Fez Creator: YouTubers Are "Stealing" Content From Game Developers
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Phil Fish is wrong. he often is, so where the news?Steven Bogos said:
You know its not news that Phil is spouuting nonesense. he always did that.
But im not putting your content on my channel. by playing the game my way - the interactivity i do - i create my own content, that belongs to me, not you. hence, i do not owe you anything.
I am creating a derivative work of art, which is fully legal thing to do. and i have legal right to sell it too.
you mean an ongoing attempt by Nintendo. since, you know, they have been doing it for 5 years and havent stopped.
I watch videos of games i already played. I care about the commentary and player actions in the game. granted, actions are more limited in linear game, but far more expansive in, say, strategy games. i am sometimes amazed in how totally different their tactics were from mine. its the player choices and commentary that attracts me to watch any gameplay video, not the something the developer did itself.The Gentleman said:
Its because its not somone elses work. it is a derivative work that you create yourself and own it because you are creating the interaction. the game does not play itself. you are creating the videos and gameplay because you interact with it. claiming that just because its an object i interact with it means that video belongs to him is akin to clayming that if i film myself cutting down a tree with a chinasaw the video belong to the chainsaw company because i am using their chainsaw to do it.Kuredan said:
can you press "start" and watch the game play itself without input? inf the answer is no, then yes, it is different from a video.Tygerml said:
noone is broadcasting the source code of his games on youtube (at least not that i know of) and Fish is fully wrong here both morally and legally.SecondPrize said:
your right. it does not seem right that the creator of the chair im sitting at does not get something for the work i do, i should give royalties to him. oh, and to the desk manufacturer as well. oh and lets not forget the necessary keyboard i write this one, logitech surely deserves my paycheck better than me. after all, they created the tools right?T said:
see how ridiculous this sounds?
if he was just an opinionated guy it would be fine. but he will insut, harass and otherwise express his racism and xenophobia agaisnt everyone he doesnt like.superguin200 said:
they have been doing this for 5 years non-stop. what makes you think it was a one-off event?MinionJoe said:
wait so pick one. whether we are making money off his content or we are making money on videos. because lets play videos are not his content.Thyunda 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.Strazdas 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? Ostensibly I could argue the work is derived from a source but not the source itself and my value added is what I comment about in the video. The answer however is "Yes, I do owe them money." It was called Mystery Science Theatre 3000 and they had to pay quite a bit to get the rights of some pretty terrible movies, So much so that broad swathes of their catalog of episodes are no longer available for sale or broadcast. The rights holder of a piece of work determines when and how that work can be broadcast, edited, and used for any promotional or marketing purposes. The producer of a "Let's Play" style video would first need to know what the rights holders have set for broadcasting rights, etc before they could legally make a video that used the rights holders assets. It is a part of those producer's due diligence to determine what the rights holders have stipulated as far as the use of their work for marketing purposes because the "Let's Play" style videos benefit from the marketing that went into the game and then use the game itself in marketing their personal "brand" eg. "so-and-sos Let's Play of _____"Strazdas said:
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.
You're chainsaw comment is right on the nose, but not for the reason you thought. Yes you would actually owe the chainsaw company money for a video using their product; it happens in TV all the time. Watch the credits of TV show and you'll see all sorts of products used in the show. They don't own the show, but they own the rights to how their products can be displayed or used in public or in broadcasting. Again, these things usually require contracts with the rights holders. I doubt the producers of You Tube videos have even bothered to do due diligence to find out what the rights holder's policies are. Certainly not all of them.
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.Strazdas said:
Hateren47 said:Fez Creator: Phil Fish is stealing from hat makers.
SecondPrize said:
Kuredan said:
OT: Looks like an online strategy guide to me, kind of like showing people how to do the God of War blade-wall area that gave so many people (Not me, though.) trouble, as they banged their heads against the wall (of blades) in frustration. That kind of visual aid is really helpful. Still, this is nothing more than looking over someone's shoulder as he plays. The ads have no bearing on the game at all. If I wear a Doctor Who t-shirt in an agreement to monetize the fact that I'm showing an ad for Doctor Who, I could do anything I want as long as I'm wearing this t-shirt and saying "Doctor Who is awesome!". The two matters are not actually connected, as one is a game thing and the other is a youtube thing. I could do the same with something like 'Jack fails at playing the accordian - Really Funny!' and it makes no difference at all.Thyunda 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.
Phil Fish indeed has a point, if you would care to discuss.
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:
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:
You could of course argue that stopping to comment is reviewing, however review do not usually take longer than the art itself.
Ill stop you here. at that last word - movies.
Video games are not movies
actually, you NEED to plagiarize parts of papers for your own. its a requirement. its just named nicer - literature studies.
It always struck me ironic how we cannot plagiarize but we must copy large swatches of the work, and if you retell exact same thing in your own words it suddenly isnt a copy anymore.
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.
Oh, wait, thats already negotiated. its called buying price.
