The specific video we're talking about probably would have been cleared, but Angry Joe just took his cookies and went home. Unless the reason he put the video on private is because he's waiting on Nintendo's response).
-
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
The specific video we're talking about probably would have been cleared, but Angry Joe just took his cookies and went home. Unless the reason he put the video on private is because he's waiting on Nintendo's response).
I feel that (positive) exposure to their games would be a welcome thing. I'm not sure if Nintendo has ever properly assessed the possible positive effects of YouTubers over a strict and conservative adherence to whatever corporate laws, or if they just let their lawyers loose on the Internet without discussing things with Marketing and PR.
evilromero
Member
Oh boy. Hook, line and sinker. Do you know what fair use entails? Certainly not monetizing from a protected creative work on a service like YouTube, which itself generates revenue from content being uploaded. That completely operates outside the scope of fair use. Case closed.
If Joe opted to NOT monetize then there's no issue.
Sorcerer Supreme
Member
"It's okay when Nintendo does it" seems to be the thing. They always get a free pass.
TheDarkKnight774
Member
Nintendo of America sued blockbuster because they made no money on game rentals after the initial sale. To Nintendo they viewed it as piracy. In the end they lost the lawsuit and the only part they won was blockbuster had to not use the original game manuals
One of the newest ways is Pateron.
Fans can donate a monthly sum to the video maker of their choice.
Jim Sterling and RedLetterMedia make over $10,000 a month from the site. The latter also making ad revenue on Blip & YouTube, and selling merch.
Linkara (comic book reviewer) makes over $2000 a month along with ad revenue and merch sales.
If Joe is so concerned about losing money, he should try Patreon too. It's helped a lot of people.
It is. I didn't say otherwise.
I'm not arguing against a law. I'm auguring at why comparing a stream of a tv show or movie to a stream of a video game is bad.
lol, oh please. I took many media courses and I am familiar with copyright laws. I don't have to do anything about it. You know why? Companies like Nintendo who cling on to these outdated views and ways will continue on facing issues. Companies who actually understand how many in the target demographic (18-40 year olds) use YouTube for their interests in gaming content and make features based off of that (e.g.: the streaming, recording, and uploading features found on the Xbox One and PS4) will continue on doing well while companies like Nintendo will be left behind and continue on being viewed as "behind the times".
Why do I have to do anything? The effects are already happening. If Nintendo is too shortsighted to see them then that's their problem -- not mines.
TheSlySoul
Member
Oh wow.
They must have back pedaled since the Pokémon Snap stands at Blockbuster.
Wiktor
Member
Well..it's not any worse than what Nintendo has just done. It's simply and eye for an eye.
Legally, this is a black and white issue. Yes. However, for instance because Nintendo is just about the only video game publisher to do this stuff, there's certainly an argument to be had. Come to think of it, why aren't you arguing right from wrong? Because that's the only sensible argument to even have. Having a purely legal argument is pointless, because as you say, that aspect of it is black and white.
stargateheaven
Member
there are cases where companies can monetize YOUR video. I assumed this was what he was talking about. If nintendo placed ads on his video, they would get money from it. But now they took the video down.
Is this not the case?
Is this not the case?
Pennywise83
Banned
Nintendo didn't ban AJ to keep his coverage. The company just asks for a fair share of revenues, since some audio-visual contents are not his.
fabricated backlash
Member
Oh drop the bloody victim crap.
I haven't seen a single compelling argument as to why Youtubers are entitled to monetization from Let's plays at all, and that's before you take into account the use of copyrighted material without written consent.
So some developers use Youtube channels as unpaid advertisement channels (willingly or not) that doesn't mean that any company has to do so.
If you're doing a job, and use other peoples material, no matter in which capacity, you damn well make sure you are in the clear for the use.
That's the lowest basic effort you should take to freaking secure your ass and income.
I have only one thing to say to these people: Welcome to the real world. Where bitching and complaining won't make up for your laziness.
The nerve some people have to claim that Let's Plays aren't the lowest of the lowest of efforts is infuriating.
Now if and when any company, decides to pull stuff like that on journalistic content (reviews, product analysis, consumer advise etc.) like Nintendo has done in the past, then you won't hear me defend them, but for fucking Let's plays?
One is actual censorship, the other is prohibiting others to monetize your content without consent.
Fixed2BeBroken
Member
Cbajd5
Member
I'm going to guess that was something Nintendo in Japan forced, since it's actually illegal to rent out games (without express permission) there due to widespread renting out of pirated copies.
This was entirely the case.
Nintendo wanted the ad revenue to go to them, not AngryJoe. The video itself would be left up.
