Devs May Be "Waiving Their Rights" By Allowing YouTube Gameplay Video

[Andy Chalk]

Devs May Be "Waiving Their Rights" By Allowing YouTube Gameplay Video

A lawyer in the U.K. says developers who allow gameplay footage to be posted on YouTube may be waiving their right to take action against future cases of copyright infringement.

YouTube is a mess right now thanks to recent policy changes that allow copyright holders to lay claim to videos that include just about any amount of gameplay footage. That, obviously, has taken a huge toll on people who make such videos, some of whom are pretty big names in their own right. Jim Sterling covered the topic quite nicely in last week's "Copyright War [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/8565-Copyright-War]" edition of the Jimquisition, but the abbreviated version is that ill-conceived YouTube policies and out-of-date copyright law are crashing headlong into new media, and the makers of that media are suffering for it.

Game publishers are generally seen as a villainous force in all this, but according to lawyer Kim Walker, a partner at U.K.-based law firm Thomas Eggar, they may feel pushed into it. "Posting video clips without the copyright owners' permission is copyright infringement," she told VG247. "In allowing gamers to promote themselves with footage informally, and by announcing this to the press, developers may be waiving their right to take action for infringement against these or other YouTubers if the content is used in a way they don't like, unless they have clearly reserved their rights."

She added that licensing agreements would be one possible way to protect all involved parties, "but there will likely be a cost to administer the scheme and so may not prove popular."

I'm not a lawyer and the ones I watch on television don't often deal with the minutiae of copyright law, but Walker is and thus her opinion should probably be given at least some degree of credence. It doesn't absolve publishers who take a slash-and-burn approach to copyright claims, but if nothing else it demonstrates that it's a complex issue, with plenty of blame to go around.

Source: VG247 [http://www.vg247.com/2013/12/16/developers-may-be-waiving-their-rights-if-they-allow-youtubers-to-use-game-footage/]


Permalink

 

[JenSeven]

Congratulations world.
We've just gotten a little bit more closer to my nightmare of living in a world more or less identical to the movie Idiocracy.
If companies can't figure out which way is up on their own outdated and consumer screwing laws and policies...
Actually, that's mildly funny...
They created so much red tape that it confused even them, and is hurting them.

 

[FalloutJack]

Here's a little hint, boys. When the entire world starts shitting on you en masse, and they ARE doing it, you're doing this wrong.

 

[Corven]

If allowing youtubers or others to create content essentially promoting these companies products also allows others to steal their content and claim it as their own with no ramifications, then maybe maybe copyright law should be looked over and seen that it is compatible with the digital world we live in.

 

[Weaver]

and by announcing this to the press, developers may be waiving their right to take action for infringement against these or other YouTubers if the content is used in a way they don't like

So we're only allowed to use companies games in videos they "like"? The statement is wholly ambiguous, but isn't that illegal? Companies wouldn't want a negative review of a game, so they're allowed to just pull it off the internet? If this isn't what she's getting at, then in what way can you use the content from the devs/publishers that allow this in a way they don't like?

I get Kojima doesn't want all of the MGS cutscenes edited together on youtube. However, what I don't get is how Chucklefish allowing Starbound videos to be put on youtube could in any way open up the avenue of youtube being used in a way they don't "like". What in the hell does Blizzard possibly have to lose by letting people put up and/or stream Hearthstone videos? How could someone use footage of Hearthstone in a way Blizzard doesn't "like"?

 

[Grabehn]

I get Kojima doesn't want all of the MGS cutscenes edited together on youtube. However, what I don't get is how Chucklefish allowing Starbound videos to be put on youtube could in any way open up the avenue of youtube being used in a way they don't "like". What in the hell does Blizzard possibly have to lose by letting people put up and/or stream Hearthstone videos? How could someone use footage of Hearthstone in a way Blizzard doesn't "like"?

Actually there is, Blizzard, like Rockstar, is really clear about what people can and cannot do with their games, and what Blizzard "doesn't like" is people charging for videos made with their games, something that I've never really seen. But other than that, they're one of those companies that get the "free publicity" aspect of this.

 

[RaikuFA]

So apparently now Jonathon Blow's vid's on his own game was removed from his own channel.

 

[RA92]

Congratulations world.
We've just gotten a little bit more closer to my nightmare of living in a world more or less identical to the movie Idiocracy.

Nah, this is less Idiocracy and more the totalitarian, bureaucratic, dysfunctional nightmare that is the universe of Terry Gilliam's Brazil [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_%281985_film%29].

 

[TiberiusEsuriens]

She added that licensing agreements would be one possible way to protect all involved parties, "but there will likely be a cost to administer the scheme and so may not prove popular."

"MAY not prove popular. Man, trying to force any and all journalism or even just fun goofy Let's Players to license games in order to put anything up would be the death of the entire plane-scape. The big guys wouldn't follow it to prove a point and the little guys (most YouTubers AND Twitch streamers) wouldn't/couldn't follow it because it would be prohibitively expensive.

