Microsoft prohibiting users from profiting on created content

#1 Edited by pa21ris (150 posts) -
#2 Edited by Snail (8621 posts) -

And I like none of those videos.

Actually after reading that, it does sound quite bad for a lot of YouTube channels. Can't say I'll miss any of them, but I'm wondering why Microsoft would do this. Maybe they want to have their own private service for showcasing these videos? Something they'll implement in the next Xbox?

#3 Edited by believer258 (12018 posts) -

What about Rooster Teeth?

EDIT: Nevermind, they were mentioned in the article.

Online
#4 Posted by pa21ris (150 posts) -

I wonder if this could mean Giantbomb then can't do quick looks on Microsoft published 1st party games?

#5 Posted by RE_Player1 (7566 posts) -

So can Giant Bomb never do a Breaking Brad on a Microsoft Studios game?

#6 Edited by Snail (8621 posts) -

@believer258 said:

What about Rooster Teeth?

Those guys who do a lot of Halo videos and think they're funny, talk like they wish they were radio hosts?

To be fair I have to thank them for their achievement videos (that so helped me get Platinum on The Force Unleashed II), but they still didn't have to be so annoying in those.

#7 Posted by Vinny_Says (5721 posts) -

@Snail said:

@believer258 said:

What about Rooster Teeth?

Those guys who do a lot of Halo videos and think they're funny, talk like they wish they were radio hosts?

To be fair I have to thank them for their achievement videos - that so helped me get Platinum on The Force Unleashed II - but they still didn't have to be so annoying in those.

I'm sure people out there say the same thing about Jeff and Ryan and crew.

#8 Edited by Snail (8621 posts) -

@Vinny_Says said:

@Snail said:

@believer258 said:

What about Rooster Teeth?

Those guys who do a lot of Halo videos and think they're funny, talk like they wish they were radio hosts?

To be fair I have to thank them for their achievement videos - that so helped me get Platinum on The Force Unleashed II - but they still didn't have to be so annoying in those.

I'm sure people out there say the same thing about Jeff and Ryan and crew.

Jeff and Ryan and crew talk like normal people.

#9 Posted by Demoskinos (15032 posts) -

Ugh. This is dumb. C'mon Microsoft dont you have anything better to do?

#10 Posted by pw2566ch (480 posts) -

@pa21ris said:

I wonder if this could mean Giantbomb then can't do quick looks on Microsoft published 1st party games?

@msavo said:

So can Giant Bomb never do a Breaking Brad on a Microsoft Studios game?

This is correct. Any video that is posted that requires a subscription to view or has an ad next to the video or in the video is not allowed.

#11 Edited by andrew2696 (334 posts) -

@pa21ris: Wouldn't that go with embargos and stuff? I mean they're allowed to show any video content after a certain date so I assume that's part of a different agreement.

#12 Edited by BlackLagoon (1457 posts) -

@pa21ris said:

I wonder if this could mean Giantbomb then can't do quick looks on Microsoft published 1st party games?

They'll probably get special permission with review copies, though it may come with strings attached. And even if it doesn't, this is likely to annoy Jeff...

EDIT: The exact rules can be found here BTW.

#13 Posted by FlarePhoenix (420 posts) -

Doesn't this kind of mean none of their games can be reviewed by professional reviewers anymore, seeing as how they get paid to do it?

#14 Posted by 2HeadedNinja (1685 posts) -

no matter what the problem was (in microsofts eyes), this is going waaaaay too far. Why do some publishers treat fans like enemys? What does it matter to Mictrosoft if someone gets some add money by doing a video of their game? It's most likely free promotion.

#15 Posted by FlarePhoenix (420 posts) -

Also, I look forward to Microsoft going after the bible since it uses the word halo in it.

#16 Edited by pa21ris (150 posts) -

So there might be 5 second bumper before or after videos now?

Also rule #3:

'Except as described here, you can't sell or otherwise earn any compensation from your Item, including through advertisements in the Item. This means you can't charge money in exchange for your Item, post it on a site that requires subscription or other fees to view the Item, or post it on a page you use to sell other items or services(even if they have nothing to do with Game Content or Microsoft). You also can't use Game Content in an app that you sell in an app store.'

Rule #4

'You may post your Item to a page or website that has advertising, but only if you do not earn any money from that advertising. For example, if you post your video on Youtube or Vimeo and there happens to be an advertisement next to it, then as long as you don't get paid for that advertisement, the fact that there is an advertisement on the page doesn't break these Rules. But enrolling in the Youtube partner program (or other similar programs), where you are entering into an agreement to get paid, is not allowed. On a similar note, if you create and distribute a free app, then you can't earn any money from advertising in that app.'

