[news] Nintendo taking Ad Revenue from YouTubers

[abillybob]

Nintendo have introduced a "law" every YouTube video posted that features their games need the approval of Nintendo before they can be uploaded. YouTubers won't make any money via ad revenue if the videos are not approved.

 

So basically say their game is good or don't earn any money.

 

YouTuber PewDiePie takes aim at Nintendo... but why? - BBC Newsbeat

[X-13]

So basically say their game is good or don't earn any money.

 

That's one hell of a logic jump.

 

Their argument is actually "We own the rights to the game, if you want to put it on youtube you need to agree to our terms."

 

It's pointless anyway, as most of the gaming youtubers are American. And they have a "fair use" clause in their copyright laws making what they're currently doing legal.

 

 

And I wish everyone would get over PewDiePie.

 

He isn't popular because he's good, he's popular because of how Youtube's suggestion algorithm works.

Edited February 5, 2015 by X-13

[abillybob]

That's one hell of a logic jump.

 

Their argument is actually "We own the rights to the game, if you want to put it on youtube you need to agree to our terms."

 

It's pointless anyway, as most of the gaming youtubers are American. And they have a "fair use" clause in their copyright laws making what they're currently doing legal.

 

It's not though is it... Unless Nintendo actually say all is ok with that Video and they approve it, the YouTuber won't make any money in ad revenue. So what's their stance if someone creates a written review, earns money from ad's online and is showing screenshots... this is ultimately the same thing and just targeting YouTubers is petty, probably because majority of them are smaller and can't do anything about it.

 

I don't care whether or not American's can get away with it, what about British YouTubers or the rest of the world!? It's not fair in my book and Nintendo's lost some credibility in my eyes.

[tmcd35]

It's pointless anyway, as most of the gaming youtubers are American. And they have a "fair use" clause in their copyright laws making what they're currently doing legal.

 

I think, with our recent Copyright changes, we have a similar fair use exception for legitimate reviews. Don't think it covers Lets Plays or Walkthroughs though. No idea if American fair use covers them either really? For LPs and Walkthroughs what Nintendo are doing is actually pretty fair. It legitimises the videos and give the content creators a fair chunk of the ad revenue. I think the system falls down when they insist reviewers jump through the same hoops.

[X-13]

It's not though is it... Unless Nintendo actually say all is ok with that Video and they approve it, the YouTuber won't make any money in ad revenue. So what's their stance if someone creates a written review, earns money from ad's online and is showing screenshots... this is ultimately the same thing and just targeting YouTubers is petty, probably because majority of them are smaller and can't do anything about it.

 

I don't care whether or not American's can get away with it, what about British YouTubers or the rest of the world!? It's not fair in my book and Nintendo's lost some credibility in my eyes.

 

Nintendo are a family company.

 

So, people like PewDiePie, for example, who CONSTANTLY swear... aren't someone Ninty want uploading videos.

 

It's not like the Xbone/Machinima deal.

 

As for their views on written reviews... it's irrelevant. Written reviews aren't a complete playthrough of the game that someone can watch without buying it. Plus, they have legal protections in pretty much every country.

 

And I never said it was fair. It's BS posturing.

[X-13]

Don't think it covers Lets Plays or Walkthroughs though. No idea if American fair use covers them either really?

 

Fair use covers using copyrighted material for education... A walkthrough is technically educational.

 

And adding commentary makes it a transformative work and examept from copyright claims .

 

 

As always: IANAL

[pcstru]

Fair use covers using copyrighted material for education... A walkthrough is technically educational.

No, it does not. Use in Education is covered by specific licences. Use on a laptop, projector etc, is now covered by a "fair dealing" exception. Fair use should cover a review but probably not a walkthrough etc.

[tmcd35]

As always, go to the original source: P-01: UK Copyright Law fact sheet

 

Part 7, Restricted Acts: Perform, broadcast or show the work in public (that's no LP's or Walkthroughs then)

 

Part 8, Acts that are allowed: Private and research study proposes (key being private, so again no Walkthroughs/guides)

Part 8, Acts that are allowed: Criticism and new reporting (so yes to reviews)

 

So sign up to Nintendo's scheme if you want to post LPs and Walkthroughs to Youtube. Don't bother if you're posting review videos and are happy taking legal action against Nintendo/Google when the video is incorrectly taken down or ad revenue incorrectly passed to Nintendo.

[X-13]

No, it does not. Use in Education is covered by specific licences. Use on a laptop, projector etc, is now covered by a "fair dealing" exception. Fair use should cover a review but probably not a walkthrough etc.

 

https://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/en-GB/fair-use.html

 

YouTube's fair use page.

 

They seem to follow the US copyright law, so 17 U.S.C. § 107 applies.

 

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

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.
   

