Nintendo Creators Program for Youtube

[Ashley]

Do they though? I know the law is on their side, but it's an interesting debate to have as the way we're consuming media, and the agency we have in this, is changing quicker than companies want to keep up.

[Serebii]

Do they though? I know the law is on their side, but it's an interesting debate to have as the way we're consuming media, and the agency we have in this, is changing quicker than companies want to keep up.

Yes. Very much so. What gives people the right to upload entire games, slap some commentary over it and then profit. Developers deserve a share of the money made. Not all of it, but some of it.

 

It's quite simple really. If you use a clip from a TV show or a movie in a different TV show or movie, you have to pay royalties. If you use a sample of another piece of music when you're creating music, you have to pay royalties. Here you're using a video game to create a video and so logically royalties should be paid or revenue earned should be shared.

Edited February 7, 2015 by Serebii

[Wii]

Interesting article but far too long to post so I'll provide the link to this feature where multiple YouTube personalities, lawyers and more sit down to discuss the entire Nintendo and Youtube situation.

 

WHY DOES NINTENDO WANT THIS SUPERFAN’S YOUTUBE MONEY?

 

http://www.wired.com/2015/03/nintendo-youtube-creators/

[Wii]

Final Nintendo Angry Rant! - Anti-Youtuber Policies

 

 

 

"This is the final Nintendo Angry Rant and the Final Nintendo Video on this channel. Tired of these guys claiming our videos as their own. While other companies are understanding how valuable the youtube gaming community is, Nintendo only see's free labor and dollar signs.

 

Because of that attitude, I wont be covering Mario Kart, Mario Party, Zelda, Star Fox, Metroid and whatever 17th version of the same game Nintendo wants people to talk about on youtube until they pull their heads out of their asses and stop claiming videos.

 

Nintendo thinks they need control of your content through their rev share program which takes 40% of your earnings ON TOP of what youtube takes (50%?) AND on top of what your managed channel network takes (20%-40%?). And obviously with their approval and permission. Geezuz guys. Really?

 

The pennies on the dollar they would earn from our vids is so important to them, they DONT GIVE a shit about what gamers think, they dont GIVE a SHIT what youtubers think or if its bad PR for them. I can guarentee you Nintendo of American has tried explaining this to them and they sat their in their office like, "NOPE. FUCK EM'." Thats how awesome Nintendo Japan is. Where as other indie companies would KILL for a let play or hell even big companies like blizzard just love to see their games get exposure on twitch, on youtube, anywhere! NO Nintendo says fuck you give me money if others watch you play our games.

 

No Thanks."

 

Good job Nintendo.

[Serebii]

Final Nintendo Angry Rant! - Anti-Youtuber Policies

 

 

 

"This is the final Nintendo Angry Rant and the Final Nintendo Video on this channel. Tired of these guys claiming our videos as their own. While other companies are understanding how valuable the youtube gaming community is, Nintendo only see's free labor and dollar signs.

 

Because of that attitude, I wont be covering Mario Kart, Mario Party, Zelda, Star Fox, Metroid and whatever 17th version of the same game Nintendo wants people to talk about on youtube until they pull their heads out of their asses and stop claiming videos.

 

Nintendo thinks they need control of your content through their rev share program which takes 40% of your earnings ON TOP of what youtube takes (50%?) AND on top of what your managed channel network takes (20%-40%?). And obviously with their approval and permission. Geezuz guys. Really?

 

The pennies on the dollar they would earn from our vids is so important to them, they DONT GIVE a shit about what gamers think, they dont GIVE a SHIT what youtubers think or if its bad PR for them. I can guarentee you Nintendo of American has tried explaining this to them and they sat their in their office like, "NOPE. FUCK EM'." Thats how awesome Nintendo Japan is. Where as other indie companies would KILL for a let play or hell even big companies like blizzard just love to see their games get exposure on twitch, on youtube, anywhere! NO Nintendo says fuck you give me money if others watch you play our games.

 

No Thanks."

 

Good job Nintendo.

He never really covered Nintendo. He went in KNOWING this would happen as he has commented on it in the past. He begged for donations to get his Wii U also.

 

This was nothing more than a publicity stunt to get attention so he can monetise the rant video.

 

Do Nintendo need to sort their policy? Sure, but let's not pretend this guy is innocent in this. He knew it would happen and making a rant like that acting as if he's shocked and it's something new, no. He did it to get attention.