I'm glad the lady addressed this, and I know it's addressed to the copyright holders, but I feel she heavily under-emphasized the point and impact it would have. I guess she was just throwing it out there as an explicit example of what not to do in the hopes it will be thrown off the table before considered too greatly? (not that she's rooting for either side, I'm sure as a lawyer she'll get paid by someone either way)

 

[tdylan]

My familiarity with this comes from the Jimquisition episode mentioned, but I stopped paying attention after he stated that companies can flex their muscles to have promotional videos that they themselves released for promotion purposes removed. That alone is full of so much absolute fail, that I decided I wasn't even going to get pissed off about it. Not when its clear that this is a knee-jerk reaction on the part of devs/publishers to some idiotic change that youtube made. A shit storm is a coming, and I'm GTFO of the way.

But I was floored to learn that Capcom sent out footage saying "use this to promote our game," and then said "new rules on youtube! Take down that footage that we gave you with the sole purpose of putting up." That is "Dark Knight's Joker" levels of insanity; it cannot be reasoned with.

 

[Baresark]

As I recall, most of the big publishers have come forward and said it was not them declaring copyright actions, it was Youtubes own screwed up system for catching this. Don't let the few companies how are afraid of the internet (Nintendo, Sega, Capcom) let people think that other companies don't see the benefit and advertising values in things like "Let's Play..."

 

[Amir Kondori]

This is unlikely to be true in any western court. Many publishers have given written consent on their websites for limited use of their games for online videos in the wake of the recent Youtube video game copyright changes. That right there is enough to protect their trademark. They are enforcing their trademark and copyright by granting permission for limited video use, showing they are aware of the content and can allow or deny it based on their ownership of the IP.

 

[omega 616]

I know big companies want all teh monies but I don't get why yanking them whole sale from youtube is a good move. Wrapping up your games in just layers and layers of red tape, just so nobody can make a few bucks from you ... it's not like you haven't made thousands off it.

I know that millionaires and billionaires get that way and stay that way by being fruggle but seriously, spread the wealth a little! I'm not saying let people rip off your stuff wholesale but giving people a platform to make a few bucks off you isn't going to bankrupt you!

Like people doing matches on COD, COD allows them to show off 1337 skills but it doesn't make the money, the person doing the game play provides the entertainment.

 

[Crimsonmonkeywar]

AngryJoe had an interview with Crystal Dynamics on Tomb Raider taken down by 'Tomb Raider'(the content rights holder).....wah?

 

[Slash2x]

Congratulations world.
We've just gotten a little bit more closer to my nightmare of living in a world more or less identical to the movie Idiocracy.
If companies can't figure out which way is up on their own outdated and consumer screwing laws and policies...
Actually, that's mildly funny...
They created so much red tape that it confused even them, and is hurting them.

This is why we can not have nice things..... Lawyers....
Notice in Idiocracy everyone in the public were morons but the politicians and legal folks sounded the EXACT same as they do now???

 

[vxicepickxv]

Companies wouldn't want a negative review of a game, so they're allowed to just pull it off the internet?

This is actually a display that the way the internet is viewed is completely independent than any laws of any number of countries. In the US, it would be illegal for a company to declare a review of their material copyright infringement, because reviewers are granted special rights by producing their reviews. Because the internet isn't owned or controlled by one country, there isn't a legal set international standard.

 

[UNHchabo]

So we're only allowed to use companies games in videos they "like"? The statement is wholly ambiguous, but isn't that illegal? Companies wouldn't want a negative review of a game, so they're allowed to just pull it off the internet? If this isn't what she's getting at, then in what way can you use the content from the devs/publishers that allow this in a way they don't like?

I don't see anything she said as novel or scary; it sounds like you get it. For everyone else, read this:

In allowing gamers to promote themselves with footage informally, and by announcing this to the press, developers may be waiving their right to take action for infringement against these or other YouTubers if the content is used in a way they don't like, unless they have clearly reserved their rights.

What she's saying is that companies can either allow footage to be used, or disallow it. There's no middle ground, so companies cannot impose selective enforcement that allows only selected Youtube channels to use footage without a formal agreement. That way, you can't have a publisher claiming copyright only on videos that give a negative impression of the game. If Sega/Gearbox wanted to take down this video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8J8SzBhjqaQ], they wouldn't allowed to not take down this video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWlW4rbq030].

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

Do we really need more evidence of why copyright law needs to be redone?

 

[Fudj]

There's a lot of automation in the process from what people have been saying, there have been Dev's and such stating that they did not initiate the process themselves (Telltale being one i think). It's a bloody mess at the moment, Youtube will force content providers to go elsewhere if they don't work out an easier way of balancing the current process so it benefits both. AngryJoe had a good idea, if this content ID thing can tell you where copyrighted material is and who long it is they can work out what percentage of the monetization should go to them (but then also you'd have to differentiate between in game and "b roll" and promo stuff).

 

[Clovus]

I don't think this lawyer is addressing US copyright law. Not suing someeone for infringing on your copyright does not affect your ability to sue someone else over it. That is only the case with trademark law. Your trademark can become "diluted" if you allow everyone to use it.