-
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
Phrozenflame500
Member
I guess everyone other game developer must be immune to legal disputes then.
Do you have details?
I sincerely hope Nintendo can't exert that level of control over the coverage of their games. I believe you're underestimating the reach of the premise.
Legal disputes that only ever happened with one company because its games were fundamental to a national television network.*
Okay I'll quote myself from some pages ago in hope of getting an answer. I'd really like to learn something here! GAF is too fast and crowded sometimes, it's like shouting into a crowd of people who all already talking with someone else :/
I'd wager that no one would think it was a fair and good idea if Sony or Microsoft did the same thing. But somehow it's okay when Nintendo does it.
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. For the people vehemently defending Nintendo's "rights", no one here is arguing that it's illegal to do what they're doing, so there's no sense in arguing whether they "have the right" to do it. No one's arguing that. But it IS stupid. And no amount of "right" in the world will change that.
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. For the people vehemently defending Nintendo's "rights", no one here is arguing that it's illegal to do what they're doing, so there's no sense in arguing whether they "have the right" to do it. No one's arguing that. But it IS stupid. And no amount of "right" in the world will change that.
Graphics/design/text? Explain to me why it has to have music and video.
ClosingADoor
Member
Just because the majority wants something doesn't mean everybody has to follow that lead, as long as they are within their legal rights to do so.
I don't think Nintendo needs Youtube.
And to address some other things said in this thread, I don't think popular Youtubers -- the tiny few who actually make a good living from it -- Are lazy. Most of them probably posted regular videos for 5 years to get where they are. It's not lazy and it's not something you "luck" into.
But that's irrelevant. The idea that anyone is entitled to display all of your hard work, your content, start to finish, and profit from it while you have no say is a really scary idea. It's frightening, it actually feels violating. It's good that Youtube helps protect IP holders, and I can easily understand why different IP holders would have different stances on their games being exhibited on Youtube. In particular, I'd understand how Nintendo, who is very unique and in a very unique position in the industry, would have an unusual position on this. I can't say I fully understand their stance, but I also don't think they're as stupid or out of touch as some people seem to think they are.
SolidChamp
Banned
Quoting this just in case Joe misses it. Totally on point.
Where does Mario Party have the AngryJoe commentary option? Is it in the menus somewhere?
Christ, stop acting like you've actually got a winning argument here.
SinCityAssassin
Member
Content flagging is always assbackwards, but I never cared for AngryJoe to begin with.
I somehow find it hard to believe ACTIVISION and EA don't have this incredible foresight that apparently only Nintendo does.
blankempathy
Member
No ones saying that they shouldn't be called out. If you don't like their policies then speak freely against them. However they obviously have a right to control their content on yt. The right given to them by the laws that allow it. Whether we think its the right choice for them to make is another discussion.
This doesn't seem to be a problem with most of the game developers out there. The legal risk was not the main reason for Nintendo's decision, nor is it a compelling argument for it.
Beelzebufo
Banned
GameXplain has a partnership with nintendo. I think they only make 70% of revenue instead of 100%.
So Joe wants more money.
That actually doesn't have much bearing on the situation here, because Nintendo is blocking monetization via the YouTube policy, but not actually issuing a takedown notice. That's, interestingly enough, implicit recognition that either (a) they're aware it falls under Fair Use, or (b) they are allowing the usage under their copyrights.
D
Deleted member 125677
Unconfirmed Member
I don't think either of the parties involved gives a flying fuck about this relationship coming to an end, and neither should we. He never wanted to let's play Nintendo games in the first place, and I can't imagine Nintendo has sold a single extra copy because of the two videos he has put out.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
You're right, they're free to not follow the lead, but they're also free to look like dicks in doing so.
