Rummy Posted May 17, 2013 Posted May 17, 2013 Obviously this makes no money for me, and I watch these videos happily from time to time without caring - assuming, in fact, they don't make money on it. However, whilst it sucks, Nintendo have a right here. Why should somebody else profit off their intellectual property/derivative works? They could either issue takedowns, or just take the ad revenue. Sadly the latter will lead to less people making such videos in future, and I think they can be a good thing for helping people find out more about games they aren't sure about etc. I'm not majorly fussed that the LP creators aren't making their money anymore though. My next biggest curiosity will be what happens to the likes of videos of hacks and mods etc, such as Super Demo World or Super Mario Fusion and stuff like that. Will those be takedowns, will they be advertised on, will they be left alone?
Mokong Posted May 17, 2013 Posted May 17, 2013 (edited) The problem is most other companies DO NOT remove content from let's plays or TAKE the ad revenue. Most companies see it as wonderful free advertising and homaging and allow it to happen, as well as saying so on their websites. The fact that Nintendo is pretending that most other companies do this is ridiculous. Let's plays are a great way for both the company and the uploader to benefit and I suspect a few of my favourite channels will just stop playing Nintendo games from now on. I don't watch any so called "Lets Play", Kidlat404 whose vid I posted above would prolly be close, he's done a few vids marked "Let's Play" on NSMBU, ZombiU and others but he mainly does CoD vids which aren't marked "Lets Play"...anyway I would assume those youtubers who are "bigger" (never checked the sub/view count on that Zack guy) would likely be part of a Network already so wold have licenses through their network to be able to make ad revenue themselves from their vids. (Though a publishers do of course still take a percentage) As I said I've know and seen at least EA, Ubisoft, THQ and Activision place ads on vids with footage of their games on channels that were not part of a Network. I don't see why people are getting all in a twist over this now just cause it is Nintendo doing it. It has been happening for ages. To make ad revenue on a Youtuber Partnership a video that you monotenize has to be 100% made up of your own original content. Or you have to have permission/a license to use someone elses content and to make revenue from their content. The YT Partnership has a page in their T&C that mentions video game content specifically and that you are not to monotenize a video as a YT Partner with VG content unless you have a license to do so. If an "LP-er" did not read the T&C's properly (which they should have known to check/could have some issues given they knew they were using copyrighted content) and or ifthey did not know about Network Partnerships that is their own fault. They better start looking into a Network Partnership now I guess Edited May 17, 2013 by Mokong
Dcubed Posted May 17, 2013 Posted May 17, 2013 Aside from Vimeo, what other video sites are there? Dailymotion? Blip?, Crackle?, Springboard? There are quite a few alternatives out there and plenty of names have made good use of them (Theguywiththeglasses uses Blip and they've done very well for themselves)
Serebii Posted May 17, 2013 Posted May 17, 2013 I don't watch any so called "Lets Play", Kidlat404 whose vid I posted above would prolly be close, he's done a few vids marked "Let's Play" on NSMBU, ZombiU and others but he mainly does CoD vids which aren't marked "Lets Play"...anyway I would assume those youtubers who are "bigger" (never checked the sub/view count on that Zack guy) would likely be part of a Network already so wold have licenses through their network to be able to make ad revenue themselves from their vids. (Though a publishers do of course still take a percentage) As I said I've know and seen at least EA, Ubisoft, THQ and Activision place ads on vids with footage of their games on channels that were not part of a Network. I don't see why people are getting all in a twist over this now just cause it is Nintendo doing it. It has been happening for ages. To make ad revenue on a Youtuber Partnership a video that you monotenize has to be 100% made up of your own original content. Or you have to have permission/a license to use someone elses content and to make revenue from their content. The YT Partnership has a page in their T&C that mentions video game content specifically and that you are not to monotenize a video as a YT Partner with VG content unless you have a license to do so. If an "LP-er" did not read the T&C's properly (which they should have known to check/could have some issues given they knew they were using copyrighted content) and or ifthey did not know about Network Partnerships that is their own fault. They better start looking into a Network Partnership now I guess Thank you. So many people I've spoken to are assuming Nintendo did it first, and that it's not right for them to do it. Now I can use the T&Cs as evidence
