• 108 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Edited by Baltimore (269 posts) -

It has come to light that Nintendo has started to claim copyright on Youtube Let's Play videos. Based on the current laws and Youtue's own copyright guidlines Nintendo has full right to do this. That is not something that I am going to dispute. What I want to ask the community here are the following:

1) Why now? Why has Nintendo waited so long to do this? Could this have been their plan the whole time?

2) Did no one run this by their internal PR department? I cannot imagine that LP'ers are going to continue to play Nintendo games if they cannot make money off their videos.

3) Does adding commentary (and/or overlaying video of the LP'er) count as 'transformative work' there by protecting the Video Producer under Fair Use?

Discuss (and please keep it civil).

Original News Link:

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/05/16/nintendo-enforces-copyright-on-youtube-lets-plays?utm_campaign=ign+main+twitter&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

#2 Posted by MooseyMcMan (10864 posts) -

This seems like a really rotten thing for Nintendo to do, if you ask me.

Moderator
#3 Edited by Plasticstars (171 posts) -

While I'm not particularly pleased about it, it could be a lot worse. They could do what other game companies do and just outright block footage of their games. At least this way you can still post playthroughs of Nintendo stuff.

#4 Posted by RecSpec (3799 posts) -

Nintendo knows that a good portion of their fanbase will take whatever they deal out. I assume that's a big part of it. Still a dick move, but I don't think people (even those directly affected) are going to turn on Nintendo because of that.

#5 Posted by Oscar__Explosion (2234 posts) -

So what exactly does this mean for the people who puts up LP's? Do the videos get taken down, do they get to stay up but with ads or what?

#6 Posted by RecSpec (3799 posts) -

So what exactly does this mean for the people who puts up LP's? Do the videos get taken down, do they get to stay up but with ads or what?

Youtube's "Third Party Content" thing kicks in. You can keep the video up, but you can't claim it as original content, meaning you can't make money off of it. Any ad revenue made off it goes directly to the owner (Nintendo in this case).

#7 Posted by Uppercaseccc (96 posts) -

I'm not happy with it at all and it's mainly the idea that Nintendo is getting money off of people work. I feel a new trend and LP's is actually editing and adding in visual gags to their video outside of the game itself which means they put work into that having to find the pic illustrate the gags for the vids and plan out how it's going to work and to have the concept of someone making money off my work and what I did pissies me off

#8 Posted by Darji (5294 posts) -

So what exactly does this mean for the people who puts up LP's? Do the videos get taken down, do they get to stay up but with ads or what?

People who make money out of it will no longer do Nintendo lets Plays which is a HUGE PR loss. But this again just shows how out of touch Nintendo is at the moment. They have no clue about their actual consumers or the market.

#9 Edited by lebkin (330 posts) -

1) I imagine that Let's Plays have reached levels of popularity such that Nintendo feels the effort is worth it. Youtube has been the go-to place for video online, but finally reached where it's a great place to make money on that video. I imagine we've reach the point where this ad revenue is worth the money spent dealing with Youtube to get it.

2) They likely did run it through the PR department. That's why they are merely placing ads on the videos, rather than issuing takedown notices. If Nintendo asked Youtube to remove the content, I am certain Youtube would have complied.

3) As a non-lawyer, I would think that adding commentary does not count as a "transformative work". The closest comparison I can think of is DVD commentaries. Those would obviously be in violation if you posted them along with the entire movie. I understand there is a component of creation in the act of playing the game, so it is definitely different. There is no direct analog that I can think of. One of the key factors in identifying something as "transformative" is that it must "supersede the use of the original work". I do not see Let's Plays going far enough to merit themselves being identified as a whole new thing.

#10 Posted by Scrawnto (2440 posts) -

I agree with what Zack Scott said on the subject. Watching LP's of Dark Souls is what got me to play that game in the first place. Watching a person play a game is not the same as playing it yourself, especially not when commentary, editing, and video compositing are thrown in.

#11 Posted by MildMolasses (3218 posts) -

someone making money off my work and what I did pissies me off

Irony?

#12 Posted by Oscar__Explosion (2234 posts) -

@recspec said:

@oscar__explosion said:

So what exactly does this mean for the people who puts up LP's? Do the videos get taken down, do they get to stay up but with ads or what?

Youtube's "Third Party Content" thing kicks in. You can keep the video up, but you can't claim it as original content, meaning you can't make money off of it. Any ad revenue made off it goes directly to the owner (Nintendo in this case).