Stuff like this has guaranteed that Nintendo won't see a penny from me~ If I ever do buy a WiiU and games from them, it'll probably be used from Gamestop or something.
timetokill
Banned
Let me see if I have this straight:
- AngryJoe does no Nintendo game videos, though he does maybe make some rants about Nintendo's YT policy
- his fans want him to review Wii U games and Joe won't buy one himself so his fans buy one for him
- Joe does some Wii U videos and gets upset that Nintendo wants a cut
- Joe tells his fans that he's not doing Nintendo videos anymore because of the YT policy he was already aware of, thanks for the free WiiU though
is that right? this thread is moving too fast to follow
- AngryJoe does no Nintendo game videos, though he does maybe make some rants about Nintendo's YT policy
- his fans want him to review Wii U games and Joe won't buy one himself so his fans buy one for him
- Joe does some Wii U videos and gets upset that Nintendo wants a cut
- Joe tells his fans that he's not doing Nintendo videos anymore because of the YT policy he was already aware of, thanks for the free WiiU though
is that right? this thread is moving too fast to follow
-Mutsukki-
Member
I'd wager people wouldn't be so critical of it if it were any of these two, so in the hypothetical scenario it can go both ways really.
Cbajd5
Member
GameXplain has worked out something with Nintendo, and Nintendo is working with them.
AngryJoe didn't even try to do the bare minimum of applying for the Content Creators Program, so he was left to the whims of Youtube's Content ID system. (If he negotiated with Nintendo directly he could probably get more benefits like GameXplain and other outlets Nintendo works with directly get.)
It's as simple as that.
TheSlySoul
Member
I like to know one Nintendo game where you can get the exact same experience watching it as playing it. They do not make point and click or visual novel games.
The Lone Courier
Member
Oh wow how will Nintendo survive without Joes advertising.
Music and video are what's primarily on the screen, not some fancam of people playing cards.
I know the point you're trying to make, but that's an apples to oranges argument. Multimedia products have a lot more IP in play when they're recorded. By your logic, it should be ok for anyone to use any IP from any medium and gain all the revenue from that work.
I know you disagree, but it really is a different argument to make.
Also you're wrong.
Let's Plays are not fair use by any stretch. Reviews are, playing the game and talking over it is not.
I think we can keep discussing who is wrong in this, but we will never come to a conclusion. I think Nintendo's rules are extremely archaic and it doesn't help them. They can do what they are doing, it's not illegal or anything, but the price is that YouTubers don't have to obey them and can simply ignore Nintendo games in their coverage. Joe has reasons to be worried about his earnings, considering what I said in previous posts and, true, Nintendo doesn't have to bend, but the same for Joe.
GX likely already has a deal in place that properly compensates publishers for their work
AJ probably does too, just not with Nintendo specifically because he doesn't really cover them
to be clear I'm just speculating
James Scott
Banned
That's how content ID works. You'd have to manually flag videos if they are playing a card game and I think if you manually flag a video that it's a copyright strike which is worse
Relaxed Muscle
Member
The difference is that GX already have a deal with Nintendo, that might not fall under the recent program. I guess since GX is a 100% focussed Nintendo channel, they get the same treatment as other press gets from Nintendo. I know they have been in numerous Nintendo events for the press and probably gets Nintendo games for free (just guessing here).
Joe dosn't want to fill into the Nintendo Creators Program loop, in which he gets the 60% of the revenue. He thinks that since, no other company forces him to the same deal, he is not gonna allow it and therefore, he gonna stop creating Nintendo videos.
GIANKRATOS
Member
I think that the one who need a change here it's nintendo. It's the age of sharing content, and nintendo by sticking with it's outdated and counterproductive policies will only put a barrier between potential costumers and itself. Why should i pay money to nintendo for advertising they're games that i have already paid? I'm giving you free advertising for your games that i have paid you money for. It's just stupid to me. I mean, they have all the rights to do so, no one is denying that, but that doesn't mean that is the right way to do things. It's counterproductive for nintendo, it's bad for youtubers who make a living with they're videos and it'd annoying for people who wants more nintendo content. And defending those policies is good for no one. Imho.
It's just trying to make costructive criticism.
