Can GB no longer use Capcom games in Premium content.

Capcom just released a new video policy

https://www.capcom.com/video-policy/

It pretty explicitly says you can't stream Capcom games behind a gated paid subscription.

II. NO COMMERCIALIZATION

• Non-Commercial Use: We do not allow Capcom content and other materials to be used to make money or to gain any other financial benefit except through permissible monetization described below. You may not limit to paid access, sell, or license your content that includes our game content to others for payment of any kind. In particular, we do not allow you to create new content using our game if a paid subscription is required for people to access our specific content.

• Permissible Monetization: You may monetize through partner programs and/or advertising from YouTube, Twitch, Facebook or other video sharing services. Collecting voluntary contribution, such as through SuperChat on YouTube and Bits on Twitch, is permitted as long as your video is also available for free to the public on YouTube, Twitch, Facebook, Twitter or other video sharing services.

Does this sound like what I think it sounds like?

Definitely sounds like it. Was always a matter of time before games followed other media.

I guess no more fighting games on UPF, or Resident Evil.. or Monster Hunter.. and a bunch of other stuff.

I'm not sure we should be speculating about this right now. They are a professional site. If they choose to play a game on their premium service, it's probably because they've already discussed it with someone over at Capcom. I could be wrong but it seems a little odd to think that professional sites like this and Gamespot can't have content around Capcom games. This stuff seems to be about keeping low level streamers from monetizing their content without prior contact with the company and their legal staff. Still, if they can't, whoops, Jason just streamed Rise's demo on a lowkey UPF. Fight him.

At least it specifies "new content" so it shouldn't be some sort of retroactive nightmare.

@efesell: That's a salient point. This would of a been a huge nightmare if it was retroactive not just for sites like GB but pretty widespread across the streaming community. Even still this is kind of a big move on Capcoms part, and a huge blow to the streaming communities that use patreon or other tiers.

It probably doesn't kill their coverage of Capcom games, it's just now everyone has to tie that video content with a feature that's free. Like it's wild that going forward if GB wanted to do a feature of a full playthrough of any Capcom game it would have to be a free one. So Endurance Run, Quick Look or nothing? Not unless they get permission obviously. Man some crazy news here though.

would public videos (capcom related) on the site still be possible if monetization is still happening via on-site advertisements?

I wonder if this restricts embedding the approved public youtube video.

No, the language sounds like monetizing public videos is still a-ok. So long as the general public can access and watch the video without a subscription of some kind, monetization is allowed.

"You may monetize through partner programs and/or advertising from YouTube, Twitch, Facebook or other video sharing services. Collecting voluntary contribution, such as through SuperChat on YouTube and Bits on Twitch, is permitted as long as your video is also available for free to the public on YouTube, Twitch, Facebook, Twitter or other video sharing services."

So those guidelines are very clearly directed at Youtube, Twitch, etc. Curious how that would impact a private company with its own private video services.

Capcom can say they'll move to take down your videos if they violate their policy because those big platforms don't put up a fair use fight. However Giant Bomb would more than likely get a cease and desist if anything. Also, Giant Bomb's relationship with Capcom might impact how Capcom chooses to enforce their policy on the site.

Remember that this policy isn't entirely legally binding. This area of copyright is still the wild west and Capcom is just testing to see how much they can control the new frontier of media.

Also, I'm a dumb dumb and don't know shit so I might be wrong.

@finaldasa: I don't think these guidelines do anything to Youtube or Twitch, the vast majority of monetization on those platforms qualifies as permissible per the wording up there.

If I were to guess I'd say what it's targeting specifically is Patreon, though I wonder why they'd go so hard at them all of a sudden.

1. This is not legally binding.

2. Capcom is a lazy company run by idiots.

3. How would they even find out unless they paid to see said content.

@efesell: They're going after Patreon because if you're demonetized by another platform you can still get paid through Patreon. And a portion of that seems aimed at modders they don't approve of.

I genuinely don't see how the distinction of free versus subscription actually matters. This just stinks of Capcom trying to put themselves in the middle of anything that uses their "content" and negotiate partner deals with platforms.

Or some dumb and weird powerplay for some other reason. Take your pick.

@efesell: While I can't imagine it's the biggest concern, you can do "Members Only" streams on YouTube, which require people to pay for a membership to the channel. I didn't even know it was a thing until seeing some VTuber stuff in recent months, but maybe that's part of it?

@finaldasa: Yeah doing this to shut down modders makes a lot of sense.

Is this like offensive or something? I think its a pretty obvious question and it applies to all streaming.