Mokong Posted May 17, 2013 Posted May 17, 2013 (edited) OK just spotted on Zack Scotts facebook page he posted a picture of a new 360 that Machinima sent him. From what I gather he was already a Machinima partner... so he should have had a license through that for his gameplay footage. Here's what I think went wrong and how this got blown way out of proportion. The thing with content ID matching though is that it is a Automated Program scanning through videos looking for matching digital code to what it has in its database. And it teh Content ID Progams can and have wrongly identified content in the past. The problem I see here is that people like Zack Scott when they saw in their email a "Content ID Match" appear he just paniced and got angry and went to the internet to complain and blew it out of proportion creating good fodder for tabloid press and Nintendo haters. What he should have done first with get in contact with his Network (in this case Machinima) and tell them. Machinima would then contest the ID Match on his behalf to Nintendo and get the revenue thing fixed for him... that is what the Network is for afterall. However if Machinima didn't have a license for a certain game(s) or maybe they forgot to renew a license then that is a different matter all together and would be the Networks fault for not informing their partners of any games they don't have a license for or of any expirations in licenses. Any "LP-er" who just has a YT Partnership and not part of a Network has no excuse or right to dispute as they have no right or license to use the game content. Edited May 17, 2013 by Mokong
Diageo Posted May 17, 2013 Posted May 17, 2013 OK just spotted on Zack Scotts facebook page he posted a picture of a new 360 that Machinima sent him. From what I gather he was already a Machinima partner... so he should have had a license through that for his gameplay footage. Here's what I think went wrong and how this got blown way out of proportion. The thing with content ID matching though is that it is a Automated Program scanning through videos looking for matching digital code to what it has in its database. And it teh Content ID Progams can and have wrongly identified content in the past. The problem I see here is that people like Zack Scott when they saw in their email a "Content ID Match" appear he just paniced and got angry and went to the internet to complain and blew it out of proportion creating good fodder for tabloid press and Nintendo haters. What he should have done first with get in contact with his Network (in this case Machinima) and tell them. Machinima would then contest the ID Match on his behalf to Nintendo and get the revenue thing fixed for him... that is what the Network is for afterall. However if Machinima didn't have a license for a certain game(s) or maybe they forgot to renew a license then that is a different matter all together and would be the Networks fault for not informing their partners of any games they don't have a license for or of any expirations in licenses. Any "LP-er" who just has a YT Partnership and not part of a Network has no excuse or right to dispute as they have no right or license to use the game content. How do you know that LPs without partnerships get ads placed by Ubisoft and the likes? I know that for assassin's creed at least you could make any video without them taking ad revenue. Also, most companies on their website say that you have free reign to profit over playing their games, like World of Warcraft, etc.
Ville Posted May 17, 2013 Posted May 17, 2013 How do you know that LPs without partnerships get ads placed by Ubisoft and the likes? I know that for assassin's creed at least you could make any video without them taking ad revenue. Also, most companies on their website say that you have free reign to profit over playing their games, like World of Warcraft, etc. Well not most, but some companies. Blizzard, Mojang (Minecraft), even Valve it seems: @Mokong X\-C The problem is that the internet and even youtube itself is full of people saying that you can monetize what ever video game stuff you want. Plus if you see hugely popular youtubers doing it with no Network logos on their channel, the impression is that they're doing it just by themselves. Even the youtube's own "ask copyright questions" session skirts the issue by not giving clear answers, as does youtube's own copyright advice in the help section. One might even think that they're being vague on purpose... Without the appropriate license from the publisher, use of video game or software user interface must be minimal. Video game content may be monetized if the associated step-by-step commentary is strictly tied to the live action being shown and provides instructional or educational value. http://support.google.com/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=138161 So basically they're saying that you cannot use it if you don't have a license, unless it has commentary and is of instructional / educational nature. Very clear...not.
Rummy Posted May 17, 2013 Posted May 17, 2013 It's probably related in some aspects there to fair usage rights and whatnot; I'd imagine that's the closest current 'law' situation that could apply here(i'm most likely quite mistaken tbh). The internet's an evolution of a lot in society, so we'll get issues like this coming up. If I wholly agree with the creators of Nyan Cat and Keyboard Cat taking WB to court for unfair usage in Scribblenauts, then I completely agree with Nintendo here too. It's a derivative based on their intellectual property - why should someone else profit from that if they don't want them to? Still, as I said, I think it IS stupid and sucks of them though - but I don't disagree on the technicalities of it.
