Fez Creator: YouTubers Are "Stealing" Content From Game Developers

[The Pink Pansy]

I find it interesting that this came out now, especially after this started making the rounds just the other day;


As someone who never got on the 'Let's hate Phil Fish' wagon, I'd suggest giving it a watch; it has some very intelligent points about how fame acts on the internet.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

Fish, SHUT UP. It's not enough that you've shown to be a racist, xenophobic, unprofessional, thin-skinned, childish, arrogant, self-centered hack, you're now going into shameless attention whore levels. Seriously, considering how much he tries to keep in the spotlight he should make a show with Cliffy titled "Washed Up Hacks" where they ***** forever in a miserable dark corner of the internet. You left Fish, no one wants to hear you talk anymore. Stop loitering in the lobby harassing people.

 

[T'Generalissimo]

The comparison with piracy is actually pretty strong; it doesn't seem right that the creator of something gets no recompense for the use of their creation, but at the same time I'm not sure there's anything that developers can do to improve the situation for themselves.

 

[donphantome35]

I'm going to assume this is about revenue from the mostly unrelated ads played before the videos in question, and not the advertisement of the games being played in the videos themselves.

This would've been a major issue if the YouTubers actually charged money for viewing their LPs. But this is about ad revenue, which is usually generated by viewers voluntarily clicking on ads to support the YouTuber. There's a lot of folks out there recording themselves playing video games, and only a few (most notably, a certain Swedish gentleman) gained widespread popularity due to their genuinely entertaining commentary and accessible humor (which is subjective, of course). They get a ton of views on their videos, the viewers click on ads, the LetsPlayers get money.

Now, if a game developer like Fish decided he deserved some of that advertising money because he believed it was his product that was drawing in the viewers, he'd find himself in the middle of a ridiculous debate over how much money he's entitled to, i.e. how much of the video's "click bait potential" is attributed to the source material. Dividing the revenue for each video between the YouTuber with his reputation, appearance, humor etc. and the developer with his... well, his game, would be virtually impossible, and establishing a fixed "cut" of the money for every video would be unfair to both parties. Phil Fish wants some of that $$$ that people are earning while playing HIS game, but it's hardly his game that's making the money here.

The problem, for me, lies in the entire ad system on YouTube. I don't like advertising, I never liked it, and the bullshit YouTube's pulling is horrible. It's not even sponsoring, since the 'Tubers have no say in what ads are shown on their videos. I personally consider it a shameful way to make money, and wouldn't do it myself. If you think you should get paid for your content, fucking sell it! Ask for donations, start a Kickstarter campaign to buy some new equipment, whatever. Except if you want to sell something, it's got to be 100% yours. And these big YouTube stars are getting paid for their views, not their content.

I don't have a point to prove. Fish is a greedy, oversensitive dick, advertising sucks. I'm out.

 

[V4Viewtiful]

Guys a Jackass, half of my Library I bought is because I saw others play them Online, infact you could say the same for many reviews of games, snippets or otherwise and i'm willing to bet much is the same in regards to Fez.
Lets just hope his words end up being a Fart in the wind.

 

[superguin200]

This makes me sad more than anything else. Phil's just an opinionated guy, and whenever he posts an opinion people give him so much shit for it that I'm surprised he didn't quit the games industry much earlier. Just leave the guy alone, he at least deserves that.

 

[RJ 17]

This time, he has equated anyone who uses video game content on YouTube to pirates, saying that a significant portion of all ad revenues from these videos should go directly to the game developers.

Interestingly enough, it does, Mr. Fish. The revenue that developers get out of the free advertising from YouTube Let's Players is called "game sales".

"But what if they say our game is terrible and discourage people from buying it?!"
1: There's still a number of people out there that will go out and buy it to see for themselves.
2: Stop making shitty games.

Edit: What's really funny (at least I find it funny ) about this article is that another headline on the side-bar (at the time of writing) is "Fish-Eating Spiders Are Everywhere!"

 

[RJ 17]

Instead of going "oh hes saying things again, i hate that guy".