I see. Huh well I understand why Nintendo would do this, but why now?

#13 Posted by Darji (5294 posts) -

@recspec said:

@oscar__explosion said:

So what exactly does this mean for the people who puts up LP's? Do the videos get taken down, do they get to stay up but with ads or what?

Youtube's "Third Party Content" thing kicks in. You can keep the video up, but you can't claim it as original content, meaning you can't make money off of it. Any ad revenue made off it goes directly to the owner (Nintendo in this case).

I see. Huh well I understand why Nintendo would do this, but why now?

Looks like they like bad PR and want to go out of this business. And without one bad news each week they will not archive that.

#14 Posted by believer258 (11776 posts) -

I'm not happy with it at all and it's mainly the idea that Nintendo is getting money off of people work. I feel a new trend and LP's is actually editing and adding in visual gags to their video outside of the game itself which means they put work into that having to find the pic illustrate the gags for the vids and plan out how it's going to work and to have the concept of someone making money off my work and what I did pissies me off

Pretty sure the people at Nintendo worked harder on the games that you are playing than you did on the LP's.

Anyway, I won't defend Nintendo but there isn't much we can legally do about it. At least they only seem to be demanding that LP'ers not make money off of it, instead of just completely taking all of them down. Damn it, Nintendo. I want to like you a whole hell of a lot more than I do, but you just keep fumbling.

#15 Posted by Veektarius (4750 posts) -

I don't know why people would care about a LP of a Nintendo game, since my interest in watching people play things is limited to story-driven games I don't actually care to do the gameplay for - i.e. Persona 4. Nevertheless, i guess some people must.

#16 Edited by MikkaQ (10280 posts) -

Nintendo has already garnered plenty of ill will from me by ignoring some of their best franchises for completely over-saturated ones and their complete lack of interest in original IP. Now they just look like jerks.

#17 Posted by Shady (503 posts) -

Publishers have always had the right to take down videos of their products. This is a sort of extension of that. LPs are held up by the games. Just commenting over it doesn't all of a sudden make it your work.

#18 Posted by Sergio (2080 posts) -

@darji said:

@oscar__explosion said:

@recspec said:

@oscar__explosion said:

So what exactly does this mean for the people who puts up LP's? Do the videos get taken down, do they get to stay up but with ads or what?

Youtube's "Third Party Content" thing kicks in. You can keep the video up, but you can't claim it as original content, meaning you can't make money off of it. Any ad revenue made off it goes directly to the owner (Nintendo in this case).

I see. Huh well I understand why Nintendo would do this, but why now?

Looks like they like bad PR and want to go out of this business. And without one bad news each week they will not archive that.

Yes, this will clearly make them go out of business...

#19 Edited by EXTomar (4640 posts) -

The whole system Google was forced to put in is bogus where forced to suspend even if the claim is weak or just wrong. So I doubt someone at Nintendo is clicking on channels and calling up Youtube to ban stuff but they did hire someone who is using metrics to single and and tell Google "suspend this video" and Google is forced to suspend it first instead of review or even ask them to prove it.

#20 Edited by Uppercaseccc (96 posts) -

@mildmolasses: point but I'm mainly sighting channels like Game Grumps and peanutbuttergamer for that stuff

#21 Edited by gogosox82 (424 posts) -

Definitely a dick move but this was inevitable I think. It's too much of a hassle and bad press to ban the videos all together so this is the next logical extension of that. You get to make money and get all the free press that having your videos on the channel generates. Seems like a win win for a company like Nintendo.

#22 Edited by Aetheldod (3542 posts) -

Well on one hand they are not taking them down right? So I see no problem with the isue .... Youtubers need to get to work , as in editing and making something more out of their videos , than just sitting down talking and earning money from someone else´s work. But then again this could open the doors to take all them videos down which wouldnt help Ninty in any way and just adding more bad blood.

#23 Edited by Darji (5294 posts) -

@sergio said:

@darji said:

@oscar__explosion said:

@recspec said:

@oscar__explosion said:

So what exactly does this mean for the people who puts up LP's? Do the videos get taken down, do they get to stay up but with ads or what?

Youtube's "Third Party Content" thing kicks in. You can keep the video up, but you can't claim it as original content, meaning you can't make money off of it. Any ad revenue made off it goes directly to the owner (Nintendo in this case).

I see. Huh well I understand why Nintendo would do this, but why now?