Between stuff like this and for example, indie games asking you not to stream the whole game please please, there's still a lot of things in the air with streaming. I wont' be surprised if we look back on the period up to now as the wild west of streaming and it becomes much more regulated henceforth.

@finaldasa: This sentence specifically "In particular, we do not allow you to create new content using our game if a paid subscription is required for people to access our specific content." - makes it clear this is aimed at Patreon and general websites and has very little to do with YouTube where no content is gated behind a paywall. The legality of it is iffy of course because as much as they can influence YouTube or Twitch and companies have in fact done this plenty of times before, it will be harder for them to enforce it on sites like GiantBomb or.. well I don't really know other gaming sites that lock content behind paywalls. As usual they can hang the threat of getting blacklisted by Capcom over GiantBomb although this has increasingly become a non-factor as the site has moved away from "day one" content in pretty much every way.

I assume that the thought process for Capcom goes somewhat like this:

If a crew is putting the playthrough of a Capcom game behind a paywall (one that Capcom doesn't benefit from), this crew is creating leverage based on a property that's not theirs. `You are interested in watching us play this game? Pay us and you will see this game.`

Now certainly there are people that would pay up no matter which game is being streamed, but you'll always get some people that specifically care about the capcom property that's being played and sign up because of that. Capcom thinks it's unfair that this crew is getting paid based on a Capcom game being part of the deal. The people that didn't sub to watch a Contradiction playthrough might see that Megaman is on the menu and hit the subscribe button because they love that game. In other words: The inclusion of a Capcom game added value to the membership to this group.

By making a blanket statement that all your gamefootage has to be publically available for free, any capcom footage that gets created on the internet is easily accessible. Which boosts the exposure of their products compared to a situation where content is locked to a smaller amount of folk. Secondly, if they truly feel that it's bullshit that third parties are getting away with charging people to have the privilege of watching them play a Capcom game behind closed doors, this puts an end to that. `You want to play Capcom games? You don't get to restrict who gets to see it. Our games are meant to be seen by anyone.`

Then again, i can also see them be inspired by the music industry and follow this up with some sort of Capcom licencing deal where 3rd parties can put some money towards them if they want to keep using capcom footage for a private group. A new revenue stream for hardly any work.

I’m pretty much always going to be on the side of people doing the actual work, here, which is Capcom.

@efesell: @humanity: Maybe I'm out of the loop here, but since when is Patreon a paywall? The vast majority of content creators I'm aware of don't gate their primary content behind being a patreon supporter. Typically the only patreon only videos are like Q&As and behind the scenes stuff. The most you'll see stuff gated is that patreon supporters sometimes get to watch a video a few days early.

Patreon is primarily used a means for folks to support creators they like and get tangential benefits, or have target stretch goals for new content and such. Again, maybe I'm just ignorant, but I'm not aware of any major creator that is actually locking it's core content aware for only patreon supporters to access.

The common way Patreon is used would be not really apply to this Capcom policy at all.

@ll_exile_ll: I don’t know enough about Patreon to refute this but because I refuse to admit to being wrong I’ll say.. well no you’re probably right. I had Danny in the back of my mind but I realize now that all his documentaries are widely available and it’s the technical videos he puts up for his Patreons that are gated (if I recall correctly).

Nope they can't.

The only reason game companies allow it is because it's free advertising, so I guess they want to punish people for not getting it out to as many people as possible.

They may be able to get around that by just clipping those bits out and putting them on youtube or free on the site though.

@ll_exile_ll: Patron-only content would definitely fall under the territory Capcom has staked out here. Capcom's position is as such: if Capcom-derived content is weight on the scale that would convince someone to pay a third party a required fee for access to that content, Capcom isn't on board with that. I haven't read anything outside of this thread, but I imagine timed exclusive content could also be interpreted as being in violation during that exclusivity period.

@ll_exile_ll: Whether it's the most common use of platform I couldn't say.. I'm with you I kind of doubt it.

But clearly something has gotten stuck in their craw about it, and Patreon is the primary thing these sort of restrictions would apply to. There are Sub Only Twitch options I suppose but I don't feel like that's used very often.

This is certainly one version of the story that Capcom might be operating under but in no world is this a practical problem that is worth any of this. It's bonkers that this is anything of an active concern other than them moving the goal post to claim control or a payday from coverage.

Like, even if we believe the premise that Capcom is suggesting here. How is the paywall not also just working like the same free advertising that any other stream would. Except, conveniently, they don't get some arbitrary cut from a brand deal.

