyone can legally cover any song, as long as certain notification rules are met and they pay that very high license fee.

Probably the smart thing to do would be for Nintendo to offer a license agreement for their games in LPs, with some form of revenue sharing.

Re:Right of first sale (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 10 months ago | (#43757923)

Probably the smart thing to do would be for Nintendo to offer a license agreement for their games in LPs, with some form of revenue sharing.

more like we will give you free games and you get to review them* and we keep all ad income.

* Nintendo has final creative control and with some games we want you to only give a good review of.

Re:Their Game, Their Content (2, Insightful)

kawabago (551139) | about a year ago | (#43757287)

The videos are about people playing a game, not the game itself. That is a transformational use and thus a fair use. Nintendo is stealing from their own customers, plain and simple.

Re:Their Game, Their Content (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43757589)

The videos are about people playing a game, not the game itself. That is a transformational use and thus a fair use. Nintendo is stealing from their own customers, plain and simple.

The other issue(aside from whether Nintendo has a right under law to do this or not) is whether Nintendo is being a load of idiots by doing this...

If a video of somebody playing a game is a good, or even adequate, substitute for that game, I think that it's fair to say that the game must really suck, badly. If it isn't a good substitute for the game, then "Let's Play" videos are likely to be free advertising for Nintendo, produced by enthusiasts. Given Nintendo's, um, totally commanding lead in the next-gen console area, maybe they shouldn't be turning that down, no?

Re:Their Game, Their Content (1)

OhPlz (168413) | about 10 months ago | (#43758013)

The videos are about people playing a game, not the game itself. That is a transformational use and thus a fair use. Nintendo is stealing from their own customers, plain and simple.

What if I post a video of me watching a movie? It's not about the movie.. it's about me watching the movie.

We're looking for a fine line in what's really a grey area. I can easily see both points of view.

Re:Their Game, Their Content (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#43757813)

Hardly seems objectionable that they might take what's owed them for the work that they put in to actually make the content

Uh, yea, pretty sure that happened when the people in question bought the game from a retailer.

I can see no legitimate defense for Nintendo here.

Re:Their Game, Their Content (1)

Myu (823582) | about a year ago | (#43757847)

When you buy a CD, you don't also buy the rights to use the music on that CD as the soundtrack for that movie you're making for general distribution. The scenarios seem parallel to me.

Re:Their Game, Their Content (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 10 months ago | (#43757911)

When you buy a CD, you don't also buy the rights to use the music on that CD as the soundtrack for that movie you're making for general distribution. The scenarios seem parallel to me.

But do I have the right to make my own covers of the songs on the CD? Because that's a much more accurate analogy for this situation.

So many questions... (1)

spamchang (302052) | about a year ago | (#43757219)

So were the original video posters receiving revenue already? Hard to tell from the article diction.

"Until their claims are straightened out, I won't be playing their games," he continued. "I won't because it jeopardises my channel's copyright standing and the livelihood of all LP-ers."

Livelihood? Really?

Re:So many questions... (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#43757283)

Yes, some people actually make money off playing games and putting that on the internet. They are also almost exclusively the worst, least interesting LPers in the universe. I wish the idea for let's plays never got out.

Re:So many questions... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43757407)

For me I instantly turn off the audio on *all* of these videos. I want to see how to get past some spot. Not to listen to you wheeze on about how awful/good something is. The weirder ones are the ones who make sound effects along with the game... Or instead of showing how to play the game it is a showoff fest of how they can speedrun a level.

Re:So many questions... (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#43757481)

The sad thing is the Let's Plays originated as a kind of fun art form. Then Youtube got ahold of the concept, and turned it into the shittiest laziest kind of "creative work" I've ever seen.

Re:So many questions... (4, Informative)

mdmkolbe (944892) | about a year ago | (#43757403)

Livelihood? Really?

Yes, really. The particularly popular LP-ers make their entire living off of the videos they produce.

That might sound strange at first, but some of the best LP-ers are something of a cross between comedians and critics. Both of these are jobs that we are accustomed to seeing making a living off of their work. A good LP-er doesn't just play the game, their value is in their commentary and jokes as they play the game.

Re:So many questions... (1)

steveha (103154) | about a year ago | (#43757709)

A good LP-er doesn't just play the game, their value is in their commentary and jokes as they play the game.

