Thats not how it works. A game is software, a piece of code. It is illegal to distribute any part of said code. the video you take while you are playing however belongs to you and not the game, because it is you that make these things happen - they wouldnt without input.SecondPrize said:No, nobody is broadcasting the source code. Unfortunately, that means jack shit because they're broadcasting the output of that code, which the developers retain the broadcast rights to.
If the movie requires interaction - that is, it could not play itself out without your input, like those form Xfile movies where it was a "Choose your own adventure" movies, then yes. you do not owe revenue for it, technically. Here i could argue that you no longer get under the moral protection of fairness, but as far as law is concerned your not technically breaking it.Kuredan said:So if I make a video series called "Let's Watch" in which I use my own interactions with a movie as the basis for my videos, pausing to make comments, do I owe the movie company revenue for making my videos?
Ill stop you here. at that last word - movies.It was called Mystery Science Theatre 3000 and they had to pay quite a bit to get the rights of some pretty terrible movies,
actually, you NEED to plagiarize parts of papers for your own. its a requirement. its just named nicer - literature studies.If I plagiarize a paper, I don't get to claim it as my own work because I typed it myself or that it was my creation, even if I add extra little bits to the source material I used.
Well i guess i should go call logitech and ask them how much of my paycheck i should give them because i sue their keyboard for work.Yes you would actually owe the chainsaw company money for a video using their product
Not sure which part you are responding to. Let's plays are derivative works that are using game as a tool to produce certain outputs, whether intended by developers or not. that is part, arguibly small part, of what let's play is. derivative works are protected under the video maker copyright and belongs to them. you dont need to pay royalties for derivative works. Its not about advertisement (altrough many people here did claim to that i see). free advertisement is a sideeffect. And a positive one at that.Thyunda said:Make the video without the content. If you have to pay royalties to use a song, you have to share ad revenue to base your career on somebody else's property. "Free advertising" is absolute bullshit. If you're not invited to advertise, don't take it upon yourself and pretend like you're doing someone a favour.
well, you could start by actually making some points in why you think he has a point then.Mike Lemond said:How about we all take a breath for a moment and actually have an intelligent discussion for a change? I have to sift through 20 posts full of bile for each coherent response.
Phil Fish indeed has a point, if you would care to discuss.
I never claimed videogames were movies. I was drawing a comparison between two mediums that have fair use laws, broadcast laws, reproduction laws, etc. Are you saying that the rights holders of game IP don't have those rights? I'm pretty sure they know what their rights are when they copyright their IP. It's usually why they hire lawyers. It's for those reasons that some game publisher don't allow gameplay footage to be published outside their channels. You can't deny the rights holders the rights they have legally obtained because you don't like them or don't want them to. The law is the law. I don't claim to know the specifics of game IP copyright law, but I am familiar with copyright law for theatre productions and marginally familiar with film copyright laws. When I made comparisons from that perspective I made an educated guess.Strazdas said:-Snip-
Yeah, the video belongs to you. The rights to broadcast for money videos taken of the output of the code belong to the publishers. You can't put the software in one box and pretend the output of that software is a completely different thing. Your input isn't transforming the work, mods that change the game or reskin everything may lead to a transformative work that wouldn't require permission to stream while monetizing but just playing the game isn't a transformative experience. You may own your decision to go input right or jump at a certain point, but the debate is about whether you own the rights to broadcast it, and you simply don't.Strazdas said:Thats not how it works. A game is software, a piece of code. It is illegal to distribute any part of said code. the video you take while you are playing however belongs to you and not the game, because it is you that make these things happen - they wouldnt without input.SecondPrize said:No, nobody is broadcasting the source code. Unfortunately, that means jack shit because they're broadcasting the output of that code, which the developers retain the broadcast rights to.
But all those people watching haven't.DirgeNovak said:"If you generate money from putting my content on your channel, you owe me money. Simple as that"
Except I already gave you money, Philippe. Because I bought your shitty game.
Please stay gone, prick.
This has been said a lot of times, and called out every time because its utter bollocks. Its a mix of the two. You might have people go to a certain celeb beasue of the celeb, but the game does influence the amount of views a video gets.kaizen2468 said:Phil, it's the people making the videos that draw the viewers. Not the games.