freenudemacusers
Member
you're new here. get used to 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
cheezcake
Member
Do you honestly think 20 minute videos with fragmented clips of gameplay from generally 8+ hour long games is equivalent to putting up a video of half a movie with commentary over it?
Moral Panic
Member
You aren't getting the intended experience vs the book from the live action play either. Loads of other games also have music and sounds which is also usually copyrighted.
There are people who watch through youtube entire videogames and don't end up buying them. How much this impact sells or not is arguable (comparable to the question how much piracy affects sales if the perpetrator couldn't afford to buy all these movies in the first place).
I don't doubt that youtube coverage can have positive effects, but I'm also fairly certain that it can have negative ones as well.
And does copyright law actually differentiate between movies and videogames?
Breakfast at Noon
Member
Anyway Nintendo can do what they damn well please, it does not effect me and i really do not give a fuck, but i am curious on this part though will nintendo allow a video with criticism towards there product? Or are they only allowing videos that praise them?
How is it silly? There's obviously more value lost in a video, movie, or album being streamed in comaprison to video game footage being streamed.
7DollarHagane
Banned
What I see is that Joe is asking for a full-time job using other people's content to make money without having to partner with those content makers.
Maybe that full time job isn't going to be viable forever? Not all jobs are.
I can make paper airplanes for 40 hours a week but if nobody buys them it's not a job.
Beelzebufo
Banned
The people saying "a game is obviously different from a movie/music", I get it. That makes perfect sense and is reality intuitive.
But does that kind of argument hold up in a copyright court under the current laws?
But does that kind of argument hold up in a copyright court under the current laws?
Eyemus Lutt
Member
To the people defending the youtubers making let's plays (not counting reviews) and monetizing it, do you think it should be alright to stream yourself watching a movie and commenting on it like a riff track? My main issue is some of these guys just play a game and then say meaningless things over the top and act like they added a lot to that video content.
I don't think anyone is arguing that copyright doesn't allow this, I think people are arguing that it's bad policy for Nintendo to actually claim it in cases like these. And people are thankfully free to disagree with corporate policies.
Sad but true, the misguided sense of loyalty people feel to these multi-billion dollar multinationals is just the most bizarre thing.
I'm pretty sure I have over 900. You are correct in that it does nothing except prevent you from monetizing that content.
Breakfast at Noon
Member
Spoonyexperiment wanted do just this, but was not allowed.
I totally agree. It's hilarious that people are defending Nintendo on this.
Moral Panic
Member
I was talking about let's plays. A commentary video with fragmented clips of gameplay to illustrate a point wouldn't strike me as the same thing.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
He worked to put it together, why shouldn't he be paid? It's his show, and his subscription base! He previews, reviews, and does interviews just like any other site, yet it's a problem with Gaffers because he's on YouTube. Well that and we're dealing with Saint Nintendo that's always in the right.
I don't get the whole watching other people play..........not even a little bit. Bores me to death.
Either way, isn't he making money off of other people's stuff?
I think it's kind of funny fussing about it. It probably doesn't hurt Nintendo one bit, but he would probably pocket money from a wider crowd if he did Nintendo gaming too.
Either way, isn't he making money off of other people's stuff?
I think it's kind of funny fussing about it. It probably doesn't hurt Nintendo one bit, but he would probably pocket money from a wider crowd if he did Nintendo gaming too.
If the content is being used to create something which constitutes a new work or commentary on the original work, it's likely to fall into the territory of Fair Use, which oversteps the Copyright interests of another content creator. If people are going to say the new work was neither of those, I can understand that outlook.
How much money or exposure a secondary work does or doesn't generate has nothing to do with the Fair Use designation. That choice would be completely on Nintendo's part, even if it seems like a bad decision. The topic here seems to be how misguided that decision is in the long run (not simply the legal aspects). If a company goes out of its way to be at odds with community-produced media, audiences will react to that. One of those reactions is to take the policy at face value and ignore the works in question.
How much money or exposure a secondary work does or doesn't generate has nothing to do with the Fair Use designation. That choice would be completely on Nintendo's part, even if it seems like a bad decision. The topic here seems to be how misguided that decision is in the long run (not simply the legal aspects). If a company goes out of its way to be at odds with community-produced media, audiences will react to that. One of those reactions is to take the policy at face value and ignore the works in question.
TheSlySoul
Member
It is an odd one to claim because he was singing nothing but praises. I guess because he put ads with it.
SuperGamingBros did a video series on it and were harsh, but did not put ads on it. Seems the video is untouched.
My guess is that it was enforcing the Content Program thingie.
