But not the content that is shown. If you make a video of yourself watching game of thrones while the TV is also in the frame you're not going to get through with it.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
AngryJoe receives a Nintendo copyright claim. Hope they enjoyed the ad revenue; Done
- Thread starter Khalifa Jayy
- Start date
Wiktor
Member
This doesn;t make any sense. You are supporting Nintendo's right to make money of their own games, but you think Angry Joe making money off his videos is a problem? He's in full right to remove the vid. Why should Nintendo be allowed to make money from his own work, when they don't show the same courtesy to him?
Breakfast at Noon
Member
...
What if i upload the avengers age of ultron i 1080p but in the corner you can see me watching it..
Hell what about cam jobs of people filming in the cinema, there watching, some are commentating on it..
baphomet
Member
Nope, it's just Nintendo trying to steal money that isn't theirs.
evilromero
Member
Then they're doing it's wrong.
Music companies and artists take advantage of services that identify with a high level of accuracy their songs all over YouTube. This gets reported to your PRO and companies like Rumblefish. Then YT pays a royalty to labels and artists.
7DollarHagane
Banned
I don't see where Nintendo has used this to do what you're claiming.
What they have done is discouraged a petulant, rotten asshole of a personality from profiting off coverage of their material.
Anyone could clearly see that someone like Angry Joe is not the kind of professionalism and personality that Ninendo wants to promote. Maybe other companies are fine with him but Nintendo is like "no thanks". And that's their choice to do so.
Other channels like GameXplain have criticisms of Nintendo games and policies as well but they are professional about it. You are allowed to speak critically of nintendo, you aren't allowed to be a crying baby throwing a tantrum for show.
……forgetit
Member
They don't if I remember correctly.
baphomet
Member
Games and movies arent the same thing.
Moral Panic
Member
There is no dangerous precedent. Rather the same precedent that stops the website from putting up half the film with commentary over it is the same one applied here.
bitesnintendog
Member
So do the youtubers that Nintendo gives the game to have the same problems? It seemed like they gave a fair amount of copies of Mario Party out and even promoted quite a few of them on their own page. It seems odd to give them out to a bunch of professional youtubers only to tell them they can't make money on the content they make with it.
Breakfast at Noon
Member
There protected under the same act.
R_thanatos
Member
It's for everything.
Horrible comparison.
TV shows and movies are made for the purpose of being watched. Video games are made for the purpose of being played.
A gamer creating a video of himself having a lot of fun with a video game isn't going to negatively impact the video game -- people who are watching it still aren't getting the true experience.
No, I don't think him making money off his videos is a problem.
I think the mentality that he DESERVES the money, as in, because he did the work he now is entitled to a check for infinity dollars because "I did work", is wrong.
And that pulling the video down because he can't make money off of it, despite it already being completed and uploaded, is him throwing a fit. Of course he's well within his right to do it. But it's a sad move to pull.
A game like Walking Dead or Heavy Rain sure gets close considering how 90% of it are cutscenes.
Movies are passive, games are interactive. A video of a game is an entirely different experience than actually playing it, so this analogy doesn't really fit.
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
So if he records the footage and talks over it, it's cool?
SneakyStephan
Banned
I don't have an example of what you're saying so this might be inaccurate, but perhaps they're trying to explain why the company made this decision or whatever, rather than why you should be happy about it.
Like there are definitely extenuating situations where the right decision for the company isn't nevessarily the best one for the consumers.
I guess to the question of "WHY?", the answer would be "for clarity's sake"?
And I mean... for the record we do have developers/publishers and I can only assume shareholders on GAF
Oh I know, and that explains why some people go with that angle, but the growing trend over the past 2 years or so has been that many people (most of whom will not be either) are also adopting these interests and values.
Like it's a culture or peer pressure thing.
It's just fuckin weird tbh to go in a thread and have it read like a shareholder meeting and to see people base their opinions on anything but their own interests and seem to often completely forget about their own interests in the process.
Beelzebufo
Banned
Do we know if he applied for the partnership and got rejected or something? Because it does seem strange that a 40 minute video about how mediocre Skyward Sword is compared to past games is fine but a Let's Play isn't, or how Gamexplains Let's Plays are fine, but I think it's best to not immediately jump to "they don't want him because he's a fucker"
Yeah that is kind of weird haha, it's the same kind of thinking that gets you places like the largest Obamacare-dependent county in America being >90% Republican lol.