Where do you think part of the huge ps4 success comes from?
It just seems more like nintendo hates to progress...
B) Their decision is based on the law, as I said. They are operating within their legal rights. Thus, the decision is not arbitrary. It's just one you don't agree with.
C) I'm not making a judgement on whether this decision is right or wrong. From a legal standpoint, they have the right to do this. We can argue all day whether its a good business practice, but neither of us will probably be able to provide any hard data to support our views.
Phrozenflame500
Member
Can you imagine the backlash if one of them implemented a policy such as this?
Can you remember the backlash when Sega did implement a policy such as this (that was eventually toned down cause of the backlash?)
The hypocrisy is astounding.
e: Four!That's not relevant. It's still a video with tons and tons of copyrighted content.
DAREALGUMMY
Member
But it doesn't help that Nintendo does this and it leaves a sour taste in some gamers' mouths. Love him or hate him, Angry Joe has a ton of subscribers. Nintendo doing this to a big Youtuber warns off others from making videos about Nintendo games because, why bother? If Nintendo is just going to do this, why would they waste their time and viewers just wouldn't be aware of the product itself.
Except that apparently this method is actively deterring many major gaming channels from producing Nintendo-related content.
Nintendo is the last company that should be limiting their exposure like this.
Blackage
Member
Guess we'll see.
Lol that seems to be the gist of it.
blankempathy
Member
That seems to be the case. But why admit mistakes when you can just blame the big bad corporation for keeping you down?
Phrozenflame500
Member
Let's be honest: They do. Every game dev needs YouTube. It's a powerful advertising tool, whether through videos or ads attached to them. It's one of the reasons we're still stuck using such a shitty site instead of a better video hosting service.
And Nintendo knows that.
TheSlySoul
Member
Yeah Content ID mostly works with audio. If you play a Nintendo game mute, there is a 90% chance you will not have any issues. That is why you see rant video with mute gameplay get no claims.
I don't watch his content but his name has always made me cringe ever since that time Geoff clowned him at his own game. Such a painful thing to observe. Has he gotten better since then?
http://angryjoeshow.com/2010/12/geoff-keighley-interview/
http://angryjoeshow.com/2010/12/geoff-keighley-interview/
Exactly.
This isn't the first, nor will it be the last, time that Angry Joe got angry about Nintendo's YT policy. He rants about and then publishes a video he can then monetize. People here know I publish footage of Nintendo games on YT, but I don't monetize any video I post. If I planned to do so, I would register with Nintendo's YT program & see what can be done.
James Scott
Banned
People comparing this to indies with 0 marketing budget are kind of silly. Nintendo doesn't rely solely on YouTubers giving them free 'advertising'.also,again, it's not like Nintendo is ignoring YouTube.
Or the 'biggest in company history' marketing budget.
The one post to solve'em all (hopefully; correct me if I say inaccurancies)
Is AngryJoe in the right asking to get revenue from his Let's Play videos?
Yes, he is, because he adds something to just playing a game. He adds his personality, as well as others whenever it's a group Let's Play (like in Mario Kart 8's case). And it's perfectly fine for him to get revenue from it. And...why so much jealousy towards youtubers? You should hate the bad YT, who use the mean badly or aren't that talented, not everyone just because they're youtubers...just like every mass-media! It can be a job like everything else. And it can take quite a lot of time and effort to create content that encourages people to watch their videos. It's true, Let's Play usually fall under the kind of videos with the least "effort" put in, but there's still his own component in there. So, if he wants to monetize on them, why not. Buuut...
Is Nintendo in the right wanting to get revenue from Let's Play videos?