7DollarHagane
Banned
And just to be clear i think their policies are ass backwards to the stone age and they would be smart just to let people run free with their stuff so that it gets promoted among the younger generations that watch youtube so much.
I can say that what they are doing is stupid but i won't say they are doing something wrong.
And I won't say that someone like Angry Joe has a right to be angry about what they decide to do. It's not a secret that Nintendo has this policy. And it's happened to him before. Someone bangs their head in the wall not looking where they're walking, okay. they do it again and again, you wonder why they expect the wall not to be there.
MasterMongoose
Member
I can't believe how many people are stuck on the ethics and legality of streaming a game for revenue.
It is the current and future of games culture. If you don't agree, you don't know any little kids. In one example, my 5 year old nephew only learned about Minecraft and Luigi's Mansion 2 through Youtube, and he ended up wanting both so badly for Christmas even though my brother couldn't figure out why he cared about Luigi. That was a sale that never would have happened without Youtube.
Every Publisher that isn't Nintendo already knows this. They should be (and are) flocking to the streamers to get as much publicity for their game as possible. Sure, there's a fine line with games like Heavy Rain/Walking Dead, and those do feel like a different gray area than your typical Battlefield or Mario Party. I'm not sure how to fairly handle those, because you can't just start drawing arbitrary distinctions.
And as a last note, at least these streams archive footage of the games for posterity. Our medium sucks at keeping history. We care about the latest and greatest and focus so much on it that games from 3 years ago feel irrelevant.
It is the current and future of games culture. If you don't agree, you don't know any little kids. In one example, my 5 year old nephew only learned about Minecraft and Luigi's Mansion 2 through Youtube, and he ended up wanting both so badly for Christmas even though my brother couldn't figure out why he cared about Luigi. That was a sale that never would have happened without Youtube.
Every Publisher that isn't Nintendo already knows this. They should be (and are) flocking to the streamers to get as much publicity for their game as possible. Sure, there's a fine line with games like Heavy Rain/Walking Dead, and those do feel like a different gray area than your typical Battlefield or Mario Party. I'm not sure how to fairly handle those, because you can't just start drawing arbitrary distinctions.
And as a last note, at least these streams archive footage of the games for posterity. Our medium sucks at keeping history. We care about the latest and greatest and focus so much on it that games from 3 years ago feel irrelevant.
SlowRevolution
Member
video games are not movies.
with rifftrax, there's the alternative of "here's the mp3, the movie's always the same so just get the audio and video in sync". games don't have that option.
evilromero
Member
Explain to me why a video game is not a creative work?
This is a very real law that you're trying to argue against. You are how old? Copyright law has been around for hundreds of years and even recently been strengthened. Content creators (Nintendo, not Angry Joe), are protected by this law to monetize from their creative works. If Angry Joe is monetizing from copyrighted material and not compensating the copyright holder, then he is breaking the law. Do you understand now?
If you don't like the law then do something about it.
Gunslinger
Member
Some people already do that with DSP videos. They just add their own music, make minor changes and upload it on YouTube. It apparently falls under fair use. That's why you see so many anti DSP videos on YouTube. Like those this is how you don't play series people upload. I must admit some of those this is how you don't play videos are funny and show how bad DSP is at gaming lol.My response:
Blackage
Member
No other Publisher is doing this besides Nintendo, EA doesn't do it, Ubisoft doesn't do it, Activision doesn't do it, Square doesn't do it, hell even Sega doesn't do it.
I could understand if this was a polarizing issue, and it was a bunch of different companies/publishers on both sides of the isle, but again this is Nintendo being Nintendo and being different vs every other major publisher letting Youtubers do their thing.
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
I think the one area I get confused on is why LP are OK on "traditional" gaming websites like GB or IGN, but frowned upon on YT.
I also agree with the person in the thread who said it sorta feels like everyone is being an asshole in this situation on both sides.
I also agree with the person in the thread who said it sorta feels like everyone is being an asshole in this situation on both sides.
SneakyStephan
Banned
If you want to see what a game plays like what other option do you have?
Trailers almost never have gameplay in them anymore (always cutscenes, or some overly scripted 'gameplay'), most review videos have people that suck a bag of dicks at a game.
Like watch some kotaku or IGN review play metal gear rising in their review and you'll have no idea what the game plays like.
The majority of games have no demos anymore these days (a real loss)
So what do you do if you want to see some unedited, unscripted gameplay by someone who is actually able to show the game mechanics? You look up a video of someone you know is decent at a particular genre of games.
At least that's what I use it for, I'll watch 10 minutes of gameplay to see if it looks like the gameplay has some meat on its bones.
I'd rather have demos back tbh but this is the next 'best' thing to help allow you to make an informed purchase.
