By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo - My Defense to Nintendo's Youtube Policy

ArchangelMadzz on 08 April 2015
marley said:
torok said:


That's naive. They can reject a negative video because of a technicality and just be more flexible with positive videos.

Despite that, a let's play video is fair use. Nintendo is just doing that because they know that YouTube usually takes any copyright notice, correct or not, seriously and gives one strike to the channel. They aren't even in their own legal right! They are just using the fear of being banned against YouTubers because they want to censor content about their games.

Imagine if everyone did that. Not only game companies, but film companies too. And if they did it with TV reviews too. "Oh, you were kind of harsh with Avengers 2, well your video can't be published because of rule A and B".

The fair use law contains elements that must be met:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

I think it would be hard to argue that let's play videos satisfy condition 3.  The art, sound, and story are lifted verbatim in their entirety from the games being shown.  Those are all owned by the copyright holder.  The only arguement in favor of fair use is that the gameplay is missing.  I'm not sure how well that would hold up in court and I think a lot of people are overly confident that it would be enough.

I think everyone knows any publisher can legally do this, it is their content and they have a right to do it if they want.



It's just a dick move, not even EA is willing to stoop that low.



There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

Around the Network
torok on 08 April 2015
marley said:

The fair use law contains elements that must be met:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

I think it would be hard to argue that let's play videos satisfy condition 3.  The art, sound, and story are lifted verbatim in their entirety from the games being shown.  Those are all owned by the copyright holder.  The only arguement in favor of fair use is that the gameplay is missing.  I'm not sure how well that would hold up in court and I think a lot of people are overly confident that it would be enough.


Nintendo's policy will affect review videos too, that aren't using nothing more than short disconnected parts of the game. We could argue that if a film review can be allowed, a game one can too because it's, by nature, even more distant from the source material because you aren't playing the game yourself.

 

ihatefatkatz said:

Just becausethey can, doesn't it will happen. In fact, I can bet you can provide a single instance of Nintendo flagging youtubers on the basis of criticism and opinion. The program is a few months old and there hasn't been a single issue of censorship.

You are using a hypothetical and not a real issue. Even angry joes situation, Nintedo didn't take down the video they took the revenue. Angry joe himself took the video down himself in spite.

I own a knife, I have potential to stab someone with it, it doesn't mean I will. This analogy applies here.

Using the fact that we don't have an issue yet is a falacy. If they wanted their revenue share, they would just ask for it. But they want to choose:

a) If your video meets their rules.

b) If you can do a video for that specific game.

That's were the danger is. It's the same kind of politics that Google applies and that Apple applies and they used it to get advantages several times. The big problem here is that everybody is giving a free-pass because it's Nintendo. I would love to see the reaction if it was EA or Ubi.



Bet with jetforcejiminy: PS4 will pass the Wii lifetime numbers.

-Ack!- on 08 April 2015

I don't see how people can defend Nintendo by saying that AJ is using property that doesn't belong to him. WTF, he purchased the console, the games & accessories, they are HIS OWN PROPERTY.

Then he promotes these products on YT for free and gets money from ads. Then Nintendo claims that the video is their property, not the games, not the console, THE VIDEO made by AJ.

It is like claiming that a video review made by IGN is Nintendo's property because it features their game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use



marley on 08 April 2015
ArchangelMadzz said:
marley said:

The fair use law contains elements that must be met:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

I think it would be hard to argue that let's play videos satisfy condition 3.  The art, sound, and story are lifted verbatim in their entirety from the games being shown.  Those are all owned by the copyright holder.  The only arguement in favor of fair use is that the gameplay is missing.  I'm not sure how well that would hold up in court and I think a lot of people are overly confident that it would be enough.

I think everyone knows any publisher can legally do this, it is their content and they have a right to do it if they want.



It's just a dick move, not even EA is willing to stoop that low.


I'm not sure everyone knows or agrees that it's legal.  I see people argue against it's legality all of the time.  Of course, we won't ever know if it truly falls into fair use until it's argued in court, but I highly doubt that it does.  I'm not a copyright lawyer or anything, but I did work in copyright approval for almost a decade.  In my work experience I found that people tend to think 'fair use' covers much more than it actually does.

Also, I don't personally see it as a dick move, but that's probably because I don't care about the youtube videos in question.  I can see how it might not be the best business decision though.  



marley on 08 April 2015
-Ack!- said:
I don't see how people can defend Nintendo by saying that AJ is using property that doesn't belong to him. WTF, he purchased the console, the games & accessories, they are HIS OWN PROPERTY.

Then he promotes these products on YT for free and gets money from ads. Then Nintendo claims that the video is their property, not the games, not the console, THE VIDEO made by AJ.

It is like claiming that a video review made by IGN is Nintendo's property because it features their game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use


That doesn't make any difference in copyright law.  You own the physical item but not the work on the item.  In most cases it is illegal to copy and distribute those works without the creator's approval.  AJ does not own the intellectual property that he is profiting from.

The works in the video are Nintendo's property.  The artwork, story, and music all belong to them.  

Reviewers (IGN) are allowed use of short clips under fair use.      



Around the Network
nosound_warmup on 08 April 2015
cycycychris said:
nosound_warmup said:
cycycychris said:
Nintendo has all right to earn money on the copy righted material. I just believe they should back off.


Speaking of said copyrighted material, you have some in your sig. How much do you estimate you owe Nintendo for the privilege of using it?

I guess me and a bunch of people here a doomed now. We've not been giving Nintendo any of the ad money were making on these gifs.

You do realize that their policy applies whether you earn ad money on it or not, right? Do you think it's ok for you to use their material without their permission?



MartinD on 08 April 2015

Wii u sales numbers: bad. Xone and ps4: Good.
Maybe, one reason is the community?

Nintendo will never learn.



Watch my NES Mini

Mr Khan on 08 April 2015
kitler53 said:
i know. yesterday i was watching a film critic review a film and i was just soo angry that this guy be allowed to make a living by talking about someone else's copyrighted materials. life be just so much better if as a consumer i had no way to inform myself about a product until after i purchase it, amiright?

Plenty of video reviews out there. This is effectively sharing of the product itself.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

kitler53 on 08 April 2015
Mr Khan said:
kitler53 said:
i know. yesterday i was watching a film critic review a film and i was just soo angry that this guy be allowed to make a living by talking about someone else's copyrighted materials. life be just so much better if as a consumer i had no way to inform myself about a product until after i purchase it, amiright?

Plenty of video reviews out there. This is effectively sharing of the product itself.


youtube has wiiU gamepad support?  

now if you will excuse me,.. i'm going to go drive a jaguar.



marley on 08 April 2015
kitler53 said:
Mr Khan said:

Plenty of video reviews out there. This is effectively sharing of the product itself.


youtube has wiiU gamepad support?  

now if you will excuse me,.. i'm going to go drive a jaguar.


The Jaguar is protected by patents (as is the gamepad).  Creative works are protected by copyright laws.  They are not the same thing.