Rule #5

'Where someone is trying to use Game Content to promote their commercial venture (even just a commercial website), they need our permission to do this. For example, "promoting a commercial venture" includes someone else enrolling in the Youtube partner program and making money distributing your Items. That is not allowed today unless that person has a commercial license from us, and so far, we haven't given anyone permission to do this. We'll let you know if we do.'

Interesting wording they use on some of those rules.

#17 Posted by Napalm (9020 posts) -

That's cool. I wasn't going to buy Halo 4 anyway. Scumbags.

#18 Posted by believer258 (12018 posts) -

@Snail said:

@Vinny_Says said:

@Snail said:

@believer258 said:

What about Rooster Teeth?

Those guys who do a lot of Halo videos and think they're funny, talk like they wish they were radio hosts?

To be fair I have to thank them for their achievement videos - that so helped me get Platinum on The Force Unleashed II - but they still didn't have to be so annoying in those.

I'm sure people out there say the same thing about Jeff and Ryan and crew.

Jeff and Ryan and crew talk like normal people.

You really don't have a concept of "some people don't like the same things as you", do you?

I thought Red vs Blue was pretty funny for a long time. Stupid as hell, yes, but people have been better paid for worse humor before *cough* Gearbox *cough*.

Online
#19 Posted by Snail (8621 posts) -

@believer258 said:

@Snail said:

@Vinny_Says said:

I'm sure people out there say the same thing about Jeff and Ryan and crew.

Jeff and Ryan and crew talk like normal people.

You really don't have a concept of "some people don't like the same things as you", do you?

I thought Red vs Blue was pretty funny for a long time. Stupid as hell, yes, but people have been better paid for worse humor before *cough* Gearbox *cough*.

Oh please.

I'm making a valid complaint here. No one talks like that, they sound like radio-hosts wannabees. Like I said, I even made good use of their achievement videos so save the internet-chivalry.

#20 Posted by crazyleaves (648 posts) -

So, basically they are going to sell commercial licenses to producers in order to keep out the little guys? It really does seem counter productive.

#21 Posted by RenMcKormack (1074 posts) -

This is pretty dumb on Microsoft's part to the extent that it is so broad. I'm not sure how this will be enforceable on the individual user. Are they going to file lawsuits against every kid on YouTube putting up head shot videos? Use of video clips in a review or even in a machinma type deal sounds like it falls within the fair use umbrella of US Copyright law, making this rule unenforceable.

I was sickly pleased to see this though as I could do without these videos on Youtube

Tom “Tsquared” Taylor tweeted, “If this is true, it will put a serious damper on all streaming & montage opportunities + console eSports in general.”

#22 Posted by BlackLagoon (1457 posts) -

Oh, yeah, I forgot... there's more great stuff in those rules too - even if you follow them, Microsoft can still revoke your permission to use their games at any time. Also you give Microsoft the right to use what you've created for whatever they want without you having any say in it.

So they could theoretically demand Giant Bomb pull the Fable the Journey Quick Look, and then reedit to make it seem more positive and post it as "Brad Shoemaker gives you the rundown about what's great with Fable the Journey"... Brad: "I'm surprised at how well this works", etc.

#23 Edited by pa21ris (150 posts) -

@crazyleaves: It does seem counter productive because now you will have to pay in order to use video of their product.

#24 Posted by MildMolasses (3225 posts) -

I don't really see the problem here. Obviously you can just start making money while using other people's work. However, GB and other outlets have working relationships with Microsoft. This won't change anything. They obviously want sites like this to show off their games for them, but that is different than making movies with their software and then trying to make money off of it

#25 Posted by MonetaryDread (2082 posts) -

Why is this such a big deal? I mean, it's only with Microsoft properties and Microsoft can do whatever they want. If someone else has started to generate income based off of those properties then why should I feel bad for them? I mean, those machinima producers decided to make money using someone else s property. Why would you do something as idiotic as being completely reliant on someone else s goods.?

#26 Posted by Clonedzero (4200 posts) -

eh, the backlash towards this will make them change their mind

#27 Posted by vikingdeath1 (986 posts) -

@BlackLagoon: that sounds bad....... I don't like this.

Sure they have the "right" to do so, but jesus why so cold towards the people who love your products so much they take Huge chunks of their time to make something cool with it? Dick move M$oft..