That's not quite why people are disagreeing with him since it is pretty easy to show how he's just talking out of his ass. Indeed, he's entitled to his opinion, but everyone else is entitled to call him out on it when that opinion seems terribly flawed...just as you'd be entitled to call someone out on the fact that they think 2+2=5.

He wants to start getting ad revenue from Let's Players. The catch is that Let's Players are, themselves, a form of free advertising for the game developers. So if we're going with the "fair's fair" route and dotting all our "i"s and crossing all our "t"s, then sure, LPers should pay some royalties to the developers...and those developers should then in turn be paying the LPers for advertising their games.

 

[RealRT]

You know what Phil? I was supportive of you and thought you were just a victim of assholes. But this? You're an asshole here. Because playing the game is not the same as watching someone else play it and if you think that watching your game is as good as playing it, your game fucking sucks.
*mic drop*

 

[Bluestorm83]

Aaaaand in one fell swoop I've gone from being sympathetic to this guy for the BS that Microsoft and the Internet at large have heaped on him to being ready at the drop of a hat to telling him to go F himself.

If I use a set of Craftsman Tools on my job, I don't have to pay Craftsman a portion of my salary; I bought the goddamn tools.

If I hire a Deli to cater my charity function, I don't have to give them a percentage of the donations; I bought their goddamn food.

If I wear Hanes Boxers while I work on someone's sink, and everyone sees them sticking out from my jeans, I don't need to give Hanes some of my fee; I bought their goddamn underwear.

And this Fish needs to know that anyone who does their JOB on Youtube using a game that they OWN doesn't owe ANYONE ANYTHING. THEY BOUGHT THAT GODDAMN GAME AND IT FUCKING BELONGS TO THEM.

*corollary for anyone who brings up that occasionally people get Review Copies for free: You don't get to give someone a gift and then hold it over them. You gave it away, for free. It's not yours anymore.

 

[Ipsen]

Very much related - "this is Phil Fish" video from a couple days ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmTUW-owa2w

I find it interesting that this came out now, especially after this started making the rounds just the other day;


As someone who never got on the 'Let's hate Phil Fish' wagon, I'd suggest giving it a watch; it has some very intelligent points about how fame acts on the internet.

Interesting video indeed.

I don't think the ire for Phil Fish is specifically because he's famous. I found the idea presented in the video that fame was 'bestowed' by some outside force ridiculous. People, especially by way of connection by the instantaneous messaging of the internet, can become famous simply by expressing themselves. But that fame isn't very personal; you easily realize that you're not going to be able to change Nickelback even if you hate 'them'; that's the type of fame they hold, but the perception of an internet audience is that you might have a better chance of communicating and effecting said famous person(...by golly, do we LOVE to believe that...).

Phil just strikes me as stunted in social skills. It's if he's lived in a commune, never perceiving communication with a wide variety of people. So he spouts what amounts to opinions (like now), but they have no weight coming from him because his person is just so disconnected, so...missing normal parts, so inevitably unaffected if people would actually address his points, favor or rebuttal.

It's a bit sick and sad, I admit, watching such a scattered, hollow personality cavort around. At least, how I see him.

 

[FFMaster]

Actually, all of those things have an enormous impact on what the creator of the original content is owed, and in the case of the bolded it can (and usually does) mean they are owed nothing. Parody and review are explicitly covered under "Fair Use" in US law, meaning as long as credit is assigned and they're not selling the video itself (they're selling the audience to advertisers, not the content itself) they don't have to pay anyone.

Actually that's not how fair use works, lots of people seem to quote fair use without understanding that fair use works on a case by case basis. Making money from it, regardless of if you are selling it or not, is still counted as commercial use and there have been cases of this behavior being struck down in court I believe.

Even if not it would work against you should it go to court. Just because your not selling it, but instead selling the audience to advertisers doesn't mean that you can get away with just broadcasting it without paying the creator. I'm sure if you could then radio stations would have done this long long ago.

Money is still changing hands, it counts as commercial use because you are profiting from it.

"Youtubers should pay a portion of their revenue to game developers"? OK then, what about those whose revenue is zero?