 

I am still stunned by the audacity of youtubers who think they can use other people's intellectual property to earn money and that the developers don't deserve a cut. I think Nintendo's doing the right thing, they're just asking for too much of a cut. 20% would be fair. They need to strike a better balance.

 

Imagine you wrote a book. Someone then put a video on Youtube where they read the whole book, but with their own twist. That's what this scenario is. You'd be pissed. In movies, if they use a piece of music, they have to pay for rights to use that bit of music, even though it's not why people see the movie.

 

Some youtubers are acting like entitled children. Why do they think they can earn money off of other people work just with the guise of it being "free advertising"?

Edited April 7, 2015 by Serebii

[Sheikah]

He never really covered Nintendo. He went in KNOWING this would happen as he has commented on it in the past. He begged for donations to get his Wii U also.

 

This was nothing more than a publicity stunt to get attention so he can monetise the rant video.

 

Do Nintendo need to sort their policy? Sure, but let's not pretend this guy is innocent in this. He knew it would happen and making a rant like that acting as if he's shocked and it's something new, no. He did it to get attention.

 

I am still stunned by the audacity of youtubers who think they can use other people's intellectual property to earn money and that the developers don't deserve a cut. I think Nintendo's doing the right thing, they're just asking for too much of a cut. 20% would be fair. They need to strike a better balance.

 

Imagine you wrote a book. Someone then put a video on Youtube where they read the whole book, but with their own twist. That's what this scenario is. You'd be pissed. In movies, if they use a piece of music, they have to pay for rights to use that bit of music, even though it's not why people see the movie.

 

Some youtubers are acting like entitled children. Why do they think they can earn money off of other people work just with the guise of it being "free advertising"?

I love that throughout his video he called out every argument fanboys will make in defence of Nintendo in response to his rant, all of which you pretty much just made here.

 

The point is not whether he expected it or not, as then you're trying to put him down on a technicality. The point is what actually happened - Nintendo claiming all of his as revenue from the video, something other companies don't do because he's giving their games free publicity.

 

Once again, it shows just how out of touch Nintendo are with the modern day. Utterly bananas decision.

[Serebii]

I love that throughout his video he called out every argument fanboys will make in defence of Nintendo in response to his rant, all of which you pretty much just made here.

 

The point is not whether he expected it or not, as then you're trying to put him down on a technicality. The point is what actually happened - Nintendo claiming all of his as revenue from the video, something other companies don't do because he's giving their games free publicity.

 

Once again, it shows just how out of touch Nintendo are with the modern day. Utterly bananas decision.

Yeah, all the legal stuff is clearly just fanboys. Only fanboys think companies have a right to get money from people monetising their property.

 

He even admitted he did it because things were slow. He has the capability to do the revenue share and he chose not to do it. He knew ahead of time what was going to happen, and admitted he did it due to a slow weekend.

 

The free publicity argument is a complete fallacy. It's not free publicity.

[Sheikah]

Right, it's the same as a streaming a book or film, because it's not like you play the game as opposed to just watch the game when you buy it.

 

Companies make more money from having people publicise their games; like he said, some companies are actively paying people to cover their content. The idea you should charge people when their actions cause you to make more money is fucking batshit.

 

Funnily enough, taking 100% of the ad revenue for making a video about your game is likely to discourage well know personalities from ever covering your games ever again, don't you think?

[Wii]

Bad publicity is bad publicity. It's gone 76 pages deep over on gaf:

 

http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1023292

 

He has 2 million subscribers and whatever else viewers. It's a good thing Nintendo are in such a healthy position to take this attitude...oh wait...

 

And we're not talking about putting the whole video game online. Nintendo often put out videos to get the publics attention. Youtubers help their cause by spreading the word and get hit for copyright claims. Why bother? There's plenty of other companies out there that are grateful for the attention so it's only going to be damaging for Nintendo.

[Serebii]

Right, it's the same as a streaming a book or film, because it's not like you play the game as opposed to just watch the game when you buy it.

 

Companies make more money from having people publicise their games; like he said, some companies are actively paying people to cover their content. The idea you should charge people when their actions cause you to make more money is fucking batshit.

 

Funnily enough, taking 100% of the ad revenue for making a video about your game is likely to discourage well know personalities from ever covering your games ever again, don't you think?

Nintendo have the programme so it's not all taken.

 

What gives people the right to use other people's intellectual property to make money? Why is that alright for games and nothing else? Yes, games are a bit more transformative than movies, but when people put out all the game has to offer on video, it's still detrimental.