#28 Posted by WilliamHenry (1204 posts) -

@vikingdeath1 said:

@BlackLagoon: that sounds bad....... I don't like this.

Sure they have the "right" to do so, but jesus why so cold towards the people who love your products so much they take Huge chunks of their time to make something cool with it? Dick move M$oft..

Its not the fact that they are making stuff with their products, its that they are profiting off of that.

And nobody is going to be sued over this. Why does everyone automatically think that will happen with anything copyright related? They'll most likely just make a copyright claim to Youtube and have the videos taken down.

#29 Edited by big_jon (5744 posts) -

Signed, I generally don't sign petitions, but that is some bull shit.

Doubt it will change anything though.

@MonetaryDread: Your post is mind bogglingly stupid... And you're on a game review site which has potential to be effected negatively by this, while paying for a membership here, I mean you are on a site that literally piggy backs on the creations of other companies aka reviewing, playing, and talking about games in videos to make money.

#30 Posted by jakob187 (21691 posts) -

The greed machine continues onward...

Wonder what this means for gaming websites that do things like Quick Looks or general usage of Microsoft Games Studio footage in any video content.

#31 Posted by Animasta (14715 posts) -

wouldn't they have to take down the LOLS of halo?

#32 Posted by Athadam (697 posts) -

@RenMcKormack said:

This is pretty dumb on Microsoft's part to the extent that it is so broad. I'm not sure how this will be enforceable on the individual user. Are they going to file lawsuits against every kid on YouTube putting up head shot videos? Use of video clips in a review or even in a machinma type deal sounds like it falls within the fair use umbrella of US Copyright law, making this rule unenforceable.

I was sickly pleased to see this though as I could do without these videos on Youtube

Tom “Tsquared” Taylor tweeted, “If this is true, it will put a serious damper on all streaming & montage opportunities + console eSports in general.”

Well, I think it just prevents professional youtubers to create content. The main thing is that you can't make money from the franchise but you can still make content, just no revenue from ads.

#33 Edited by mlarrabee (2999 posts) -

@WilliamHenry said:

@vikingdeath1 said:

@BlackLagoon: that sounds bad....... I don't like this.

Sure they have the "right" to do so, but jesus why so cold towards the people who love your products so much they take Huge chunks of their time to make something cool with it? Dick move M$oft..

Its not the fact that they are making stuff with their products, its that they are profiting off of that.

And nobody is going to be sued over this. Why does everyone automatically think that will happen with anything copyright related? They'll most likely just make a copyright claim to Youtube and have the videos taken down.

This. In fact, beyond this, because as long as the uploader isn't receiving ad money everything's fine!

I dislike what this will do to streaming e-sports and how it'll affect things like Load our Last Save and Random PC Game here and elsewhere online, but it seems like it's being blown out of proportion.

EDIT: To everyone talking about Quick Looks, no money changes hands when someone watches one. If it affects anything, it'll be subscriber content alone.

#34 Posted by big_jon (5744 posts) -

@Castermhief117 said:

@RenMcKormack said:

This is pretty dumb on Microsoft's part to the extent that it is so broad. I'm not sure how this will be enforceable on the individual user. Are they going to file lawsuits against every kid on YouTube putting up head shot videos? Use of video clips in a review or even in a machinma type deal sounds like it falls within the fair use umbrella of US Copyright law, making this rule unenforceable.

I was sickly pleased to see this though as I could do without these videos on Youtube

Tom “Tsquared” Taylor tweeted, “If this is true, it will put a serious damper on all streaming & montage opportunities + console eSports in general.”

Well, I think it just prevents professional youtubers to create content. The main thing is that you can't make money from the franchise but you can still make content, just no revenue from ads.

Which means most of the good content will cease to exist.

From where I am sitting this is Microsoft shooting them selves in the foot, a lot of this content generates excitement around their games, it also helps create sales, and passionate customers, who will continue to buy their products.

#35 Posted by TheSouthernDandy (3908 posts) -

Frankie from 343 already clarified that this is t actually a big deal. It's not gonna affect dudes streaming on YouTube and whatnot. It's legal jargon to stop companies from making money off other games and apparently has been that way for a while. Put the pitchforks down Internet.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=494947

#36 Posted by DoctorWelch (2774 posts) -

If everyone doesn't know yet, this isn't even a big deal. That policy has been up there for months and someone only just noticed it. The policy is simply in place to have something to fall back on if they need to, but they aren't looking to crack down on youtube channels, that would be a waste of their time.