I've been making LPs for about a year and a half now and have never monetized. All my videos are adless. So... technically I'm doing just that. In fact, I'm giving Spiderweb Software (Whose games I was doing) all of the Nothing I've been making. More in fact, since alternate choices would promote people to buy the game. Indirectly GIVING THEM MONEY. Sort of.

So what about that, Mister Fish? What about people not making money from this?

Then some of googles cut should go to them which i would suspect is where this will end up going, if your not profiting in some way from the game devs content then they likely won't care anyway.

 

[DarkhoIlow]

Oi Phil, last thing I remember is that you were no longer relevant the second you decided to cancel Fez 2 because of your little debacle on twitter with Beer.

I guess he is missing the drama and just wants to start up shit.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Free advertising and publicity must be a terrible burden. Poor guy.

 

[klaynexas3]

I feel like he might be trolling this time around. Seriously, if he's comparing watching a movie to watching a let's player, and is an indie developer on top of that, then either he wrote that drunk, high, or as an attempt to get back on the mainstream press of pissing people off. Especially since he uses his game as an example. Nothing about watching people play his game is fun. There is little interesting aspects about it to make watching it a fun experience. However, the game itself is rather fun to play, so I honestly have no reason to believe that any of this was said in a sound mind.

I mostly believe that he's trolling at this point, as a week ago or so I was watching Team Meat stream Indie Game: The Movie on Twitch doing commentary and such, and the way they talked about Fish was that he actually relishes in bad press more than people think. He seems to enjoy coaxing out the rage of the internet. Or at least that's what they were saying in between making suicide jokes.

But honestly, I can see a bit where he's coming from in that he's not a happy camper that some hacks who aren't even trying are able to make money just by playing a game, and not even playing it well. The comparison to piracy and the YouTube policy idea were probably just his way of attempting to poke the hornets nest to make sure people heard him. It looks like he did well.

 

[prowll]

The problem is, he is right, and I say this as a maker of videos (ones that get a total of 10 views each but that's not the point). All of the arguments saying that the devs already have their money are predicated on the idea that games change depending on the person playing them, which is true.

But the art assets, the sounds and the way the game works doesn't.

If you remix a song or make a parody of it , the original song creator is due a cut of the money made from it, because you still used part of there work. It should be no different here REGARDLESS of how its being used. Doesn't matter if its for a review, a lets play or a speedrun, you are still using their game. People always shout free advertising but the YouTubers that say that should think about what they mean by that, as if its really free advertising they are admitting that they have no creditability. For it to be advertising the developer has to have a hand in how its presenting, in making sure that its presented in a good way to show there product how they want it to be seen, they don't have that with the youtubers.

If they say they are giving free EXPOSURE then I would agree, but that's a different thing. I would also expect when you say that people would be more likely to say "ok so why don't you give the dev some of your cash".

Oh and the idea that game devs should pay youtubers for the extra sales the youtubers make, thats one step away from "pay us money to show us your game, you will tend to make x% extra sales" level of dickbaggery. Youtubers are getting there money, building the fanbase and the big ones also have there own fan stores as well.If they want to sign up for a commission based store then go ahead, but make it obvious you are making money if you click the link under the video. This already happens for some.

The idea that the game dev should take a "big" cut is a bit silly however, but they really should get a cut, and this is irregardless of what you feel about Phil Fish, its like the CliffyB stuff on reddit yesterday about NeoGaf. Just because you don't like the guy doesn't mean hes wrong all the time.

In England even the Tories manage to do something sensible now and again, even if that is once in a blue moon.

I believe you are incorrect, at least in American law. Parodies don't have to pay back to the person that they are using the original of. Wierd Al Yankovic for instance has famously never paid anyone for doing what he does. Now, Wierd Al gets permission first, but that's because he's generally a nice guy, not that he is legally required to do so.

Having said that, I agree that there may be a need for a small cut for the developers, but really, these videos are not making a ton of money, and so we are quibbling over pennies, when in most cases, the lions' share of the game developers money is going to be made selling the game. If sending a copy to a let's player gets you 10,000 more sales, it was a small drop in the advertizing bucket well spent.