I've never heard of this, but I believe you. My favorite podcast, Spilled Milk [spilledmilkpodcast.com], is really funny and I think those guys would be just as funny if they stopped talking about food and started talking about some other topic.

Would you please post a link or two with some of your favorite "episodes" of LP?

Re:So many questions... (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#43757845)

Would you please post a link or two with some of your favorite "episodes" of LP?

Just punch Yogscast into the Youtube search box.

Those guys crack me up.

Re:So many questions... (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about 10 months ago | (#43757899)

I find that hard to credit, Youtube pays out SFA unless you're routinely getting millions of views. Beer and pizza money I could believe.

Re:So many questions... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43757543)

So were the original video posters receiving revenue already? Hard to tell from the article diction.

"Until their claims are straightened out, I won't be playing their games," he continued. "I won't because it jeopardises my channel's copyright standing and the livelihood of all LP-ers."

Livelihood? Really?

Yes, look up Chimney Swift, IhasCupQuake there are many others. My 7 year old son watches these all the time.

MinecraftMojang had a meeting with google/youtube and was presented with the very same offer. The turned them down. Kudos to them. Pretty pissed off I am the owner of 2 Wii U's right mow. This is only going to make things harder for Nintendo. Hopefully the Wii U will be more Gamecube than Dreamcast.

That's not even Orwellian . . . (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43757221)

Just backwards.

Seriously? As part of Nintendo's "on-going push to ensure Nintendo content is shared across social media," it is doing something to discourage people from sharing their experience of Nintendo content on a social media platform? Genius.

Re:That's not even Orwellian . . . (1)

idontgno (624372) | about a year ago | (#43757369)

In a way, yes. You didn't parse it right.

The phrase means "on-going push to ensure Nintendo-owned intellectual property content is shared across social media instead of these opportunist copyright-violating scoundrels'."

Dey own teh Intarwebz. Just ask 'em.

Really. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43757247)

So how is this not a copyright violation?

Re:Really. (1)

Hsien-Ko (1090623) | about a year ago | (#43757285)

SEGA does what Nintendon't - complete copyright takedowns of gameplay videos.

This is really sensationalism, all of this could have been prevented if there weren't so many naive LPers that click "YES!" on Youtube's random video monetization offers.

Nintendo's Right, but being Jerks about it... (5, Interesting)

trims (10010) | about a year ago | (#43757361)

I've looked at a couple of those videos, and the amount of content which is copyrightable Nintendo (or whomever the on-screen game author is) is WAAAAAY beyond anything allowable for Fair Use or similar exception.

I'm certainly not in favor of Nintendo or the like suing these folks for copyright infringement. The "unique performance" issue is certainly one which can be discussed, but I liken this to plays - sure, the individual performance of a play is unique, but since you didn't write the script, you can't expect to be profiting from the performance without the author's permission.

Thus, I can't see why the authors of these videos are complaining that Nintendo gets the ad revenue. I think that's an entirely reasonable compromise - Nintendo essentially implicitly licenses the video authors to show those derivative-work videos, in return for the publicity and the ad revenue.

Nintendo, of course, could be much less tone-deaf about saying the preceding, of course.

But, in the end, those videos are derivative-works under copyright law, and they can't be shown without some sort of license.

Re:Nintendo's Right, but being Jerks about it... (4, Informative)

MrDoh! (71235) | about a year ago | (#43757451)

Was happy to hear Notch, contacted by Youtube to do the same thing, said no.

Re:Nintendo's Right, but being Jerks about it... (2)

Lanterns (1190859) | about a year ago | (#43757761)

Notch has a lot more to gain from the goodwill of letting people share his games. He's a much smaller game developer than Nintendo and depends more on having the good graces of his fans. An Nintendo doesn't have much to lose. Most people won't see anything wrong Nintendo just soaks up the ad revenue from the video. It's a bit absurd that the people who make these videos think they can profit from the game.

Re:Nintendo's Right, but being Jerks about it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43757703)

On the other hand, these play-throughs often advertise a company's games for them merely by existing and being watched. In terms of advertising, Nintendo might better serve themselves by leaving these players with the (relatively little) monetary incentive to make the play-throughs that can help proliferate the popularity of a title. Which isn't to say these aren't derivative works, merely that Nintendo might have thrown away some free advertising.