#37 Posted by big_jon (5744 posts) -

@DoctorWelch: I hope.

#38 Posted by Aetheldod (3642 posts) -

No matter how this ends the dudes at GB have the right to use a certain amount of time of footage for reviewing purposes anyway (the fair usage law if im not mistaken) Also it would be detrimantal to Microsoft to cut the reviwers completely ... free advertisement etc....

#39 Posted by iAmJohn (6128 posts) -

I'd like to see Microsoft try and enforce this.

#40 Edited by KaneRobot (1712 posts) -

This will never be a issue unless it's someone doing something really egregious as far as profiting off their games. I know overreaction on the internet is rare, but hopefully everyone can deal with this in a rational manner.

...oh, wait. That petition is titled "Let Halo 4 Live." Never mind.

#41 Edited by MonetaryDread (2082 posts) -

@big_jon said:

Signed, I generally don't sign petitions, but that is some bull shit.

Doubt it will change anything though.

@MonetaryDread: Your post is mind bogglingly stupid... And you're on a game review site which has potential to be effected negatively by this, while paying for a membership here, I mean you are on a site that literally piggy backs on the creations of other companies aka reviewing, playing, and talking about games in videos to make money.

Yet this company is given permission to use those items so your argument is invalid. Just look at an NDA, that is a piece of paper that you sign saying that you are allowed to disseminate specific information as long as you hold to a predefined disclosure period. If there is no physical NDA signed there is still an implied understanding between the publisher and Giantbomb that there are going to be certain requests that will be adhered to. All Microsoft is saying, hey, you can use are shit, as long as you are using it under the Fair Use policies set forth by the US government (ie, you are allowed to use the footage in any way you want, as long as you aren't gaining cash-money off of them). The only real people that will be hurt by this are people on Youtube making lets-play videos and trying to earn money by sticking an ad in the front, and all that will hapen to them is some bot will remove the video from Youtube. Now I am all for removing ads from the beginning of videos. Remember, you can still make a lets-play video, you just can't make money off of them without talking to Microsoft first.

#42 Edited by Garfield518 (404 posts) -

There's a shitload of misinformation in this thread: it's legal terminology to prevent large companies from using someone else's IP to run their business like they owned the property.

In fact, Frankie from 343 pretty much said the same thing:

"These guidelines have been out there for months. How many of you are posting from jail? We'll get some clarifying messaging out there, but the legalese won't change, because it's legalese. We'll craft a path through the semantic minefield, however."

"As I mentioned in the Halo community thread, these rules actually haven't really changed, and even the updated and clarified text has been up there for months. I assume somebody just noticed this and posted this morning because it sort of blew up. This has always been the Legal status for the IP (and MOST IPs in fact), and as you also already know, nobody is being sued, or in jail, etc etc etc.

The language isn't designed to stop kids streaming their games, or covering their costs, it's designed to stop big companies from using somebody else's IP to run a business.

We'll put together some language that will help community people navigate this easily, and give people workarounds."

Stop spouting venomous bullshit until you learn all of the facts. But oh wait, this is the internet - can't do that.

#43 Posted by Tru3_Blu3 (3223 posts) -

Microsoft being lazy ass holes. Again.

Online
#44 Posted by PufferFiz (1383 posts) -

@Garfield518 said:

There's a shitload of misinformation in this thread: it's legal terminology to prevent large companies from using someone else's IP to run their business like they owned the property.

In fact, Frankie from 343 pretty much said the same thing:

"These guidelines have been out there for months. How many of you are posting from jail? We'll get some clarifying messaging out there, but the legalese won't change, because it's legalese. We'll craft a path through the semantic minefield, however."

"As I mentioned in the Halo community thread, these rules actually haven't really changed, and even the updated and clarified text has been up there for months. I assume somebody just noticed this and posted this morning because it sort of blew up. This has always been the Legal status for the IP (and MOST IPs in fact), and as you also already know, nobody is being sued, or in jail, etc etc etc.

The language isn't designed to stop kids streaming their games, or covering their costs, it's designed to stop big companies from using somebody else's IP to run a business.

We'll put together some language that will help community people navigate this easily, and give people workarounds."

Stop spouting venomous bullshit until you learn all of the facts. But oh wait, this is the internet - can't do that.

Even though this is correct, the language of the rules makes it seem that it is being targeting to users thus making them scared to make new work which no one should ever do.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.