It's a good thing you're banned.   This is derailing and has nothing to do with the post at hand, as well as riddled with contradictions and fallacies as well as misspelling and grammatical errors throughout.  

But I'll bite though, don't know why I'm going to seeing as you call me a millennial, when you have 10231 posts  on a video game sells tracking website who's probably a very old person, no disrespect.  Not like that means anything.  So I'm attached to social media by forgetting about a thread I made about a petty topic which has been on these boards for the better half of a week?   I thought that after 3 days, people would have moved on with their lives.  It's not that serious a matter, people like you act like this gaming business is life or death politics.   Most places I frequent on the internet don't stay hung up on a silly topic such as this one for such a prolonged period of time, especially if they aren't even the OP of the thread.

I'm 19, and have more experience, knowledge, and education, been to more places than most people will in their entire life time, no lie and no brag. 

lol'd at people on a video game forum trying to call me out as an internet addicted millennial when they have posts in the 10,000s and failed to use proper grammar when they're trying to sound smart.  Lol just lol

User was moderated for this post - Conegamer

It's the same as using someone's copyrighted music in a movie trailer without their permission.  Surely since they bought the music they have the rights to disrespect the aspects and use the assets for their own profit, right? 

I'm not sure why you think it matters that the profit is from ad revenue and not from a direct sale.  It makes zero difference.  They are still profiting while using someone's intellectual properties.  The gameplay might belong to the youtuber, but the characters, music, artwork, story, logos, etc still belong to someone else.    

It's no different than a director using a song in a movie.  It doesn't matter if they use a small snippet of the song, make simple edits to the song, or use the entire song.  They could merely sample part of the song's melody with different music dubbed to it.  It makes no difference.  It doesn't matter if every single person purchased a ticket to see the movie and nobody wants to hear the song.  Every single one of them could loathe the song entirely.  It doesn't matter. The directors/producers are still using someone elses creative works while making their own creative works (and profiting from it).  That requires permissions and almost always some form of licensing.  

Hell, you can't even sing (or hum) a copyrighted song on youtube legally (not even a short segment).  It doesn't matter if people are watching the video to see your performance - it's still illegal.  It doesn't matter if people are there to watch someone's gameplay - so long as that gameplay features someone elses copyrighted work. 

Purchasing a game, cd, literature, or movie does not grant you rights to use (in this case distribute) the creative works however you see fit.  Adding your own content on top of someone else's work does not give you free reign to distribute that work (especially in a commercial use).  How strictly these things are enforced is up to the owner of the IP.  

So does AJ.

Besides he doesn't share that game via torrents, now that is against copyright laws.

Where in your right mind can you find it against copyright laws? Perhaps if I say "It's a me, Mario!" and tape it, Nintendo will sue me for copyright infringement. Because that's what's happening here basically. Random clips from the game and random voices in the backround do not justify this.

Your statement that he owns the IP because he purchased the game is ludicrous.  

Showing 20+ minutes of a game (particularly when monetized) would be extremely difficult to defend as 'fair use' in court, even if it is part of a review.  Why?  Because you don't need to show 20+ minutes of a game to illustrate your criticism.  I don't know about the MP 10 video, or the amount used, because I didn't see it.

Recording  and distributing "It's a me, Mario" in the distinct Mario voice and delivery would almost certainly be considered a copyright violation in court (especially if profit is involved).  - “Substantial similarity” is measured by whether a normal observer would recognize the second work as a copy of (or derived from) the original. For cartoon characters, courts consider not only the visual resemblance but also narrative aspects of a character, such as their personalities, behaviors, biographies, and story lines.

It makes no difference how you feel about it.  It makes no difference if you think it's right or wrong.  It just is.  

I didn't say that he owns the IP, I said that he didn't pirate his game. So he own HIS COPY of the game. Copyright laws are against sharing the content for free or for profit without (in this case) Nintendo's approval. If that video was made by Nintendo it would fall into that category. Review is not a copy of the game, you can't play a review, and if you actually watched these videos you'd notice that there are a few random clips that explain how the game works and tons of original content.

Do you understand how ludicrous your statement of Nintendo owning my voice is? Only if I used the original recording, could they sue me.

By your logic for example Comic Con is illegal because almost everyone there copies some IP whether it would be games, comics, anime etc.

- On a side note: have you seen Unearthed: Trail of Ibn Battuta? By your standards that game is illegal based on your definition of "Substantial similarity". :D

-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."

The property he is using that doesn't belong to him is the IP.  I feel like a broken record at this point.  Saying he can use the IP however he sees fit because he bought the game, is the equivalent of saying he bought the IP.

It doesn't matter if you can or can't play the youtube video.  It makes ZERO difference.  Can Sony make a 'Mario' movie without Nintendo's permission? You can't play the movie can you?  Does it matter?  NO.  Mario is heavily copyrighted and trademarked.  The only way it can be used legally without consent is defined in 'fair use'.  

I've watched AJ videos.  They are generally the game playing in the background while he talks over top.  Fair use only allows you to use the amount NEEDED to illustrate your critique.  He doesn't need to show 40 minutes of a game to critique a game.  This is the main reason that it wouldn't succeed in a 'fair use' defense.  

Again, your voice isn't copyrighted - the character that you are imitating IS.  You can own your performance and still break copyright law by using someone elses property in your performance.  The only way that you would be able to legally do what you are describing is if you are doing a parody.  This isn't complicated and is actually black and white in copyright law.  It's not even gray area.   You can't sing someone elses song and broadcast it on youtube legally.  It doesn't matter if it is your performance and your voice.  The song you are singing - words, melody, etc. belong to someong else.  It's up to the copyright owner to decide if they want to remove your video, take your ad revenue, or turn a blind eye.    I promise you this is how copyright works.

People dressing up at comic con do not break copyright laws because it is private use (just like Halloween).  It would definitely be a copyright violation if they were pretending to be a character, uploading it to the internet, and profiting from ad revenues.  You can pretend to be Mario all you want in your living room.  You can go outside and yell 'it's a me Mario' if you want and it wouldn't matter.  You do need permission if you want to broadcast it (especially for profit) whether on youtube, a radio ad, tv, in a movie, etc.  

That was not my definition of 'substantial similarity'.  It was cut and paste from one of the oldest intellectual property specialty law firms in the country.... but what do they know right?  I honestly don't know how else to explain this to you.  You can keep making it seem like I'm inventing these things or that I have special standards - but it's how the law actually works.  

Your post that people kept the thread alive after two days is also derailing according to your logic. I was just having some fun, no harm intended. Apologies if my grammer didn't match that of a college paper.

Calling me out for posting here for years doesn't disprove my point. I said that instead of immersing yourself in a blurr of social media, its far simpler to pick favourites. Vgchartz is my only forum that I post on. Im 27 by the way.

I wasnt talking about jurisdictional aspects of the case, i was talking from a moral and logical point of view. Like Joe said, just because nintendo can take down videos of their game doesnt mean they should. All other companies are profiting greatly from free advertising and youtube publicity, but Nintendo has its head so far up their asses they cant even see whats good for them, they are so out of touch with todays gaming scene (which is even more evident by their sales performance) it's actually kinda fascinating to see a company trying so hard to harm itself unknowingly .