Yep. They don't fall under fair use (like reviews) and they're not transformative enough to be considered a brand new thing, different from the original. Which means that Angry Joe is using copyright protected material to earn ad revenue. Nope, you can't say that, just by having bought a a game, you can get ad revenue by using it without falling into fair use / transformative cases: licensing is a thing that exists in any other media, and it can exist in gaming as well. Why is licensing needed in movies / shows / songs in order to use something with a copywright, while gaming can get away with that with the "free advertisement" excuse. Indie developers don't exercise their right (even if they could), because YT videos from youtubers can possibly gather much more audience for their games than whatever effort they put in advertising. Big companies, instead, have their own marketing / advertising branches, so they can do that on their own, they don't need your "free advertising". I'm not saying it can't exist at all (like indies show), but throwing the excuse whenever a Let's Play is posted is kind of meh: you don't owe anything to them, they don't owe anything to you. Just that. You're using someone else's work to get money...how does that feel right?
So, who should get the money?
Both. And I'd also say that youtubers should get by far the biggest share of ad revenue, since there's still their component in videos playing games. But, again, it's not just them, there's also the game involved. And if it's a big game involved, of course the views will be much larger than for a much smaller game (unless it goes viral, which is possible, but you can't count on it happening every time). It's both the personality behind the videos and the game involved that make a video popular (or, better, more popular than other videos with other personalities and other games).
Nintendo actually has a Creators Program running, so the revenue can be split (70/30 in favour of creators if you dedicate your entire channel to Nintendo games; 60/40 in case you sign for single videos)
https://r.ncp.nintendo.net
Now, the program, while an interesting idea, has some flaws (like the percentages themselves: they should be higher towards content creators IMHO), but here's a good thing: the program is in Beta, so you can send your feedback to Nintendo (if you sign it). Let them hear your voice, since they actually are looking for your opinion. Being constructive, and not destructive, is the key. Still...
...What should the whole YouTube gaming scene need, after all?
A firm and stable regulation system. I fear most of major YouTubers still think that it's the Wild West, that everything is allowed...but now "being a youtuber" can be a legit job, from which you can earn money thanks to your content. And it's a massive platform. So, it needs regulations, like every field. And licensing for gaming content in videos not falling under fair use / transformative works is strangely seen as something that's not to consider: you see all the "free advertisement"..."excuse" (it's mostly the way it's used) because most of the major software houses let you do whatever you want (and it's not always true, btw); but that's the major problem in not having a firm regulation established. Today, they're fine and don't touch you, but tomorrow they could change their way and...bam! No ad revenue, ContentIDs, maybe even videos removed...the complete chaos. Having a set of laws, established and running is for both content creators and IP holders, for every company. If the rules are set, there's no "grayer" area, no Wild West, more certainties. It can be disputed about how these rules should be, because maybe Let's Play videos could be considered full transformative works after all (I don't think so, but this is my opinion), but they need to be established for the future of the platform itself, which is now wat too big and relevant to still work as if everything is allowed. It needs a major effort worldwide, especially considering how everyone in the world can post videos on YT, from every country, and every country has a different regulation. I think Nintendo's attempt, while flawed, is a first sort of step in the right direction of making things clear and set from the start. But, again, it's in Beta, so people can share their feedback towards it.
Please, stop spouting about youtubers not deserving to earn money and NDF being ridiculous / trolling the hell out of any Nintendo fan posting here, without even considering his/ her opinion here
The jealousy towards the AngryJoe / Boogie / TB of this world is astounding and a bit stupid. Again: being a youtuber is a legit job, you can earn money from it, so stop thinking they should post videos just for enjoyment. Sure, they could, but if they can get revenue off the things they like to do/they are good at...why not? It's a possiblity, and a growing one right now. Don't be so close-minded about brand new wokring possibilities. It's true that I personally believe that some youtubers feel a bit too entitled to get their revenue without sharing it to the original game developers hiding themselves behind the "free exposure / adverting" excuse everytime, but it's still perfectly in their right to get something from their work, if they want. Both content creators and IP holders deserve to get revenue (and I'd say more content creators too). Stop being jealous of everyone: mock the worst ones, those who deserve to be mocked, not everyone.