Looks like they like bad PR and want to go out of this business. And without one bad news each week they will not archive that.

Yes, this will clearly make them go out of business...

That is not what I am saying. It just another evidence how out of touch Nintendo is with the market. Even EA sees huge potential in Let's plays and the PR importance. Square enix gives certain LP's commentators early games so they have free PR out of it. And they do not even have to praise the game. They just have to play the game and tell their honest Opinion. Like Total Biscuit did this several times.

Another huge factor. Giantbomb is also uploading their Quicklooks on youtube so they will not get any ad revenue for their Nintendo quicklooks as well. .

#24 Edited by Iodine (545 posts) -

@uppercaseccc said:

someone making money off my work and what I did pissies me off

Irony?

I also found this funny

#25 Edited by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -

So they want to put their game ads..on videos that have their games? When 90% of people have ad block on anyways?

Its better then just pulling down all videos right?

#26 Edited by Gaff (1708 posts) -

@baltimore: I think your third point is going to be an interesting debate: is the act of playing a game something unique and inherent to that game, and therefor subject to the creator of the game, or is the game a tool with which the player performs, thereby becoming something unique, ergo belonging to the player?

I wish there was a middle ground for this, and take an example from the music industry: the composer / writer of a song and the performer of a song are two different entities, which both get rewarded.

#27 Posted by Boom_goes_the_dynamite (713 posts) -

Wouldn't this just result in less Let's Plays of Nintendo games then?

This is a little bit of a jerk move by Nintendo, but it is understandable. I just have to echo the sentiments of others and ask, "Why now?"

#28 Edited by Veiasma (194 posts) -
@darji said:

@sergio said:

@darji said:

@oscar__explosion said:

@recspec said:

@oscar__explosion said:

So what exactly does this mean for the people who puts up LP's? Do the videos get taken down, do they get to stay up but with ads or what?

Youtube's "Third Party Content" thing kicks in. You can keep the video up, but you can't claim it as original content, meaning you can't make money off of it. Any ad revenue made off it goes directly to the owner (Nintendo in this case).

I see. Huh well I understand why Nintendo would do this, but why now?

Looks like they like bad PR and want to go out of this business. And without one bad news each week they will not archive that.

Yes, this will clearly make them go out of business...

That is not what I am saying. It just another evidence how out of touch Nintendo is with the market. Even EA sees huge potential in Let's plays and the PR importance. Square enix gives certain LP's commentators early games so they have free PR out of it. And they do not even have to praise the game. They just have to play the game and tell their honest Opinion. Like Total Biscuit did this several times.

Another huge factor. Giantbomb is also uploading their Quicklooks on youtube so they will not get any ad revenue for their Nintendo quicklooks as well. .

It just makes no sense. LPs are NOT cash cows, so they are willing to take this bad PR and loss of coverage for minuscule ad revenue. Plus that revenue only going to get smaller, since many of these content creators are going to drop coverage of Nintendo games.

Nintendo REALLY needs new corporate leadership, and its probably going to take massive money hemorrhaging (like Square-Enix) to force that.

#29 Posted by MikkaQ (10280 posts) -

Something I just thought now, isn't playing a game considered a performance? A game as Nintendo provides it cannot play itself and thus the player is providing both a unique commentary and performance of a game that cannot be copied, or recreated by Nintendo. It would be like Fender trying to copyright any music made with their guitars.

#30 Edited by Darji (5294 posts) -

@mikkaq said:

Something I just thought now, isn't playing a game considered a performance? A game as Nintendo provides it cannot play itself and thus the player is providing both a unique commentary and performance of a game that cannot be copied, or recreated by Nintendo. It would be like Fender trying to copyright any music made with their guitars.

Yes. People do not watch it because of the game but rather because of the Persons commentary and style. There is a reason why people get 100k + viewers and others only 100. Same with Live streaming. People watch these streams because of the person playing these games.

#31 Posted by JJOR64 (18941 posts) -

Been following this since I heard about it 2 days ago. They hold every right to do it, but it's still very questionable. Doesn't Microsoft do the same thing with Halo videos?

Online
#32 Posted by rebgav (1429 posts) -

The fewer people buying, playing, or talking about Nintendo games the better. That's how you generate interest and excitement, right? By preventing people from seeing, hearing about or enjoying your product. I don't see how this could be a bad idea.