Mokong Posted May 17, 2013 Posted May 17, 2013 (edited) How do you know that LPs without partnerships get ads placed by Ubisoft and the likes? I know that for assassin's creed at least you could make any video without them taking ad revenue. Also, most companies on their website say that you have free reign to profit over playing their games, like World of Warcraft, etc. Because I remember when I used to update the N-Europe youtube page (was a bit embarassed to mention that earlier cause it hasn't been taken care of in 3 years ) getting content ID matches for games from the 4 I mentioned (EA, Ubi, Activision, THQ) and maybe a few others I don;t remember... which is also why I said I wasn't sure about Sony or MS (as I obviously didn't have vids of there games) but I assumed they would be doing the same. If Ubi changed policy on a few games like AC as you mentioned then fair play to them. If WoW allow you to profit from vids of their game fair play to them. I do think however that in those situations Ubi and Blizzard would allow you to upload game footage for "non-comercial" uses only...ie: the video uploader does not make money from the video. Found this on Blizzards website: "First and foremost, note that except as specifically provided herein, Blizzard Entertainment requires that the use of Blizzard Content must be limited to non-commercial purposes." "Note that Blizzard Entertainment's restriction that Productions be limited to "non-commercial" uses also means that you may not license a Production you have created to another company for a fee, or for any other form of compensation, without specific written permission from Blizzard Entertainment to do so. Blizzard Entertainment reserves the right to use its products for all commercial purposes. The only exceptions to this rule are if you participate in partner programs with YouTube, Justin.tv, Blip.tv, Own3d.tv, or Ustream.tv (the �Production Websites�) whereby a Production Website may pay you for views of a Production if you are accepted into their partner program." Hard to tell from that 2nd part but it is most likely refering to Network Partnership, where the Network would have a license and not general Youtube Partnership without a license. Ubisoft prolly have similar guidelines in their use of AC as you mentioned. ie: The video should be for non-commercial use only. The problem these LP'ers seem to be having with Nintendo is that the LP'er is actively trying to earn money through the use of Adsense or otherwise on the their videos containing Nintendo game footage. Nintendo may very well have no problem with someone uploading content so long as they are not trying to make money from it,they prolly would still content ID Match the video and place ads on it, but in that case it wouldn't matter much to the uploader as they weren't trying to make money on it in teh first place and least that way the video remains on YT and they don't get a mark against their channel. (Note if a copyright owner decides to remove a video with their content the channel it is on gets issued with a strike against their channel, 3 strikes and your out. Issuing a Content ID match and putting ads on a video does not issue a strike against the channel) However what seems to be the issue here is that some people are trying to earn money from videos with Nintendo content, Nintendo would be in more of a position to have such a video taken down off YT but they instead choose to just have the Ad Revenue already set to the video changed so that the revenue goes to them instead of the uploader. Now as mentioned before if the LP'er has a Network Partnership with someone like Machinima then they should be allowed to use Nintendo content and earn revenue (Kidlat404 whose vid I posted last page I know is a Machinima partner and has uploaded vid of NSMBU). If such a person had a content ID match on their video and the ad revenue is being diverted to Nintendo then this was either: 1: A mistake by the automated Content ID Matching program and the uploader should have contacted their Network first to have the issue reversed (assuming the network does indeed have a license) instead of going all "OMG Nintendo are SUX" 2: Their Networks license expired.... unlikely but I'd assume it is possible 3: Their Network doesn't have a license for that game.... unlikely again but probably possible. If it were either of issues 2 or 3 it is the uplaoders Network that let them down not Nintendo "screwing them over", if it was issue 1 then it should be easily rectified by contacting the revelvant person at your Network instead of whining like a baby on the internet that the copyright owner is stopping you from making money off their material @Ville on the section you quoted You missed the last line which (kinda) makes it a little clearer Without the appropriate license from the publisher, use of video game or software user interface must be minimal. Video game content may be monetized if the associated step-by-step commentary is strictly tied to the live action being shown and provides instructional or educational value. Videos simply showing a user playing a video game or the use of software for extended periods of time may not be accepted for monetization. The bit where it mentions "step-by-step commentary" I would read it as being tied to the bit beforehand where it says "use of video game or software user interface must be minimal." which I would see as the video should contain small clips of gameplay footage interspliced with footage of the "presenter" like you'd see on a TV show. That's my interpretation of it. As the final line seems to say that the whole vid shouldn't be one long gameplay video. Bottom line, if someone whats to try earn money from youtube videos where they are playing games the safest way to do it would be to join up with a Network like Machinima (I always use them as example cause I don't know which other networks would have gaming licenses). If Nintendo or any other company took over the ads on your video with a Content ID Match then your Network would be able to reverse this (assuming they have a license of course). Edited May 17, 2013 by Mokong Automerged Doublepost
Wii Posted May 22, 2013 Posted May 22, 2013 YouTube releases statement in light of recent copyright issues with Nintendo We know we have a lot of partners who love and want to post videos relating to games, so we wanted to share some tips to help you monetize gaming content. As always, you should ensure that you have all the necessary rights to commercially use all content in a video before you submit it for monetization. Video game content may be monetized depending on the commercial use rights granted to you by licenses of video game publishers. Here are some tips! ● Check the video game publisher’s license agreement (Terms of Use, EULA etc). Some publishers allow you to use all video game content for commercial use and state that in the license agreement. ● Get written permission. Some publishers may allow you to monetize videos containing their game content if you reach out and ask. ● Videos showing software user interface may only be monetized if you’ve signed a contract with the publisher or paid a licensing fee. ● If you do have the appropriate license, submit your documentation to YouTube in a timely manner. If you do not have the appropriate license from a video game publisher, your videos must contain minimal use of video game or software user interface and be as informative and educational as possible - commentary must follow the live action shown step by step. ● Use your video metadata wisely! Use relevant, accurate titles, tags and descriptions for your videos. ● Make sure your dialogue is family friendly, so fans of all ages can enjoy your video. A final reminder: Simply buying or playing a video game does not grant you the copyright or permission to monetize. To earn revenue from videos from the game, you need commercial rights.
Diageo Posted May 22, 2013 Posted May 22, 2013 According to a network shot I watch called "This Week In Youtube", Nintendo only takes half of the ad revenue. They also claim Youtube approached Nintendo and said, "We have a lot of content ID matched to your games, do you want to make money off it?", which sounds stupid to say no.
Recommended Posts