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

 

And from here, re let's plays/walkthroughs

 

 

1. Video game walkthroughs and tutorials with commentary
   
   • Even though video games are copyrighted, it is now a widely accepted practice on YouTube to post walkthroughs and tutorials ("let's plays"). Both the player's original commentary and the fact that their gameplay creates a unique subjective experience with the game make the use transformative. As long as you include your own original commentary about the game and don't just post straight raw footage from the game, it is likely fair use. It is possible that even un-commented gameplay is still fair use, though this is less certain.

 

And before "omg, that's just some random website!!!one!!eleven"

 

This website is written and maintained by Patrick McKay, a Colorado attorney with a J.D. from Regent University School of Law in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

 

About This Site

[tmcd35]

Googles own FAQ on the subject: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797449

 

Includes a section on copyright outside of the U.S. I've not delved deeper, but I'd take it from that local copyright laws apply.

 

Edit:

 

That said, the YouTube T&C's under copyright (https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/) mention the US Digital Millenium Act and state the jurisdiction for the service lays with the California Courts.

Edited February 5, 2015 by tmcd35

[LosOjos]

@X-13 - a website's T&C's/Fair Use/AUP/etc. never supersedes local* law.

 

* local to the user, not the website

[LiamH]

I think its tricky when it comes to computer games and lets plays.

 

With creative games like minecraft I would almost look at them like I would creative software, If you create a image in photoshop then it is your image, you use a copyrighted tool that you are licensed to use to create something that now belongs to you.

 

So if somebody makes an amazing game world, is it theirs? is it Mojangs(microsofts)?

 

I'm sure we can all agree something like a movie, image, written work is copyrighted by whoever created it, its unchanging and fixed, but something as fluid as a game that can be changed by how the end user plays it can create different outcomes, some games are fairly linear in that regard but with the likes of minecraft it feels like a creative tool.

Talking purely from my own rational here, not a legal standpoint.

[X-13]

@X-13 - a website's T&C's/Fair Use/AUP/etc. never supersedes local* law.

 

* local to the user, not the website

 

The users are bound by their local laws, YouTube [iIRC] are bound by theirs [so, US copyright law].

 

Foreign law NEVER trumps local law.

 

You can revoke access your end if it's illegal in your country, but you can force them to take content down. If you did, how many openly gay people would now be silenced because of Russian laws?

Edited February 5, 2015 by X-13
How does I used correct tense?

[Garacesh]

And I wish everyone would get over PewDiePie.

 

He isn't popular because he's good, he's popular because of how Youtube's suggestion algorithm works.

Elaborate? (I actually can't stand the guy, just wondering what you mean)

 

@X-13 - a website's T&C's/Fair Use/AUP/etc. never supersedes local* law.

 

* local to the user, not the website

Ehhh.. Not quite (AFAIK)

You cannot enter into a contract that violates the local law. In this case, I'd consider it Youtube cannot propose a contract (their T's and C's) that violates local law (so US law), and a user cannot agree to those terms if it violates local (to where they are) law.

To-the-extremes-of-silly example: If I were to host a service in a country that had zero laws, I would be allowed to write into my contract "To use this service, you have to agree to sacrifice three (3) humans to Kali-ma per month." and that would be fine. However, a user in the UK could not legally agree to those terms (and as such my site would probably get blocked or something.)

 

Obligatory IANAL and all that jazz. Just my understanding of common law.

[pcstru]

And from here, re let's plays/walkthroughs

 

Even though video games are copyrighted, it is now a widely accepted practice on YouTube to post walkthroughs and tutorials ("let's plays"). Both the player's original commentary and the fact that their gameplay creates a unique subjective experience with the game make the use transformative. As long as you include your own original commentary about the game and don't just post straight raw footage from the game, it is likely fair use. It is possible that even un-commented gameplay is still fair use, though this is less certain.

 

 

I think the key word is "likely" (just as I used "probably") because in the case of any dispute the only opinion that will matter will be that of a Judge. Personally I think walkthroughs etc are (at best) at much the same risk as those who use samples of existing songs in new material. So a few seconds of someones music is sampled and used with other stuff to create a new work, but that new "unique and subjective experience" doesn't seem to have protected the artists of the new work from injunctions bought by rights holders of the old work. Many seem to have settled rather than ask for the ultimate opinion. My money would be on the rights holder of the original work retaining control of their rights in any derivative work such as a walkthrough.

[X-13]

Elaborate? (I actually can't stand the guy, just wondering what you mean)

 

http://www.reelseo.com/how-pewdiepie-made-it-to-the-top/

 

Pretty much sums it up. [including the video]

 

I need to reacquaint myself with the specifics, but IIRC it boils down to setting up the account in one country then moving to another while continuing to use it results in it being pushed harder.

 

Especially if you upload short videos, because of the retention time percentage.

[Garacesh]

Huh. Surprised I haven't seen this one, I've watched a fair few of Game Theory's stuff.

 

Not a PewDiePie fan at all, truth be told. I find him obnoxious and overly dramatic.. It's just asinine and honestly not funny to me. Still, interesting to know the mechanics of how YouTube works behind the scenes.