[Wii]

The vast majority of these Youtubers don't put up the whole game online. Who in their right mind watches a video game being completed from start to finish anyway? That's just sad and not what video games are for. I feel like it's free publicity for Nintendo. Nintendo won't pay for advertising but actively go about penalising those that do advertise their wares.

[Serebii]

The vast majority of these Youtubers don't put up the whole game online. Who in their right mind watches a video game being completed from start to finish anyway? That's just sad and not what video games are for. I feel like it's free publicity for Nintendo. Nintendo won't pay for advertising but actively go about penalising those that do advertise their wares.

I would agree that it's free publicity if they weren't monetising it.

[Jonnas]

The vast majority of these Youtubers don't put up the whole game online. Who in their right mind watches a video game being completed from start to finish anyway?

 

They do, and they have an audience.

 

Heck, I love watching the Game Grumps, youtubers who drop many games halfway through, but they still try to play most from start to finish (though I watch them mostly for their commentary, and avoid watching too much of stuff I haven't played).

 

Funnily enough, taking 100% of the ad revenue for making a video about your game is likely to discourage well know personalities from ever covering your games ever again, don't you think?

 

Didn't Serebii already agree with you on this? Something about how 20% would be a more sensible share?

[Serebii]

Didn't Serebii already agree with you on this? Something about how 20% would be a more sensible share?

 

Yep.

 

Their current system is to sign up to their program which has them take 40% of the money Youtube gives after Youtube's cut. The way AngryJoe words it is that they take 40% of everything, too

[Cube]

I think Nintendo are being dicks about it, but at the same time, the Mario Party video was just them playing it and then uploading it to make money from it. It isn't creative or anything like that, it just seems like he wants money for nothing.

 

I enjoy his reviews and agree that he should make all the money from those as in that, it's his parts people are interested in.

[liger05]

The only issue I have is Nintendo's cut.

 

The idea that someone can use others IP, make money from it and then complain when the owner of the IP say's no more is absurd.

[Serebii]

I think Nintendo are being dicks about it, but at the same time, the Mario Party video was just them playing it and then uploading it to make money from it. It isn't creative or anything like that, it just seems like he wants money for nothing.

 

I enjoy his reviews and agree that he should make all the money from those as in that, it's his parts people are interested in.

 

I agree, all reviews should be exempt from the monetisation rules as reviews fall under fair use.

[liger05]

Yes. Very much so. What gives people the right to upload entire games, slap some commentary over it and then profit. Developers deserve a share of the money made. Not all of it, but some of it.

 

It's quite simple really. If you use a clip from a TV show or a movie in a different TV show or movie, you have to pay royalties. If you use a sample of another piece of music when you're creating music, you have to pay royalties. Here you're using a video game to create a video and so logically royalties should be paid or revenue earned should be shared.

 

Yeah their is very little difference. Even a clothes shop for example needs a PPL licence just to play music in the shop.

 

Nintendo haven't done anything wrong here.

[Sheikah]

Yep.

 

Their current system is to sign up to their program which has them take 40% of the money Youtube gives after Youtube's cut. The way AngryJoe words it is that they take 40% of everything, too

 

Actually, he couldn't get any revenue for the Mario Party at all (due to when the game was released), so he removed the video. Despite the fact you said the cut was too high, you clearly weren't supporting this guy (in fact, most of your original post was in support of Nintendo and how he 'should have known').

 

I think people here are failing to realise that A) this is bad publicity and B) they don't stand to lose money by letting people stream their content. In fact, they'll probably gain money, because people see it being played and want to play it themselves. That's why other companies are paying people to cover their games.

 

You guys have a point regarding "this is our content, we should get a cut" but ultimately this way of thinking is quite old fashioned and counter-productive. I could understand if they were losing money - for instance, curtailing illegal MP3 downloads as that's exactly the same thing as you'd get if you paid for it through a digital store. But here, if you charge people like this...why would people bother covering it? There's so many games to cover these days in which you won't be charged to do so. So why bother? It's just a totally daft approach, and anyone who thinks otherwise isn't seeing the bigger picture.

 

This is yet another delightful focus on the fossil that is Nintendo and their policies in relation to everyone else. Forbes have typed a pretty good explanation about why this sucks:

 

It’s important to remember, as Angry Joe points out, that this isn’t really a legal question. Nintendo has every right to aggressively police its intellectual property across any and all media. That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. Youtube is an inextricable part of discovery in the modern video game world, particularly for the younger gamers that Nintendo targets — you only need to look at the social media-fueled mega-success of Minecraft to see just how far a robust sharing ecosystem can take a game. It would be one thing if every video game company out there had a similar program, but Nintendo is on the outs here. All this means is that the company will see a meager amount of Youtube income in exchange for the lack of exposure that comes with a dramatically smaller social media presence.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Sheikah

[Serebii]

Actually, he couldn't get any revenue for the Mario Party at all (due to when the game was released), so he removed the video. Despite the fact you said the cut was too high, you clearly weren't supporting this guy (in fact, most of your original post was in support of Nintendo and how he 'should have known').