Re:Nintendo's Right, but being Jerks about it... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43757719)

Um, Nintendo are fucking over their fans. Why don't other (less deep in the red I guess) console makers do the same shitty thing? Because it is a shitty thing to do: Nintendo sells the games, they do not rule over the actual playing of the game after it is sold. What next, should "30 Rock" be considered a derivate of the building the series references?

Re:Nintendo's Right, but being Jerks about it... (1)

flimflammer (956759) | about 10 months ago | (#43757897)

He didn't argue that point. The point he was making was that Nintendo is in the right legally; not morally.

Nintendo's statement is ass-backwards. Their response reads as if it's making them out to be the good guys, saying "Unlike others, we're not just taking it down" but they're talking about groups like the **AA, rather than groups in their own form of media: video games. No other game developer sans a weird slip up by Sega does this sort of thing. So really, Nintendo are worse than just about every other game developer/publisher regarding lets plays, presently.

Re:Nintendo's Right, but being Jerks about it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43757857)

sure, the individual performance of a play is unique, but since you didn't write the script, you can't expect to be profiting from the performance without the author's permission.

And neither can the author profit from the performance without giving anything to the performers, unless they agree to that. All to performers might be wrong, but all to author is certainly wrong, too.

Re:Nintendo's Right, but being Jerks about it... (1)

mattventura (1408229) | about 10 months ago | (#43758015)

The LPers put work into their videos. Nintendo made the game and sold it for profit (not to mention free publicity from videos). So previously, Nintendo and the video producer both put some effort into it, and were both rewarded. Now the LPers not only had to pay for the game, but had to produce the video and are now getting zero revenue out of it. Nintendo just wants to have their cake and eat it too.

"Adverts will now appear ... (1)

OhSoLaMeow (2536022) | about a year ago | (#43757375)

"Adverts will now appear at the beginning, next to or at the end of the clips," the company said.

How nice of Nintendo. At least it won't appear in the middle of the clip. I feel much better now.

obviously (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43757419)

All your base are belong to us

-Nintendo

They should share. (1)

vovick (1397387) | about a year ago | (#43757509)

Gameplay videos can be entertaining for their plot, dialogues and visuals even if the player says nothing and plays poorly. On the other hand, a good "letsplayer" can make it much more entertaining to watch and ultimately attract some buyers. They should realize that such a symbiosis is good for both of them. The developers should stop removing or taking all the ad revenue while letsplayers should share it with the developer.
Would be nice to see if Youtube allowed to share revenues between the content creators and the video makers/uploaders.

Re:They should share. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43757595)

Pretty sure the content creator and the video uploader are the same in this instance. Nintendo would be the content owner, but they sure as hell arent creating these videos.

Re:They should share. (1)

vovick (1397387) | about a year ago | (#43757647)

I meant the original content creator which is the developer, while the video maker/uploader (i.e. derived content creator) is the letsplayer.

Content-maker, not tool-maker, owns content (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43757565)

Nintendo's position that they own these videos, simply because their games were used in the making of these videos, is ridiculous and completely unsupportable.

In an analogous situation, if I record a screen capture of a demonstration of how to use a specific feature in Word, and post it to YouTube, Microsoft does NOT own my video simply because it owns Windows and Word. (The screen capture tool maker does not own my video either.)

The person who MAKES the video holds the copyright on the video, regardless of the tools used in the making of said video. It's that simple.

Re:Content-maker, not tool-maker, owns content (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#43757879)

Nintendo's position that they own these videos, simply because their games were used in the making of these videos, is ridiculous and completely unsupportable.

In an analogous situation, if I record a screen capture of a demonstration of how to use a specific feature in Word, and post it to YouTube, Microsoft does NOT own my video simply because it owns Windows and Word. (The screen capture tool maker does not own my video either.)

The person who MAKES the video holds the copyright on the video, regardless of the tools used in the making of said video. It's that simple.

Kinda have to agree with this; Otherwise, Milwaukee, Stanley, Black & Decker, and Craftsman own all my furniture, since those are the brands of tools I used to make it.

Re:Content-maker, not tool-maker, owns content (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43757893)

Citation needed.

ContentID - Youtube's Kryptonite (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43757605)

This is only the latest in abuses of Google's automated copyright enforcement tool. Veteran LPers have left Youtube for other services. I myself have had my gameplay recordings removed or tagged with ads, and now I don't use Youtube to host the videos anymore.