#33 Posted by Darji (5294 posts) -

@jjor64 said:

Been following this since I heard about it 2 days ago. They hold every right to do it, but it's still very questionable. Doesn't Microsoft do the same thing with Halo videos?

No i heard one youtube video comment on how Microsoft only did this for videos with long cut scenes. So both actually got something out of it.

#34 Edited by WinterSnowblind (7614 posts) -
@darji said:

Another huge factor. Giantbomb is also uploading their Quicklooks on youtube so they will not get any ad revenue for their Nintendo quicklooks as well. .

That's not the case. Nintendo seem pretty in favour of YouTube videos, the only problem is with people uploading the entire game. QL's wouldn't be considered lengthy enough videos to fall under this.

I personally don't see a problem with this. Ignoring the fact that the majority of LP's are absolutely abysmal and require zero talent to perform, I don't see the difference between this and uploading a commentary track for a movie with the whole film attached. And how quickly would that get pulled from YouTube?

#35 Edited by Darji (5294 posts) -

@darji said:

Another huge factor. Giantbomb is also uploading their Quicklooks on youtube so they will not get any ad revenue for their Nintendo quicklooks as well. .

That's not the case. Nintendo seem pretty in favour of YouTube videos, the only problem is with people uploading the entire game. QL's wouldn't be considered lengthy enough videos to fall under this.

I personally don't see a problem with this. Ignoring the fact that the majority of LP's are absolutely abysmal and require zero talent to perform, I don't see the difference between this and uploading a commentary track for a movie with the whole film attached. And how quickly would that get pulled from YouTube?

No. This Contend ID claim goes for EVERY Video that is longer than 10 minutes. Remember the the regulations Giantbomb had with the Nintendo land stuff? It is almost the same. You can not show any Nintendo content for 10 straight minutes.

#36 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7074 posts) -

Notch said something about this on Twitter today. Apparently he met with Youtube execs and was told he could make money off of the thousands of Minecraft LP videos that had been made. Apparently he refused. And good on him. He's smart enough to realize that it's free advertising. I'd like to see the number of people who bought Minecraft only because they saw the Yogscast crews videos or the RoosterTeeth Minecraft LP. Nintendo needs younger, more internet minded people in higher up positions. Not just because of this but because of the dozens of other signs that they really don't know how the internet works.

#37 Posted by TheSouthernDandy (3851 posts) -

I understand from a legal standpoint them doing it but this is such a terrible move. Nintendo continues to have no idea how the Internet works.

#38 Posted by triple07 (1196 posts) -

According to the Joystiq article on this topic, Nintendo is far from the first company to do this. Most big publishers do it as well it looks like. So while it sucks for Youtube content creators it seems like this is a fairly standard thing to do.

Again this sucks for the content creators but honestly if I was the one making the decision for Nintendo I would probably do the same thing.

#39 Edited by Darji (5294 posts) -

@triple07 said:

According to the Joystiq article on this topic, Nintendo is far from the first company to do this. Most big publishers do it as well it looks like. So while it sucks for Youtube content creators it seems like this is a fairly standard thing to do.

Again this sucks for the content creators but honestly if I was the one making the decision for Nintendo I would probably do the same thing.

Oh it will suck for Nintendo. And again getting bad PR. It is already on BBC and wait till the big guys comment about this stuff. There are tons of games they can and will cover now instead of Nintendo's and the thing Nintendo needs right now is good PR. This is not. For example this Zack guy who had over 300k views on his Luigi's mansion videos which again was free PR already deleted his videos.

#40 Posted by Petiew (1343 posts) -

I'm sure Nintendo are well within their rights to do this, but the whole thing just seems kind of gross. Either delete the videos outright or just don't do anything. Taking away the $5 some dude would make from gushing about and advertising your game seems like a really odd move. The PR statement makes it seem kind of slimy too.

#41 Edited by TheSouthernDandy (3851 posts) -

@wintersnowblind said:
@darji said:

Another huge factor. Giantbomb is also uploading their Quicklooks on youtube so they will not get any ad revenue for their Nintendo quicklooks as well. .

That's not the case. Nintendo seem pretty in favour of YouTube videos, the only problem is with people uploading the entire game. QL's wouldn't be considered lengthy enough videos to fall under this.

I personally don't see a problem with this. Ignoring the fact that the majority of LP's are absolutely abysmal and require zero talent to perform, I don't see the difference between this and uploading a commentary track for a movie with the whole film attached. And how quickly would that get pulled from YouTube?