Maybe it's just to add an extra layer to how baffling a decision like this is? Like "and the worst part is that these videos are good for them, and they still block them!"
TheSlySoul
Member
I do not think so. They seem to have ground rules with review copies. If you buy the game yourself and stream/record it, then nothing is safe.
Moral Panic
Member
Books are made for being read. Does that mean I can make an audio book? Or can I make a live action play of the books content? I need a licence from the copyright holder to do these things.
7DollarHagane
Banned
Until the governing bodies for the countries relevant to the discussion decide they aren't the same thing, they are actually treated the same way.
Copyrighted works owned by someone other than the people making the videos. Those people making the videos have no right to any money made using said copyrighted works.
If that means they don't cover those works anymore and do something else, so be it. But that's not the point.
I'm not arguing that Nintendo is doing the right thing, I'm arguing that Nintendo is in the right with what they are doing. If they don't like Angry Joe and don't want him to make money while featuring their games, he doesn't have a single point to argue to stop it.
baphomet
Member
They're both also considered media.
Neither of which has anything to do with this topic.
Breakfast at Noon
Member
If this is totally the case the why do a lot people watch games been played and not play them?
Nintendo needs visibility, especially with the crowd of gamers who watch YouTube videos and Twitch and tend to skew younger. Nintendo consoles are barely relevant, these YouTube policies just make it unlikely anyone is going to make content based on their games. Mario Party 10 sales will probably be pretty disappointing regardless, but Nintendo needs all the help they can get.
And for the idiots who don't know how *good* YouTube channels work, they add to the value of the recorded game footage by commenting on it. People go to these channels and watch these videos because of the commentary or acting that goes on in the videos not because there is footage of a game being played. Game Grumps, Angry Joe, etc. get views because they're personalities that execute types of content and use the games as a basis for that content creation.
It is incredibly idiotic and disingenuous to call these people lazy or suggest they sit on their ass all day "playing games". There is a significant amount of [pre]production work that goes into those videos; script writing, editing, etc. They earn their money and it is 100% fair for them to cover what they want to cover.
And for the idiots who don't know how *good* YouTube channels work, they add to the value of the recorded game footage by commenting on it. People go to these channels and watch these videos because of the commentary or acting that goes on in the videos not because there is footage of a game being played. Game Grumps, Angry Joe, etc. get views because they're personalities that execute types of content and use the games as a basis for that content creation.
It is incredibly idiotic and disingenuous to call these people lazy or suggest they sit on their ass all day "playing games". There is a significant amount of [pre]production work that goes into those videos; script writing, editing, etc. They earn their money and it is 100% fair for them to cover what they want to cover.
Another horrible comparison -- you are telling the same story via all three examples. The story is the most important thing here.
Sir Blaming
Member
Games is non linear while movies will stay on a linear line.
It means you are not going to play something the same way like you did at any other time or even how others are going to. This of course is unless the game is Order 1886 with its boss fights.
SlowRevolution
Member
Yeah I don't think this is it.
Mysterious
Banned
Lmao what the fuck did I just read hahaha
Moral Panic
Member
A video of you playing the game is telling the same story.
evilromero
Member
Video games are copyrighted material. Everyone in this thread is intentionally skirting around the very clear issue of copyright law and that a creator has every right to monetize from that. It's a black and white issue. If you have a problem take it up with the US Congress. I don't hear bitching like this about the film or music industry anymore, but because someone enjoys getting attention for playing games they think they deserve the ad revenue? Ten years ago artist and movie companies simply had YT TAKE down the video. They smartened up and now monetize from. Nintendo isn't extended that same right?
Generally, every video that incorporates Nintendo's IP gets monetized by Nintendo (they'll place their own ads on it and won't share revenue) unless:
The user already has a prior agreement with Nintendo and is exempt from the Content ID checks.
The user is a member of a YouTube Network that has an agreement with Nintendo and thus their channel should become exempt from ContentID checks.
Or a user becomes a member of Nintendo's revenue share program.
And I assume some people have disputed the claims and been given the pass, are in specific promotional agreements with Nintendo, etc.
In the case of Gamexplain, I'd guess their channel was exempt.
……forgetit
Member
I wouldn't know, ask them. But it's still obviously different, you can't really be denying that right?
You still aren't getting the gaming experience though (the reason why the story is being told in the form of a video game) because you aren't playing the game.