Let them choose to go commercial free (4, Interesting)

VinylRecords (1292374) | about a year ago | (#43757655)

I don't mind if people post videos of a game that I've worked on for free. But if they are putting intrusive advertisements over my content then I want those videos taken down or the commercials removed. It's not the game play videos that are a problem. I play lots of games, I love using player videos for tutorials, in fact lots of games have a replay function directly built into them to help users share gameplay content and experiences.

But I don't think that too many artists want their work having fast food commercials and 'seen on tv' products plastered over their hard work. I don't see why 'fans' should be allowed to plaster commercials over your work. I don't see why YouTube should be allowed to plaster commercials over my work either. Go commercial free and you can do whatever you want. Tutorials, reviews, analysis, story summaries, detailed walkthroughs, tool assisted speedruns, and so on.

If the true fans want to play games and share their experiences with others then let them. That's great. No one should object to those videos. But when fans are plastering commercials over a video game it is not acceptable use in my opinion. I don't want anything I've done associated with some namebrand product. I don't want fans of mine watching someone play a game I worked on only to have some product pop up in the middle of my artwork. Remove the ads.

If you want to make a video of yourself playing a game for the social experience, for an education tutorial, or for a review, then go ahead. As long as you don't put commercials next to it. Want to put commercials next to it? Then contact the original artists and company and try to work out a deal. If they say no then respect their wishes.

Re:Let them choose to go commercial free (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43757743)

You're such a tool: Do you also complain if 'your' game is featured on a gaming review website? With ads next to it?
Do you also complain if 'your' game is played on Twitch? With ads next to it?
Stop being such a tool.

Re:Let them choose to go commercial free (2)

Red_Chaos1 (95148) | about 10 months ago | (#43757927)

Do the people who took the time to play through the game carefully and precisely to create such videos for people to learn from not deserve a bit of compensation for that time? You got your cut when the game was sold. Stop sniveling about the ads, it's the only means the people making these vids have of getting compensation for their time and effort. It's not the end of the world.

Re:Let them choose to go commercial free (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#43757937)

I posted a vid of Mortar use shortly after BF3 was released. I put it up with nothing to gain from it. No ads, nothing, just my play for a few friends. A went back to my channel a month or two ago and there was a notice that EA was claiming that the content was theirs and my video was "flagged". I don't remember the exact wording. Yes, it was a video of their content. No, there was no revenue to be made from it. The vid was outdated as they had fixed a few flaws with mortars that were present when the video was recorded. I went ahead and deleted the video as it was no longer useful to me.

No clue if they had put ads on it. It did not look like a statement of infringement. Nothing was sent to my email associated with the account regarding the "flag". Of my few videos I have put up*, that was the only one to receive something like that. Other vids were of BF:BC2, Portal, TF2, and COD:MW2.

Just my limited experience with the about a dozen vids I have put on Youtube over the years.

*My videos I want my friend to see are now viewable with a uri I send them in email.

will they sue the AGVN / make him pay from the (2)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year ago | (#43757741)

will they sue the AGVN / make him pay from the right to do his show with any Nintendo game?

Who Holds the Copyright? (1)

Cruxus (657818) | about a year ago | (#43757823)

IANAL: Nintendo holds the copyright on its video games, obviously. A walkthrough may fall under the category of "derivative work." When a user uploads a video to YouTube, presumably they agree to YouTube's terms and conditions: a license to use the uploaded work. YouTube in turn has agreements of its own with other copyright holders like Nintendo. Presumably Nintendo could try to make the case that the walkthrough violates their copyright and/or trade dress protections. Instead, they "settle" with the walkthrough creator by taking their ad money. :) Maybe the content uploaders can be given the option to have the video taken down instead of the ad revenue going elsewhere.

Game Media (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43757827)

Do they take the ad revenue from IGN or Gamespot when they do a live streaming playthrough?

So much for Angry Video Game Nerd (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43757835)

I imagine nearly all of his videos will be affected by this?

Simple Solution (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 10 months ago | (#43757949)

Just make fun of Nintendo, constantly, through the course of your LP video... maybe cut to a self-cam every 25 seconds to meet the "less than 30 seconds" limitation of fair use.

Bam, parody. Suck on that, ho-bags.

REALLY? (1)

coniferous (1058330) | about 10 months ago | (#43757973)

"'In a statement, the firm said the move was part of an "on-going push to ensure Nintendo content is shared across social media." What the fuck does that have to do with ripping off content producers?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...