I have a feeling that Phil is, again, not the right person to bring any of this up, as it seems that he's more upset over lost sales due to people going '... nope, that game's bollocks' and not buying.

 

[Signa]

Derivative works. Simple as that.

 

[RonHiler]

This works both ways. LP videos drive sales of games. If I do an LP, I'm advertising your games. People will go out and buy the game because of the videos.

So I'll tell ya what, Phil. I'll pay you a portion of my advertising income from my LPs, as long as you pay me a portion of your sales for the advertising I'm doing for you. Let's call it 20% both ways. I think that is fair.

 

[Wolf Hagen]

Well congratz, paying folks after they already gave money (without getting anything extra like a DLC or such).

And not strictly beeing a movie (a thing you defenatly can experience 100% by watching it, unlike a game) or music (same as movies, just with sound) beeing put up on youtube, in 1/3 of all videos with either eerie commentary, sometimes a fun joke or aimless screams for cheap horror effects.

The only way LP are harming the Publisher is, if they made a shitty product, and get called out because of it, loosing sales like mad (examples are too many to list).
Other games gain popularity beyound anything (like Goat Simulator, Slenderman) and making even bigger sales then before.
Offensive Youtubebait mostly gets called out and just left lying in the corner, probably only bought by those, to show others, that they are just Youtubebait (kinda ironic to say the least).

Nontheless the fact, that a hellbunch of the thousands of LPers arent monatizing, maybe about 20, that get their 200K views (and monetized numbers in that regard are prolly even less).
So, whatever any puplisher Hopes to get out of this (since Youtube monetization doesn't make big bucks), they probably expect more then just 20$ per Youtuber, that does Let's plays.
And if the Content Industry goes this mile nontheless, the youtubers might avoid games, where they get letters from big companys (who they already paid) in their lets plays.

However the Industry (by that point just our loudmouth retiree Phil and maybe Nintendo) will decide, they will end this topic on a "loose - loose" Scenario for themselves.

 

[FFMaster]

I believe you are incorrect, at least in American law. Parodies don't have to pay back to the person that they are using the original of. Wierd Al Yankovic for instance has famously never paid anyone for doing what he does. Now, Wierd Al gets permission first, but that's because he's generally a nice guy, not that he is legally required to do so.

Having said that, I agree that there may be a need for a small cut for the developers, but really, these videos are not making a ton of money, and so we are quibbling over pennies, when in most cases, the lions' share of the game developers money is going to be made selling the game. If sending a copy to a let's player gets you 10,000 more sales, it was a small drop in the advertizing bucket well spent.

I have a feeling that Phil is, again, not the right person to bring any of this up, as it seems that he's more upset over lost sales due to people going '... nope, that game's bollocks' and not buying.

By getting permission he is effectively getting a license to use it, money doesn't have to change hands but the person who owns the copyright said yeah ok. Again since fair use is case by case yeah he might not have to, but if he doesn't he could get hit later saying "this is not fair use".

You also can't say these videos are not making a ton of money the same week a guesstimate is out saying that one of the youtubers made about 4 million bucks in a year...

This is also not about sending the game to a youtuber, its about the youtuber taking it upon themselves to "advertise" the game (and lets face it, not all youtube videos are advertisements if they are busy showing how crap it is) and earning money from it.

There is a paper i found via a quick google, old but specifically about wierd al (oddly, guess a university dissertation like thing) which amongst its conclusions that unlicensed parody of a copyrighted work in a commercial advertising context will rarely be construed as fair use. Yes its referring to adverts but i would imagine this would link up to youtube videos with regard to fair use.

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=iplj

i agree with you that some money should be paid, as i highly doubt that any court would see the purchase of the game as the purchaser of the right to make money via broadcasting the game with no additional license fees payable as fair use if it went to court but lets not kid ourselves here. NEITHER party actually wants this sort of thing to go to court, because it would set the precedent (even tho fair use is done case by case a precedent would make people more afraid to argue it) and both are afraid of what would happen should it get set.