Look at how Blizzard handles streamers. They haven't shut them down or insist that they receive no revenue from it. They love it. They encourage streaming because it keeps eyes on their games and them as a company. They understand the benefits outweigh any negatives, if there even are any.

Nintendo is still stuck in this old school mentality of having to 'protect their IP's' instead of realizing that LPers are nothing but free advertising. People (for the most part) don't watch a LP instead of playing the game, they watch a LP instead of watching tv or some other passive activity. Nintendo isn't losing anything and by doing what they're doing all they're gaining is bad press.

#42 Posted by Dagbiker (6957 posts) -

The legality of LetsPlays are gray. But Youtubes policy is not. So right now if you want to post lets plays of Nintendo games you have to have a website devoted to doing videos of video games. Preferably one that does a lets play about high school kids who jump into tvs.

#43 Edited by Animasta (14667 posts) -

@thesoutherndandy: I watch plenty of LP's instead of playing the game though, and I don't know why you don't think that's a large proponent of people like me out there.

#44 Posted by Darji (5294 posts) -

@dagbiker said:

The legality of LetsPlays are gray. But Youtubes policy is not. So right now if you want to post lets plays of Nintendo games you have to have a website devoted to doing videos of video games. Preferably one that does a lets play about high school kids who jump into tvs.

No these are affected as well. It is not a manually process it is automatically. People with sites already complaining as well.

#45 Posted by TheSouthernDandy (3851 posts) -

@animasta: Ok but realistically somebody like you who is content to not even play the game isn't gonna buy the thing. Or if you are it'll be a used copy which is essentially the same. Yes, I'm making assumptions about you and all these people but watching a game and playing a game aren't even remotely the same thing.

#46 Posted by Darji (5294 posts) -

@animasta said:

@thesoutherndandy: I watch plenty of LP's instead of playing the game though, and I don't know why you don't think that's a large proponent of people like me out there.

Have you never seen a LP or WTF is video that actually made you buy the game? I bought several games because of this or live streams already and many people I know did that as well.

#47 Posted by Carryboy (640 posts) -
@dagbiker said:

The legality of LetsPlays are gray. But Youtubes policy is not. So right now if you want to post lets plays of Nintendo games you have to have a website devoted to doing videos of video games. Preferably one that does a lets play about high school kids who jump into tvs.

To be honest the legality isn`t gray its just copyright holders on the whole have decided its beneficial for their property. Legally speaking it is completely against the law.

This was inevitable and I wouldn't be surprised to see this happen more.

#48 Edited by Sergio (2080 posts) -

@mikkaq said:

Something I just thought now, isn't playing a game considered a performance? A game as Nintendo provides it cannot play itself and thus the player is providing both a unique commentary and performance of a game that cannot be copied, or recreated by Nintendo. It would be like Fender trying to copyright any music made with their guitars.

You're analogy is terrible. This is more like buying a New York Times best-selling book, record yourself reading it, then uploading it as your own audiobook version. It doesn't matter how you performed it, if you inserted your own commentary, or provided your own background music, you're still distributing someone's copyrighted work.

#49 Posted by crusader8463 (14419 posts) -

NOOOOO!!!! MY PLANS TO MAKE MILLIONS OFF OF POKEMON LP'S ARE OVER!!!!!! CURSE YOU NINTENDO!

#50 Edited by triple07 (1196 posts) -

@darji said:

@triple07 said:

According to the Joystiq article on this topic, Nintendo is far from the first company to do this. Most big publishers do it as well it looks like. So while it sucks for Youtube content creators it seems like this is a fairly standard thing to do.

Again this sucks for the content creators but honestly if I was the one making the decision for Nintendo I would probably do the same thing.

Oh it will suck for Nintendo. And again getting bad PR. It is already on BBC and wait till the big guys comment about this stuff. There are tons of games they can and will cover now instead of Nintendo's and the thing Nintendo needs right now is good PR. This is not. For example this Zack guy who had over 300k views on his Luigi's mansion videos which again was free PR already deleted his videos.

I don't know I mean the PR is bad right now but will it be bad for very long? Sure they want as much positive buzz as they can which I do agree this will not help them with but I also doubt how much infulential bad PR this will cause. Also I have to wonder how many people would watch a Let's Play and then not buy the game because of that. I certainly watched a Lets Play of Spelunky and then felt no compulsion to buy the game so the Lets play actually hurt the developer.