All these posts about a Nintendo Defense Force defending everything the company does, insults of any kind...please, people, stop. Threads should be where people discuss about things, not about insulting each other due to being a Nintendo/Sony/MS fan, regardless of what the other say, please. Both this and the other Nintendo Creator Program threads have been littered with this NDF bullshit everywhere, despite most of the Nintendo fans posting in them (me included) criticising the flaws of the program, despite not outright saying "BLAAAAARGH NINTENDO Y U SO OUTDATED BLAAAAAARGH!!!". Please, don't tell me that the only kind of discussion allowed in this thread is how much Nintendo sucks at this, they "don't get the Internet", and spouting "free advertisement" every time, because that would be sad, and not civil at all. Those insults / shitposts make threads like this mostly unreadable and actually scare some people from discussing in a civil way about the matter. Don't outright refuse whoever say that AngryJoe is wrong in this, that Nintendo has the right of doing this, not everyone here is a "ninbot" or whatever someone said in one of the older threads.
Funny bonus: WHAAA, Y U SO OUT OF TOUCH NINTENDO
...I don't think that the company that introduced the Nintendo Direct concept (which has evolved a lot since back in 2011), had what most called the best E3 coverage out there, and a continuous one, with lots of views on Twitch, actually had Miyamoto (+ Bill Trinen) show in videos of some relevant youtubers (like Smosh), invites youtubers to their preview events or send them consoles and games to review can be called outright "out of touch". Of course it's Nintendo, so there will always be questionable choices alongside genius decisions, but still
Is AngryJoe in the right asking to get revenue from his Let's Play videos?
Yes, he is, because he adds something to just playing a game. He adds his personality, as well as others whenever it's a group Let's Play (like in Mario Kart 8's case). And it's perfectly fine for him to get revenue from it. And...why so much jealousy towards youtubers? You should hate the bad YT, who use the mean badly or aren't that talented, not everyone just because they're youtubers...just like every mass-media! It can be a job like everything else. And it can take quite a lot of time and effort to create content that encourages people to watch their videos. It's true, Let's Play usually fall under the kind of videos with the least "effort" put in, but there's still his own component in there. So, if he wants to monetize on them, why not. Buuut...
Is Nintendo in the right wanting to get revenue from Let's Play videos?
Yep. They don't fall under fair use (like reviews) and they're not transformative enough to be considered a brand new thing, different from the original. Which means that Angry Joe is using copyright protected material to earn ad revenue. Nope, you can't say that, just by having bought a a game, you can get ad revenue by using it without falling into fair use / transformative cases: licensing is a thing that exists in any other media, and it can exist in gaming as well. Why is licensing needed in movies / shows / songs in order to use something with a copywright, while gaming can get away with that with the "free advertisement" excuse. Indie developers don't exercise their right (even if they could), because YT videos from youtubers can possibly gather much more audience for their games than whatever effort they put in advertising. Big companies, instead, have their own marketing / advertising branches, so they can do that on their own, they don't need your "free advertising". I'm not saying it can't exist at all (like indies show), but throwing the excuse whenever a Let's Play is posted is kind of meh: you don't owe anything to them, they don't owe anything to you. Just that. You're using someone else's work to get money...how does that feel right?
So, who should get the money?
Both. And I'd also say that youtubers should get by far the biggest share of ad revenue, since there's still their component in videos playing games. But, again, it's not just them, there's also the game involved. And if it's a big game involved, of course the views will be much larger than for a much smaller game (unless it goes viral, which is possible, but you can't count on it happening every time). It's both the personality behind the videos and the game involved that make a video popular (or, better, more popular than other videos with other personalities and other games).
Nintendo actually has a Creators Program running, so the revenue can be split (70/30 in favour of creators if you dedicate your entire channel to Nintendo games; 60/40 in case you sign for single videos)
https://r.ncp.nintendo.net
Now, the program, while an interesting idea, has some flaws (like the percentages themselves: they should be higher towards content creators IMHO), but here's a good thing: the program is in Beta, so you can send your feedback to Nintendo (if you sign it). Let them hear your voice, since they actually are looking for your opinion. Being constructive, and not destructive, is the key. Still...
