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

[Ipsen]

I like how people who know more about video games than they do about law are calling this lawyer out. Her chosen profession requires her to be familiar with law, while the only thing most people can spout is fair use and what-not; which they've been using since people started posting game footage on youtube. Surely the lawyer is the one who's absent minded, not the fans who are pitching a *****.

Flip side, there are a lot more people against this, each with potentially their own expertise in varied fields, who may be able to open a better perspective than one lawyer. Not to discredit an expert in law (in one part of the world), but even if she's right, that's all she's paid to hold interest in.

Perhaps this discussion can extend to the validity of this form of copyright law itself, and that's something a congregate of people can affect more than a single lawyer.

 

[RJ 17]

in what way can you use the content from the devs/publishers that allow this in a way they don't like?

Devs: "Stop giving us free promotion and spreading general awareness of our product! The more people that know about our game and have seen how it works - thus potentially building an interest to play it themselves - the more customers we'll have to deal with! And we hate dealing with customers! They give us their money for crying out loud! What are we supposed to do with that?!"

Eh, that's all I've got. Seems to me like there really wouldn't be any reason for a dev/studio/publisher to want to prevent people from making videos about their products. Other than what you mentioned: wanting to block bad reviews. But that'd earn them even more shitty rep than blocking videos in general.

 

[Infernal Lawyer]

in what way can you use the content from the devs/publishers that allow this in a way they don't like?

Devs: "Stop giving us free promotion and spreading general awareness of our product! The more people that know about our game and have seen how it works - thus potentially building an interest to play it themselves - the more customers we'll have to deal with! And we hate dealing with customers! They give us their money for crying out loud! What are we supposed to do with that?!"

Eh, that's all I've got. Seems to me like there really wouldn't be any reason for a dev/studio/publisher to want to prevent people from making videos about their products. Other than what you mentioned: wanting to block bad reviews. But that'd earn them even more shitty rep than blocking videos in general.

There IS an argument to be had that some developers don't want footage of their games up because then people will realize that they're crap. It's not a good argument, but there you go.

 

[BrownGaijin]

Times like these where I am reminded how much the adult world sucks, and begin to reminisce of the days of nap time and milk and cookies. Of course the irony here is that the reason why the adult world sucks is because some of these adults haven't left the school yard like everyone else.

 

[Racecarlock]

in what way can you use the content from the devs/publishers that allow this in a way they don't like?

Devs: "Stop giving us free promotion and spreading general awareness of our product! The more people that know about our game and have seen how it works - thus potentially building an interest to play it themselves - the more customers we'll have to deal with! And we hate dealing with customers! They give us their money for crying out loud! What are we supposed to do with that?!"

Eh, that's all I've got. Seems to me like there really wouldn't be any reason for a dev/studio/publisher to want to prevent people from making videos about their products. Other than what you mentioned: wanting to block bad reviews. But that'd earn them even more shitty rep than blocking videos in general.

There IS an argument to be had that some developers don't want footage of their games up because then people will realize that they're crap. It's not a good argument, but there you go.

From what I've heard, sometimes these claims don't take down a video, but instead quickly change the person the money from the ads is going to to another person or the company who made the claim.

Get the picture yet? They not only want people to do their advertising, but they want to get PAYED FOR GIVING PEOPLE THE PRIVILEGE TO DO THEIR ADVERTISING. Because, you know, they're apparently fucking broke or something. Because a game is apparently just fucking worthless if it doesn't have 9 billion (HEAVILY EXAGGERATED FIGURE) dollars spent on graphics. Also I think some CEOS wanted some new ferraris and decided to hire lawyers to help them exploit copyright laws to get them. And then they threatened not to pay some of their developers if they didn't go along with it.

Of course, this could also be google's new bot which scans automatically for things that match copyright and will post claims even if it's just 15 seconds of a song.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

I think the insinuation that not always enforcing their rights means they might not be able to later is kind of insane. This is not a court of law, not filling a copyright claim doesn't set precedent and shouldn't have any impact on the future.

 

[Monsterfurby]

I actually perceived the publishers to be on the Youtubers' side in this one - it's YouTube and certain third parties (music rights holders etc) who are being unreasonable.

 

[Psychobabble]

Sadly this is looking a bit like what happened to radio in the 70s and 80s. The corps and lawyers won that battle. Not sure how this will fly in the internet age.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

That actually sounds pretty much like something that would happen. Remember Bethesda having to dispute the title of 'Scrolls' to avoid waiving the ability to defend against more serious infringements? I can see this being the case. Not to mention a lot of this shit was already in place, just not enforced. It's the mandatory screening that is causing strikes, not some kind of publisher action (although their stance, unavoidable or not, is despicable).

 

[Baldr]

As someone who knows a lot about Copyright law, on one hand she does have a valid point, although there may be a saving grace. Do you know those license agreements you agree to every-time you install a game. Publishers could blanket license streaming/youtube broadcast rights with those. I know RIOT and MOJANG have use them to cover League of Legends and Minecraft respectively. We need the top Youtubers/Streamers and Gaming Media(Including you Escapist) pushing publishers to do this.

 

[Baldr]

"Posting video clips without the copyright owners' permission is copyright infringement,"

Except that's not true, fair use is a thing that exists and these clips almost always fall under it, even if close to the edge. Furthermore its incredibly hard to lose the ability to protect your copyright. Sure saying everyone has a free go to make lets play would likely give a free go for what you just OK'd. However simply not going after everything you can never results in a negative mark against you.
Maybe this is UK law specifically, or they said more but on the face I'm not sure how accurate this is, since it conflicts with what I have heard from other lawyers.