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:
Oh and you dont need to be invited to advertise. they dont have control on what i say about thier product. i can write bad and good reviews all i want.
well, you could start by actually making some points in why you think he has a point then.Mike Lemond said:
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:
Title 17, S.106 and 107 of US copyright law does mention the limitations on performing or displaying copyrighted material as well as stipulating fair use. It's a grey area, usually determined in a court case, but fair use favours non-profit use of copyrighted works for educational purpose over the use of copyrighted material for commercial purposes. Monetizing your videos reflects commercial intent. I would imagine most companies don't find it worth their time to track down You Tube "celebrities" because the impact on their business is slight. If some of these channels were earning several hundred thousand dollars a year, I imagine they'd perk up. Just because they haven't shut down infringements on their work doesn't mean they don't have the right to or that the infringements don't happen.
Also videos using copyrighted assets are not derivative works. As I was reading Title 17 (S.101) I saw that derivative works were not defined to cover direct use of the audiovisual source media (computer games are classified as audiovisual media per item 6 of S.102). If you were however to make a flash animation of you playing the game, that would be a derivative work; it resembles the source media but has been sufficiently changed, edited, translated, or abridged to avoid the infringement of copyrights. Yahtzee makes derivative videos, Let's Play does not. I'm not saying Let's Play is illegal, I'm sure they have arrangements with the rights holders, but they are not a derivative work and thus cannot be legally published without the consent of the rights holders.
Bottom line, I'd err on the side of caution rather than cavalierly asserting that there's nothing wrong with what is at best a nuanced and complicated issue. Phil Fish didn't do us any favours by stirring the pot, but I can broadly see his point.
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:
I know plenty of people who have just watched let's plays of Walking Dead or Asura's Wrath, Amnesia and other such games and then never bought them because well, what's the point? While it certainly was profitable for Amnesia, what about the Walking Dead? I imagine that lost loads of sales from lets plays.
But all those people watching haven't.DirgeNovak said:
Oh Phil, you somehow manage to keep finding increasingly ludicrous ways to demonstrate just how out of touch you are.
In all seriousness, Let's Players and commentators have actually convinced me to buy games I wouldn't have bothered getting at first glance because they did one thing that thickies like Phil don't get; Let's Plays, reviews, so on...these things engage us as an audience. Rather than old fashioned advertising trying to catch our attention with thirty seconds of spiel, these entertainment and review pieces (and that is what they are, entertaining as well as demonstrating game strengths and weaknesses in the course of gameplay, IE, passive reviews) hook us with new approaches even to decades-old works.
In short, by catching my attention and managing to keep it, these videos get me vested in the game and motivated to actually put my own spin on it by getting it and playing it myself...when it's a good game, at least. The other thing these LPs do, which I consider a service bar none because they actually paid money to do so, is demonstrating when a game is crap on toast and showing us exactly why that is. This also keeps devs honest because not only is crap work laid undeniably bare on a public medium, but trying to censor it is the sort of thing that shoots selfish and dishonest developers in the foot.
Short version, he mad? He mad. He also big-mouthed twit, but that goes without saying.
In all seriousness, Let's Players and commentators have actually convinced me to buy games I wouldn't have bothered getting at first glance because they did one thing that thickies like Phil don't get; Let's Plays, reviews, so on...these things engage us as an audience. Rather than old fashioned advertising trying to catch our attention with thirty seconds of spiel, these entertainment and review pieces (and that is what they are, entertaining as well as demonstrating game strengths and weaknesses in the course of gameplay, IE, passive reviews) hook us with new approaches even to decades-old works.
In short, by catching my attention and managing to keep it, these videos get me vested in the game and motivated to actually put my own spin on it by getting it and playing it myself...when it's a good game, at least. The other thing these LPs do, which I consider a service bar none because they actually paid money to do so, is demonstrating when a game is crap on toast and showing us exactly why that is. This also keeps devs honest because not only is crap work laid undeniably bare on a public medium, but trying to censor it is the sort of thing that shoots selfish and dishonest developers in the foot.
Short version, he mad? He mad. He also big-mouthed twit, but that goes without saying.
Yeah sure Phil that's why game devs both indie and triple A both send hundreds of free copies to famous youtubers for publicity purposes. It's because they love their games being stolen. You f**king idiot.
Christ even I'm a better businessman than this twat.
Christ even I'm a better businessman than this twat.
Here's the skinny. Phil is an Idiot. Why? Because what is actually stolen? Profit? How so?
These Let's Players and other assorted Youtubers/Streamers got their games the legal way, either they paid for it, in which case they owe you nothing because they PAID for the product and can do whatever the fuck they want with it, including telling other people its a bad game. Or they got a review copy, in which case they didnt buy it but how do you get one of those? From the developers themselves, or the publisher. They dont materialize out of thin air.
So what "profit" are people like Fish entitled to? Not a cent, because whatever money they were entitled to has already been paid in form of purchase of the game. You do not get to make royalties of people talking about your game, or streaming it, or throwing it out the window. That one copy that was purchased now belongs to the person who can do really anything with it. And really Streamers/Youtubers dont make money from just showing off your game, they commentate on the game, they review it, or they interact with their audience. They are entertainers using your game, which they paid for, as part of entertaining.