Joe himself took the video down, as he'd rather no one get paid if he doesn't.
The fact that he was well aware of how this system worked MONTHS before this video was made points to him doing it intentionally for the attention.
shinobi602
Member
Nintendo is so ridiculous with this shit.
lyrick
Member
People are directly comparing the benefits indie games with no advertising budgets are getting to games that are published and advertised by megacorps.
Two million viewers on a game with no advertising from unknown devs can be cause big growth. Two million views on something like Mario Party Reaches a lot less people than a 30 second ad spot during a Saturday Morning program, and that's ignoring the fact that Nintendo's name (and Mario Party) already has more pull than Lucas Pope or Papers Please did around release.
There's also another issue of whose really advertising who in this case? Is You tuber Y really advertising, or is the YouTuber using the existing advertising and brand awareness of Super Mega Corp Game X to suck out a couple extra google bucks?
cheezcake
Member
It's not that odd, it's just Nintendo being stubborn old Nintendo.
Sir Blaming
Member
This would be simple if this was the case but Nintendo ripped 100% of the revenue. They are asking him to buy their game, and then take ad revenue from him after he decided to published his video featuring the game.
Moon_frogger
Member
I'm fairly confident that someone who regularly watches videos on the Internet of people playing video games are already intimately familiar with Nintendo and their products
Also with someone called 'angry joe' making the video I'm guessing he doesn't always showcase their games in a way Nintendo appreciates. They don't go by the old 'any publicity is good publicity' mantra.
Someone telling their 2 million subscribers how they would like Mario to 'rape' peach (not saying joe does this) probably isn't their idea of 'free exposure'
stargateheaven
Member
then i don't get what he means when he said "I hope Nintendo enjoyed the free ad revenue"
I thought Nintendo had taken the video down even though they were getting ad money from it.
Pennywise83
Banned
Argumentum ad popolum.
The vast majority of publishers not doing "this stuff" does not mean it is legal or fair. To be honest, I am pretty sure many famous YouTubers are actually getting paid by pubishers to cover games (without mentioning to their fanbase), so the relationship between the two parties is not always clear.
AngryJoe is no loss for Nintendo.
The dude's reviews are great, his rants and opinions are rarely as well informed and his stream in unwatchable. Until this generation, he covered games that existed on either the 360 or the PC and nothing else. He had no intention of buying or playing on Wii U or Xbox One until he started streaming on twitch. In fact, he openly whined about Bayonetta 2 not being a console he wanted to own and hate fucked the Xbox One for months (which we all kinda did, but still).
I'm curious how this is "behind the times" exactly.
It's exorcizing their clear legal right under current copyright law, something dozens of companies are doing, only Nintendo is doing it with a (albeit highly flawed) partners program in place that allows you to make money off their content anyway.
I wish they weren't, mind you, because I think it's a well they didn't need to tap and it would be better PR if they didn't, but it's very far from something only Nintendo is doing.
The dude's reviews are great, his rants and opinions are rarely as well informed and his stream in unwatchable. Until this generation, he covered games that existed on either the 360 or the PC and nothing else. He had no intention of buying or playing on Wii U or Xbox One until he started streaming on twitch. In fact, he openly whined about Bayonetta 2 not being a console he wanted to own and hate fucked the Xbox One for months (which we all kinda did, but still).
I'm curious how this is "behind the times" exactly.
It's exorcizing their clear legal right under current copyright law, something dozens of companies are doing, only Nintendo is doing it with a (albeit highly flawed) partners program in place that allows you to make money off their content anyway.
I wish they weren't, mind you, because I think it's a well they didn't need to tap and it would be better PR if they didn't, but it's very far from something only Nintendo is doing.
TheDarkKnight774
Member
In the end it's nintendo being Nintendo. Trying to be ultra controlling and limiting. The difference now is they don't have the market share or influence to be much of trend setters. And these stances on emerging media distributions will limit their success.
It was him being snarky in a "I hope you enjoyed your dinner. Now it's over." kind of way. At least that's how I read it.
7DollarHagane
Banned
I think certainly with enough time and change in management/people making the decisions Nintendo will reverse this policy and be a lot more lenient with use of their games. It's a stupid policy and just seems like it was made by someone out of touch with youtube.
Or maybe it was just a placeholder policy decided upon to satisfy upper management until something better could be agreed upon.
I'm sure that there are people within Nintendo who disagree with it as well - it's not as if the entire company unanimously made this decision. Unfortunately in japanese businesses it seems like seniority takes precedent over all other things. And this is certainly a policy that reeks of seniority.
Or maybe it was just a placeholder policy decided upon to satisfy upper management until something better could be agreed upon.