Sorry, almost none of the Let's Plays fall under Fair Use. Fair Use only applies in most of these cases to Review/Critique or Parody. Commentary is not the same as Review/Critique. It is outside the scope of the fair use clause even though there maybe commentary that is in the bounds of Review/Critique.

Part of copyright law is meant to enforce your IP properly. Here's just one example: Lets say for instance you find out that someone is going to use your IP and you don't stop them because if you wait, they may make a lot more money using your IP and you can get some of that money.(Which unfortunately a lot of people do) Then later when they made money you go ahead and stop them. Well they may have had contracts with 3rd parties that now your hurting those 3rd parties, which you could have stopped earlier. You may lose a copyright case if you knew about an infringement and did nothing about it in a timely manner.

Here the plus side to copyright. You can give Licenses to whomever you want. You can specify exactly what rights to the IP you want to give. A lot of publishing companies have already given out Licenses to Streamer/Youtubers, so what the lawyer is saying does not apply.

There is always another option, let sites like Twitch and Youtube(which they both may already do this) is share tiny part of the ad revenue with Game publisher/developers for blanket licenses.

 

[Knight Templar]

Sorry, almost none of the Let's Plays fall under Fair Use. Fair Use only applies in most of these cases to Review/Critique or Parody. Commentary is not the same as Review/Critique. It is outside the scope of the fair use clause even though there maybe commentary that is in the bounds of Review/Critique.

Commentary is explicitly fair use.
"for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright"
Emphasis mine.

Part of copyright law is meant to enforce your IP properly. Here's just one example: Lets say for instance you find out that someone is going to use your IP and you don't stop them because if you wait, they may make a lot more money using your IP and you can get some of that money.(Which unfortunately a lot of people do) Then later when they made money you go ahead and stop them. Well they may have had contracts with 3rd parties that now your hurting those 3rd parties, which you could have stopped earlier. You may lose a copyright case if you knew about an infringement and did nothing about it in a timely manner.

As I said telling people or allowing people to do X does make it hard to then turn around and sue them for X. However a rights holder isn't required to go after every single instance of potential infringement they come across or risk losing the ability to do so elsewhere. It is very hard to lose these rights by inaction, not pursuing person A typically doesn't make pursuing person B any harder.

 

[Infernal Lawyer]

There IS an argument to be had that some developers don't want footage of their games up because then people will realize that they're crap. It's not a good argument, but there you go.

RAGE

Didn't I make it clear that the argument I put up was a poor one, and that it wasn't even one I supported? You may want to save your rants for someone who actually believes such rubbish.

 

[Racecarlock]

There IS an argument to be had that some developers don't want footage of their games up because then people will realize that they're crap. It's not a good argument, but there you go.

RAGE

Didn't I make it clear that the argument I put up was a poor one, and that it wasn't even one I supported? You may want to save your rants for someone who actually believes such rubbish.

So what? I mean, you and I are not the only people on these forums, so you and I are not the only ones who are going to read that post. Plus, I'm kinda good at irrational rage. Just ask the moderators.

 

[Infernal Lawyer]

Didn't I make it clear that the argument I put up was a poor one, and that it wasn't even one I supported? You may want to save your rants for someone who actually believes such rubbish.

So what? I mean, you and I are not the only people on these forums, so you and I are not the only ones who are going to read that post. Plus, I'm kinda good at irrational rage. Just ask the moderators.

"So what?" So don't say "get the picture yet?" if you know I don't support the argument you're having a hissy fit over.

Go on a tangent if you must, but don't imply that I ever agreed with that fallacy, please.

 

[Baldr]

Sorry, almost none of the Let's Plays fall under Fair Use. Fair Use only applies in most of these cases to Review/Critique or Parody. Commentary is not the same as Review/Critique. It is outside the scope of the fair use clause even though there maybe commentary that is in the bounds of Review/Critique.

Commentary is explicitly fair use.
"for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright"
Emphasis mine.

Part of copyright law is meant to enforce your IP properly. Here's just one example: Lets say for instance you find out that someone is going to use your IP and you don't stop them because if you wait, they may make a lot more money using your IP and you can get some of that money.(Which unfortunately a lot of people do) Then later when they made money you go ahead and stop them. Well they may have had contracts with 3rd parties that now your hurting those 3rd parties, which you could have stopped earlier. You may lose a copyright case if you knew about an infringement and did nothing about it in a timely manner.

As I said telling people or allowing people to do X does make it hard to then turn around and sue them for X. However a rights holder isn't required to go after every single instance of potential infringement they come across or risk losing the ability to do so elsewhere. It is very hard to lose these rights by inaction, not pursuing person A typically doesn't make pursuing person B any harder.

For the most part, in the commentary, your mostly right, there really is no line between fair use and infringement when it comes to these sort of things. Most lawyer will tell you it all depends on the situation. Your more like to be ruled fair use when your talking about commentary strictly about the game. However it is more likely to be ruled infringement when commentary is for entertainment and profit. It all depends on the Judge or Arbitrator. Most likely people are willing to settle or overlook things long before it gets to that point. Just don't be to eager to call it Fair Use.

As for the other point, strictly speaking in the United States law your right, but that is not the same for every country. If you don't actively pursue your copyright in some countries you can lose court cases. Copyright laws are intentionally vague and messy. There no right answer all the time. That is pretty much why we have these issues.

 

[Knight Templar]

As for the other point, strictly speaking in the United States law your right, but that is not the same for every country.

When it comes to youtube that is how almost everything is done. But you are correct in pointing out that it is a mistake on my part to think only in terms of US law.

Copyright laws are intentionally vague and messy. There no right answer all the time. That is pretty much why we have these issues.

You're right and I shouldn't have phrased myself such that I was implying this material couldn't be found to be infringement or outside the bounds of fair use.