 

I think people here are failing to realise that A) this is bad publicity and B) they don't stand to lose money by letting people stream their content. In fact, they'll probably gain money, because people see it being played and want to play it themselves. That's why other companies are paying people to cover their games.

 

You guys have a point regarding "this is our content, we should get a cut" but ultimately this way of thinking is quite old fashioned and counter-productive. I could understand if they were losing money - for instance, curtailing illegal MP3 downloads as that's exactly the same thing as you'd get if you paid for it through a digital store. But here, if you charge people like this...why would people bother covering it? There's so many games to cover these days in which you won't be charged to do so. So why bother? It's just a totally daft approach, and anyone who thinks otherwise isn't seeing the bigger picture.

 

This is yet another delightful focus on the fossil that is Nintendo and their policies in relation to everyone else. Forbes have typed a pretty good explanation about why this sucks:

He couldn't get any money because he didn't put the video through the revenue share system, which he knew exists because he previously has commented about it. He did this all for publicity, how can you not see that?

[Sheikah]

He couldn't get any money because he didn't put the video through the revenue share system, which he knew exists because he previously has commented about it. He did this all for publicity, how can you not see that?

 

Ha! You haven't a clue what you're talking about:

 

Nintendo launched an early version of its Creators Program earlier this year, which allows YouTubers to release videos with Nintendo games, so long as they share some of the revenue. However, not every Nintendo game qualifies for it, and Mario Party 10 currently doesn’t.

 

He couldn't have ended up getting paid for this video at all. It wasn't eligible for the Creators Program.

 

Also, what an absurd statement, suggesting he did it for publicity. Why would you do it for publicity if your video is taken down so you can't make any money from it? Think about it Serebii - think long and hard! (Pst - answer is, you wouldn't.).

 

God, you don't half talk a right load of sycophantic nonsense, Serebii.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Sheikah

[Gizmo]

How does this affect things like Twitch streaming of Smash tournaments / the upload of tournament matches to YT after?

[Ganepark32]

I'm pretty sure it was said that at the time of the video being put up on Youtube, the game in question, Mario Party 10, was NOT covered by the revenue share thing as it wasn't included on the list of games viable for it at that point. I think that's where a lot of the frustration is coming from, not because said Youtuber saw it as an attempt to cash in quick an make some money before Nintendo put the game on the list of games for their revenue share but rather the fact that it wasn't there and they've gone and done this. At least that's what I have read elsewhere on the topic.

 

Also, not trying to take a pot shot or start an argument, but isn't it a bit pot-kettle-black @Serebii to call someone out as essentially money-grabbing and trying to make money off of other peoples' intellectual property when you yourself run a Pokémon based website, making use of the in game sprites, screen grabs from the tv show and games, etc.? Genuinely not trying to start something there but though your content is for gamers to look up and gain additional information to further their time investment into the games or franchise, as opposed to posting videos on Youtube, it's still very much a similar situation is it not.

[Serebii]

He couldn't have ended up getting paid for this video at all. It wasn't eligible for the Creators Program.

 

Also, what an absurd statement, suggesting he did it for publicity. Why would you do it for publicity if your video is taken down so you can't make any money from it? Think about it Serebii - think long and hard! (Pst - answer is, you wouldn't.).

 

God, you don't half talk a right load of sycophantic nonsense, Serebii.

 

Ok, noted for Mario Party 10.

 

The statement isn't absurd. He knew the situation, he knew his video would be taken down and then he made his rant video about the whole thing. The rant video is getting a lot of traction and is being monetised. His name is also all over gaming sites now. That's how he has done it for publicity/attention. Use your head.

 

You don't half talk a right load of crap, also, Sheikah. Too blind to see the forest for the Nintendo-hating trees.

[Sheikah]

It's more that you wanted to paint this whole thing as a big "publicity stunt" (as in, the entire point of him ever covering Mario Party was to produce a monetised rant video) that I strongly disagree with.

 

I think if you view this in terms of 'publicity' towards the message (ie. 'Nintendo plz don't do this') then I'd agree with you, but as it stands; no.