I'm sure that there are people within Nintendo who disagree with it as well - it's not as if the entire company unanimously made this decision. Unfortunately in japanese businesses it seems like seniority takes precedent over all other things. And this is certainly a policy that reeks of seniority.
It doesn't necessarily mean it's legal or fair, in fact, I even said that legally, Nintendo is absolutely 100% right to do this. But the argument to be had isn't whether they could, it's whether they should. More than that, why would anyone favour Nintendo doing this?
CaptainTiptop
Member
Nintendo played the game and edited the video?
TheDarkKnight774
Member
What's your stance on renting games?
Deft Beck
Gold Member
The use of "Saturday morning programming" as an example seems dated. Also, third party YouTube advertisement would have less of an overhead cost than such an ad spot.
Nintendo, instead of pulling the video they take all revenue from said video. So the video stays up, but Angry Joe gets no money from it, since its now going to Nintendo
A purely legal argument? If you make something, whether others should be able to make money out of it is up to you. That's usually what most would consider right.
So? My point remains. Coverage helps game sales. Maybe relatively small for Nintendo, but free coverage is free coverage, and you'd be an idiot to turn that down.
blankempathy
Member
I just woke up so let me see if i get this straight.
Joes mad because he apparently tried to monetize his video on MP10 while not going through Nintendo's youtube creators program?
Even though this whole program was forefront on gaming media a few months ago?
Even though hes already had issues in the past when he uploaded another Nintendo video that I can't recall exactly what it was currently?
Is that basically the jist of it?
Joes mad because he apparently tried to monetize his video on MP10 while not going through Nintendo's youtube creators program?
Even though this whole program was forefront on gaming media a few months ago?
Even though hes already had issues in the past when he uploaded another Nintendo video that I can't recall exactly what it was currently?
Is that basically the jist of it?
The same as Nintendo's is now. It's fine.
Beelzebufo
Banned
Basically people are just saying that Nintendo doing this is kind of a dick move. Not something you'd expect from a company coming off the Wii U.
cheezcake
Member
Incorrect use. He didn't claim that the stance of the other publishers is the correct one because most of them do it, he simply said that "there's an argument to be had" which there obviously is.
Aeriscloud
Banned
Miyamoto is secretly the Luigi CPU player.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
There must be something if he's making money off advertisers on his channel.
DoktorEvil
Banned
Absolutely. He has(along with people like PDP, DSP, GameGrumps, and SeaNanners) had plenty of opportunities to monetize that aren't Youtube ads.
Nintendo legally has every right as publisher to ask for a share of the money that Google and YouTube are leeching over their IPs(after all, it's Google and YouTube that benefit moreso than Nintendo could).
So does every other publisher out there. I would like to think Yacht Club Games would feel the same way if they didn't approve every demo copy of Shovel Knight sent to prominent/influential Youtubers for preview.
Nintendo might be the big bad for doing something so anti-consumer, but considering how much of a fuck they actually cared about gaining third party support for the Wii U, they are going to be more critical with the option to squeeze Youtubers/streamers out of their 100% ad revenue.
Pennywise83
Banned
This is because, following Nintendo's policy, in order to use copyrights materials to do YT videos, you must be a partner, which would eventually mean to split revenues. Here, no partnership was involved, and therefore all revenues were taken by Nintendo. Also, and it's not that relevant but whatever, viewers donated the game to him.
Psycho_Mantis
Banned
1) Why do you think other companies do not do this? Did EA do this when pewdiepie was playing Skate 3?
2) That is obviously going to put people off. The only one loosing here is Nintendo. These popular youtubers have dedicated fanbases and can play loads of different games while getting lots of views while not being affected by such claims.
That is still a valid argument. There are two options here:
1) Angry Joe makes videos about Nintendo games. Angry Joe makes money. Nintendo benefits from exposure.
2) Angry Joe doesn't make videos about Nintendo games. He still makes money covering non-Nintendo games. Nintendo doesn't benefit from exposure.
I really don't get why people think option 2 is preferable - unless you'd actually dislike Nintendo.
Pretty correct way to look at it in my opinion.
TheDarkKnight774
Member
but thats only because they lost their lawsuit. They would still love to kill renting games if they could. So you think its ok for people to profit from a copy of their game through renting it? How come?
Nintendo's doing themselves a massive social positivity and mindshare disservice. They may think they can get by on their own laurels, but just like the brand itself, this type of out dated sentiment is likely going to leave them lagging further behind. It's a shame because their products are excellent, but management is completely out of touch. If I was a major YouTuber, I'd stop covering their products as well.
Bingo.