This also doesn't include the tons of other games that don't really have stories and are made for pick up and play sessions.
TheSlySoul
Member
Yeah, the movie/music comparisons make no sense. A fair comparison would be if you recorded yourself playing a board game. Board James seems to not have any claims...
If I were to draw this many conclusions from an automated bot matching audio/visual cues I would swear Sega just hated their entire fanbase with the elicense debacle.
Breakfast at Noon
Member
Na not denying it.. just thought i would join in this bullshit argument lol
7DollarHagane
Banned
Yup. The Youtube freeride is over - it is a large, corporate controlled entity now that has to play by the rules.
Years ago it was the wild west and anything goes, but that has changed. Google is not about to get sued so that Angry Joe can have a temper tantrum about Mario.
If they want freedom from copyright strikes go do their own thing. Don't rely on a content providing service like YouTube.
See how well that worked out for channels like Classic Game Room.
Of course Nintendo has the right. It's just that exercising that right like they did in this case is an idiotic backwards decision.
Also for the people suggesting that YouTubers make certain types of videos "because they owe the fans", when you're suggesting in this kind of situation where Joe can't monetize the video you're basically asking Joe to work his fulltime job without getting paid. Jealously or not, making these videos, editing them, and hosting them on his channel is his full time job. You can't just ask someone to burn part of their work week and income because you think they owe you.
evilromero
Member
This is absolutely the silliest distinction I've read regarding trying to suss out why video game footage operates outside the boundaries of copyright law.
There is absolutely no distinction in copyright law whether the creative work is interactive or not. It's a creative work and it falls under protection. Case closed. Like I said, if you disagree with our current copyright law, take it up with the government.
call_kotaku
Member
The problem is that Nintendo is the only company that wants to be paid for the privilege of promoting their game
Nintendo having the mentality that their games deserve coverage is also wrong, and honestly the one thing you can blame AngryJoe for doing is making a Nintendo video when their policies were already established months ago and all the popular youtubers stopped making videos about their games.
Again, Nintendo fans shouldn't cheer on their company for putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage, even if you hate random people on the internet.
I don't know what Nintendo thinks really, none of us do. But this is what I believe their stance on this is:
1. Nintendo feels they have the full ownership right over videos that extensively uses their content (which they do, though some commentated Let's Plays arguably might exist in somewhat of a grey zone).
2. Their natural policy at this point is by not letting anyone make money off of what they think is theirs.
3. An exception to this is those they think are good "partners". These are either trustworthy sites like media sites (IGN, Gamespot etc.), YouTubers they like (ProJared, Lamarr Wilson etc.) or people who sign onto their Partnership Program.
I don't think it's that complicated, really. They simply don't want people like Angry Joe making money off of Nintendo-games, while they are happy to support others by letting them (even gifting them with Nintendo-stuff, so they will cover them). Maybe they do remove some videos, if they deem them harmful to Nintendo, but that they don't find his videos to be so (which they definitely shouldn't).
Daffy Duck
Member
The problem is you have some companies who don't give a shit and those that do (Nintendo).
KnightHart
Member
You should read some of the other threads about this stuff. You really get the impression a lot of people in this community seriously dislike the stuff Youtubers do in general. But then at the same time a lot of them are cool with Giant Bomb and their form of video content. A weird double standard, but even so, video based content is still the way to go now a days
Like, if you were to put it into a Order or Chaos spectrum, they'd probably all lean towards Order.
axisofweevils
Holy crap! Today's real megaton is that more than two people can have the same first name.
This is my take on the situation.
Guy that rarely covered Nintendo uploads video in January.
Is angry Nintendo monetise it. Rants about it.
Asks his loyal fans to buy him a Wii U. They do.
Four months later, he uploads another Nintendo video, this time played on the Wii U his fans bought.
Nintendo monetise it again! ( Shocking news! What are the chances?! /s )
Rants about it. Deletes video so nobody can see it.
Guy that rarely covered Nintendo uploads video in January.
Is angry Nintendo monetise it. Rants about it.
Asks his loyal fans to buy him a Wii U. They do.
Four months later, he uploads another Nintendo video, this time played on the Wii U his fans bought.
Nintendo monetise it again! ( Shocking news! What are the chances?! /s )
Rants about it. Deletes video so nobody can see it.
TheSlySoul
Member
People made excuses for NA Wave 4 Amiibo.
Nothing surprises me anymore.