...What should the whole YouTube gaming scene need, after all?
A firm and stable regulation system. I fear most of major YouTubers still think that it's the Wild West, that everything is allowed...but now "being a youtuber" can be a legit job, from which you can earn money thanks to your content. And it's a massive platform. So, it needs regulations, like every field. And licensing for gaming content in videos not falling under fair use / transformative works is strangely seen as something that's not to consider: you see all the "free advertisement"..."excuse" (it's mostly the way it's used) because most of the major software houses let you do whatever you want (and it's not always true, btw); but that's the major problem in not having a firm regulation established. Today, they're fine and don't touch you, but tomorrow they could change their way and...bam! No ad revenue, ContentIDs, maybe even videos removed...the complete chaos. Having a set of laws, established and running is for both content creators and IP holders, for every company. If the rules are set, there's no "grayer" area, no Wild West, more certainties. It can be disputed about how these rules should be, because maybe Let's Play videos could be considered full transformative works after all (I don't think so, but this is my opinion), but they need to be established for the future of the platform itself, which is now wat too big and relevant to still work as if everything is allowed. It needs a major effort worldwide, especially considering how everyone in the world can post videos on YT, from every country, and every country has a different regulation. I think Nintendo's attempt, while flawed, is a first sort of step in the right direction of making things clear and set from the start. But, again, it's in Beta, so people can share their feedback towards it.
Please, stop spouting about youtubers not deserving to earn money and NDF being ridiculous / trolling the hell out of any Nintendo fan posting here, without even considering his/ her opinion here
The jealousy towards the AngryJoe / Boogie / TB of this world is astounding and a bit stupid. Again: being a youtuber is a legit job, you can earn money from it, so stop thinking they should post videos just for enjoyment. Sure, they could, but if they can get revenue off the things they like to do/they are good at...why not? It's a possiblity, and a growing one right now. Don't be so close-minded about brand new wokring possibilities. It's true that I personally believe that some youtubers feel a bit too entitled to get their revenue without sharing it to the original game developers hiding themselves behind the "free exposure / adverting" excuse everytime, but it's still perfectly in their right to get something from their work, if they want. Both content creators and IP holders deserve to get revenue (and I'd say more content creators too). Stop being jealous of everyone: mock the worst ones, those who deserve to be mocked, not everyone.
All these posts about a Nintendo Defense Force defending everything the company does, insults of any kind...please, people, stop. Threads should be where people discuss about things, not about insulting each other due to being a Nintendo/Sony/MS fan, regardless of what the other say, please. Both this and the other Nintendo Creator Program threads have been littered with this NDF bullshit everywhere, despite most of the Nintendo fans posting in them (me included) criticising the flaws of the program, despite not outright saying "BLAAAAARGH NINTENDO Y U SO OUTDATED BLAAAAAARGH!!!". Please, don't tell me that the only kind of discussion allowed in this thread is how much Nintendo sucks at this, they "don't get the Internet", and spouting "free advertisement" every time, because that would be sad, and not civil at all. Those insults / shitposts make threads like this mostly unreadable and actually scare some people from discussing in a civil way about the matter. Don't outright refuse whoever say that AngryJoe is wrong in this, that Nintendo has the right of doing this, not everyone here is a "ninbot" or whatever someone said in one of the older threads.
Funny bonus: WHAAA, Y U SO OUT OF TOUCH NINTENDO
...I don't think that the company that introduced the Nintendo Direct concept (which has evolved a lot since back in 2011), had what most called the best E3 coverage out there, and a continuous one, with lots of views on Twitch, actually had Miyamoto (+ Bill Trinen) show in videos of some relevant youtubers (like Smosh), invites youtubers to their preview events or send them consoles and games to review can be called outright "out of touch". Of course it's Nintendo, so there will always be questionable choices alongside genius decisions, but still