Then you have personalities like totalbisquit, who filled the gap that shitty reviews have left unfilled in recent years by talking about game settings, bugs, UI, features etc for 15 minutes for each game on pc.
When the average review these days is too busy hyping a game to talk about that important stuff then his videos serve a purpose. That's why he got so many viewers.
DoktorEvil
Banned
To be clear, he's barely a LPer. He makes reviews of newly released video games and rants and raves over them for half an hour or so, albeit sometimes entertainingly.
His videos and his gimmick can be fun sometimes, but for the most part border on grating. Angry Video Gamer is not new or innovative.
and this is why I'll hardly shed a tear for most self-employed YouTubers. They have plenty of opportunities to monetize that aren't from Youtube ad revenue, including merchandise, external site hosting/subscription fees, gift bags/mailbags, etc. They are self-employed professionals that can find multiple ways to make a living.
I read the idea of a digital tip jar that someone posted another channel does. I rather like that idea and it can remove Youtube and Google out of the equation.
If he doesn't have a contract stating he's entitled to money, then the only fair thing to say is "he could be paid", not "he should be paid".
call_kotaku
Member
I think it's all automated.
Besides, if they wanted to actively police the opinions expressed, there are more subtle and effective ways of doing it (like EA did with BF4)
baphomet
Member
You are acting like Angry Joes video isn't the epitome of fair use. He is well within his rights to make money off of his video of him playing and discussing a Nintendo product.
Revengineer
Unconfirmed Member
Oh Joe. I like you much better when you don't respond like a teenager.
Ivan Amiibo
Banned
welp, it goes both ways. Nintendo got to do their little legal thing, at the cost of having their game not seen by a potential million+ people, for free, and bad PR. It's not like he needs to stream their vids to survive.
Daffy Duck
Member
Indeed, it's very odd how it's Nintendo out in the cold on this one.
But corporations are also people!
That's the analogy these days and it's beyond dumb.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
Yup, everyone looks bad here.
Nintendo's arrogance and pride is probably hurting themselves, and Youtubers acting like spoiled children.
Furfuryl Furforate
Banned
Do you have a source on that, I don't follow him much but I watched a stream right after he got it and it seemed like it was initiated by his community.
Why do people exist with different opinions on a forum? It's a nonsense.
TheDarkKnight774
Member
Nintendo is always behind the technology times. Remember their stance on renting games?
I hope the people defending Nintendo in this thread never rented a nintendo game!
I hope the people defending Nintendo in this thread never rented a nintendo game!
TheSlySoul
Member
Yeah, under parody it is protected.
If someone wanted to take Angry Joe reviews and riff them, then not much can be done.
It is why remixes are protected and Bad Lip Reading exists.
No disageement here, I don't think video game footage are different than movies regarding copyright law.
The difference I was trying to point out is that games, unlike movies, demonstrably benefit from streaming online. Coverage equals higher sales. This is a proven fact.
Therefore Nintendo has the right to tell Angry Joe to gfto, but they're idiots for doing so.
K, I'm out. Last time I'm saying it:
Whether or not he should be "allowed" to received financial compensation isn't the issue. Of course he should be "allowed" to get money. But "allowed" and "entitled" are two entirely different things.
He's not entitled to getting paid just because he worked hard to put it together. Because he's not "working" for anyone but himself. Entitlement implies that just because he "did" the work, he now HAS to get paid.
In a normal employer/employee relationship, of course that's how it works. I'm contracted to work 40 hours a week, and I receive payment for doing this work. I'm entitled to the pay I was promised for completing my end of the contract.
But self employed means that whether he works 1 hour or 100, no one is there to guarantee him any money. There is no magic contract with the general public that guarantees him easy cash. That's my problem.
Stop trying to shift this into a "GAF HATES LPers" mentality or "NDF AT IT AGAIN". I can't believe how much of that can get by without even so much as a warning from mods.
evilromero
Member
This is a black and white issue. The emotional response is ironically coming from those who support guys like Angry Joe. I'm not arguing if it's right or wrong. In this country at this time, Nintendo has every right to monetize from their creative works. They are no different from authors, artists, independent filmmakers, labels, publishers or studios that have to fight to protect their works.
The only argument being made that I can see is, "let Angry Joe make money from playing Mario Party with his friend because it's also free advertisement for Nintendo."
It's amazing how people still defend this stupid Nintendo policy. "Oh, HE was using Nintendo's property to make money". Look, if you buy a Ford car, it's yours. You can do whatever you want. You can show it to whoever you want, how many times you want. You can use it to work, you can make money with it. Do you think it's fine if, let's say, Ford decides that you can't make money using the car they made, unless you split your profit with 'em? Imagine if Nikon and Canon decide to take down videos made with their cameras from Youtube?