This all reminds me of the dumb shit who tried to argue that streamers should be paying devs for the priveledge of playing their games online. FOH

Like I said, the vast majority of Patreon only content I'm aware of is more along the lines of Q&As and behind the scenes type stuff, supplemental stuff to a creator's main offerings. That type of content isn't likely to feature Capcom's properties. The biggest impact I see this having on Patreon is that creator's won't be able to hold back Capcom related content for stuff like the 3 day early access for subscribers. Not exactly shaking the core of the Patreon foundations.

Sounds like in GB's case they just couldn't make Capcom content premium. It does sound like a headache to figure out with the legal teams.

Not claiming to be an expert on US law, but isn't it kinda meant for both aspects? IP law offers a pathway for media to end up in the public domain after a certain time, where others can create their own works based on the original work. But IP law also serves to give the copyright holder protection over their creation and prevents third parties from copying or invoking the work for their own benefit during it's protection period. Sadly that period literally takes a lifetime + 70 years in the US, which feels way too long to me.

But that some sort of protection is desirable for creators makes sense to me. And that should also be a good thing for the small-time creator. Without, a big player like Epic could watch Among Us blow up and put 50 employees in a room for a day to copy it in Fortnite. I'd hate for the original devs to not enjoy the full spoils of their idea coming to fruition after a long risky development period and then see a bigger party spot the hype and recreate it while keeping their population away from the original creators for a fraction of the cost.

Naturally Fortnite did eventually come with their own 'Among Us' mode (The Spy Within), but they did have to create their own assets and couldn't directly invoke Among Us. This means that the original devs work remains a viable alternative that they can build upon and create unique merchandizing around. That wouldn't be the case without any kind of IP law i'm afraid.

That the current implementation of IP Law is bad, full of loopholes or outdated in certain cases i can get behind though. Aren't Amazon pretty much checking the trend for popular products and then re-creating those items while prizing out or throwing the original product off the platform? That sounds like something that the law SHOULD prevent from happening. At least when we're talking about megacorporations of Amazon's size, where their platform is synonymous with online shopping to many. Or during the moba days when every mobile moba art refers to league or dota heroes.

As with any of these policies coming out of video game companies in Japan they would need to be adjudicated in American courts - if Capcom wishes. While Capcom might send theramsing letters to a YouTuber they woudl have to think if it wrth it to go after...whomever owns GB this month? It is still Red Ventures marketing, I guess?

I would assume if Capcom did send a letter to Red Ventures lawyers, likely after any reasonable negations had broken down, Jeff would say, "Whatever dudes...it is your choice if you don't want your games played on OUR videos." If it came to both sides having lawyer talking, I sure Jeff would roll his eyes - he is used to this sort of petty lawyer-generated shit.

Fair use is a doctrine in the law of the United States that permits limited use of copyrighted material without having to first acquire permission from the copyright holder. Fair use is one of the limitations to copyright intended to balance the interests of copyright holders with the public interest in the wider distribution and use of creative works by allowing as a defense to copyright infringement claims certain limited uses that might otherwise be considered infringement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

I don't know if GB takes the position that their videos are protected by fair use, but if they do, this should change absolutely nothing.

The future is boring and depressing .

Insert tim turi joke here.

It does seem like this policy specifically prohibits putting any video of a Capcom game behind a paywall, but I question how enforceable it is (or if Capcom will ever actually try to enforce it).

@ripelivejam: I think he's working at Playstation now.

@brian_: Yep, he's been on the Playstation blog podcast in recent times.

Also, how long until every other company does the same?

I guess if they wanted to have a Capcom game in a premium video, they could just put that section up for free separately as well

I recommend that anytime a Capcom game comes up in a premium video that they just cut away to video of Skullomania.

Huh. That's crappy :(

They can use other games though, right? Sooooooo what's stopping them from doing that? Because it sure is a desert out there for premium stuff.

I wonder if the transformative nature of covering a game as a preview counters this point, despite how scary these rules sound Capcom aren't trying to stop people streaming and otherwise covering their games, just preventing the edge cases.

The Kung-Fu Master Jackie Chan isn't made by Capcom, soooo what's the problem?

You can definitely paywall videos on youtube though? Membership videos that require a subscription. Seems to me this is aimed pretty directly at that.

On some level being videogame critics gives giant bomb a pretty strong fair use argument

@kaname: I wasn't aware that YouTube had membership videos that required any sort of subscription. All I know is that you can get an Ad-free version of YouTube.

How will I ever find out what Resident Evil 4 and whatever the least popular edition of Street Fighter 2 is are like?

Capcom doesn't really have much of a legal leg to stand on here, but it'll be enough to spook some people into taking their content down, and that's good enough for them. We really shouldn't let this kind of thing slide though, video game companies have gone too long thinking they have rights like this.