It's because of this kind of attitude that we have to deal with abusive crap, like unfinished games, bad DLCs, pre-order bonuses, Origin spying everyone, etc.
It's because of this kind of attitude that we have to deal with abusive crap, like unfinished games, bad DLCs, pre-order bonuses, Origin spying everyone, etc.
Cbajd5
Member
They (more likely than not) have an established agreement with Nintendo, who values their direct contributions to the exposure of their products to such a degree that they also provide them with pre-release copies of games/systems, invitations to press only events, and all other sorts of cool stuff that we're not cool enough for, that allows them to have more freedom on collecting ad revenue while promoting their products.
However, they're still under restrictions in what videos/information they can release (especially before a game is launched, see Kid Icaurs Uprising) but have proven valuable enough that they get special treatment. However, some Youtubers are part of this as well, so its a matter of being valuable enough to Nintendo that you get special treatment.
Under them are people who participate in the Content Creators Program, who get a split of revenue with Nintendo from Youtube. They also have some restrictions on what they can monetize, mainly so that Nintendo doesn't accidentally monetize content they don't wholly own. (Which is obvious through the lack of some major games being on their Whitelist like Smash Bros and Pokemon. Although I don't get how Wii Street U works with this except that they're relying on Google to remove all that stuff from their maps, which i guess they have permission to use/monetize.) These people don't really get special treatment, but since they're willing to work with Nintendo they can still get a split of the profit from ads. (Since Nintendo still has to pay people to go through the Videos and make sure they're actually on the whitelist.)
Then there's people who don't participate in any of these, or are members of a program that works with Nintendo. Their content probably will be flagged by Content ID if they use Nintendo IPs (such as music or characters) directly from their games. At this point Nintendo gets the advertising revenue, as the video maker refuses to work with Nintendo, and thus they have no guarantee they aren't just profiting off of Nintendo IPs with no work put into the video. (Content ID is an automatic system that gives ownership control to companies who upload their content to Youtube if it's uploaded by someone else.)
At this point a creator can appeal the Content ID claim, and if its fair use Nintendo probably will reverse the claim manually. However doing so when it's not fair use could result in a copyright strike as mandated by Youtube (since if it's not fair use it's copyright violating content, and strikes are one of the things that will actually put your account in bad standing with Youtube and can cause your account to be closed if you get too many before they expire after six months and a visit to Youtube's copyright school) so many people don't try and instead complain about it.
Nintendo seems to be more aggressive about all this since they seem to value their IPs a lot more than other game companies. The Content ID system can't discriminate if a video is something that's fair use like a review from something that's just a blatant copyright violation like music uploads with an unrelated video of the game playing in the background.
OKAY I'M DONE WITH THIS LONGISH POST NOW BECAUSE I'M BORED OF IT
NervousXtian
Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
Honestly, this stance is really just jealousy. Why do you give a rip if he makes money doing something that people want to see?
For the guys putting out this kind of content it's actual work.. it's a full-time job. (well maybe part-time.. but point still stands).
If you watch the shows from the people who get the views these days they have to have some kind of production value. This isn't some dude just streaming let's plays all the time getting millions of views and making money.. doesn't work like that.
TheSlySoul
Member
Was that during the SNES era?
I was too young to care then.
Also do not use the HTF video. It sucks.
Here is an accurate one:
Animated Atrocities #83: "YouTube Copyright School": https://youtu.be/jFi0YqK6yv8
Otakumegane
Member
Nintendo is not in the wrong here but I do believe that they may be a bit misguided in their approach.
Besides I'm not even quite sure how free advertisement works.
Besides I'm not even quite sure how free advertisement works.
cheezcake
Member
Extended "Lets Plays" which show most, if not all, of the game are a greyer area. But streaming an entire movie is just way too different to streaming a game. The mediums themselves are so different that it's hard to find an accurate comparison between them.
This is besides the point, it's clear that a fair amount of people find worth in it even if you and I aren't part of them.
No but we should be free to logically critique copyright laws which are notorious for being hilariously bad at keeping up with the pace of modern technology. I think you would agree that not every law is inherently "good".
7DollarHagane
Banned
These companies like Giant Bomb and IGN have relationships with the publishers. They also have access to legal and business planning departments that handle that kind of thing and allow the people making content to make content and not worry about it.
GiantBomb/GameSpot is a CBS owned company, after all. Of course Nintendo is going to work with them.
At the same time Nintendo knows that these parent companies are taking measures to avoid GiantBomb/GameSpot getting out of line and saying something slanderous, doing something that harms their public image unfairly, or outright lying about their product.