So no Phil, you dont get royalties for this. The moment your game is sold, you lose any right whatsoever to dictate how it is to be used or not to be used. Because the person who bought your product also bought the right to do whatever they want with that one copy, including but not limited to streaming it, commenting on it, reviewing it, setting it on fire, throwing it in a blender, snorting said blended remains, breaking the disc, laughing at it, telling their friends its bad, and if money allows even fire it into the sun.
These Let's Players and other assorted Youtubers/Streamers got their games the legal way, either they paid for it, in which case they owe you nothing because they PAID for the product and can do whatever the fuck they want with it, including telling other people its a bad game. Or they got a review copy, in which case they didnt buy it but how do you get one of those? From the developers themselves, or the publisher. They dont materialize out of thin air.
So what "profit" are people like Fish entitled to? Not a cent, because whatever money they were entitled to has already been paid in form of purchase of the game. You do not get to make royalties of people talking about your game, or streaming it, or throwing it out the window. That one copy that was purchased now belongs to the person who can do really anything with it. And really Streamers/Youtubers dont make money from just showing off your game, they commentate on the game, they review it, or they interact with their audience. They are entertainers using your game, which they paid for, as part of entertaining.
So no Phil, you dont get royalties for this. The moment your game is sold, you lose any right whatsoever to dictate how it is to be used or not to be used. Because the person who bought your product also bought the right to do whatever they want with that one copy, including but not limited to streaming it, commenting on it, reviewing it, setting it on fire, throwing it in a blender, snorting said blended remains, breaking the disc, laughing at it, telling their friends its bad, and if money allows even fire it into the sun.
I can see his point. Everyone wants free money, and if you can come up with a flimsy justification to GET free money, you might as well try.
Sure it would make you look like a greedy idiot, but money.
But maybe he's just running out of Fez money, and scamming youtubers looks like an easier solution than making more games, I guess?
Sure it would make you look like a greedy idiot, but money.
But maybe he's just running out of Fez money, and scamming youtubers looks like an easier solution than making more games, I guess?
I kinda get what he is saying, but I think it depends on the game. With a game that changes each time you play it, like the increasing survival games, online games, creation games like minecraft and other such games I see no problem. I got into Minecraft because I saw a lot of it on YouTube and wanted a peice of the action too.
Then again some Lets Plays (a few that I watch myself, and am only just coming to this realisation) play indie games, or games made in the RPG maker/game maker programmes. The games are linear with set puzzles and outcomes, and are sometimes developers early attempts to make money and get into the industry. What I then do is watch someone play it, laugh at their reactions and quips, see the entire story and run through and then never purchase the game myself because there is now no point. I have just witnessed the persons entire work without them getting a penny, and contributed to the lets players income! From that I can totally understand Fish's points, not only do the YouTubers make money from the content, it can also lead to people NOT purchasing the game themselves.
I can see the arguement that they can encourage people to see and buy lesser known games by providing free advertisement for the Devs, but there are definitely 2 sides to the coin on this one. A difficult one to really answer.
Then again some Lets Plays (a few that I watch myself, and am only just coming to this realisation) play indie games, or games made in the RPG maker/game maker programmes. The games are linear with set puzzles and outcomes, and are sometimes developers early attempts to make money and get into the industry. What I then do is watch someone play it, laugh at their reactions and quips, see the entire story and run through and then never purchase the game myself because there is now no point. I have just witnessed the persons entire work without them getting a penny, and contributed to the lets players income! From that I can totally understand Fish's points, not only do the YouTubers make money from the content, it can also lead to people NOT purchasing the game themselves.
I can see the arguement that they can encourage people to see and buy lesser known games by providing free advertisement for the Devs, but there are definitely 2 sides to the coin on this one. A difficult one to really answer.
I think he has a legitimate point here, but he framed it so badly that people rather kneejerk at his snotty attitude. No, just because that sleazy reporter treated you so badly doesn't give you license to leave your manners at the door, the previous sentence here is why.
What he's saying is that a great deal of sale potential of video games is for people who want to see the game. If somebody records gameplay - or even the entire game - and publishes it all on YouTube (or whatever), then all of that sale potential has just been ripped out of the creators' hands and thrown into public domain. If the person derives cash from it, that's adding insult to injury.
That said, I would say that it depends on the game.
Take, for example, a point-and-click adventure. Those are basically games about discovering what the click on in order to see what happens next. If somebody knows what to click on and simply shows me what happens in the entire game, from start to finish, I'm not going to bother buying that point-and-click adventure because I pretty much got to see all of its entertainment potential without any of the bother of having to pixel hunt. Honestly, some lousy point-and-click adventures are better enjoyed having somebody else do the work!
For an example of a game that watching it played would not diminish its sale potential, take an arena game like Titanfall (FPS example) or DOTA 2 (MOBA example). Running around shooting things in Titanfall is the experience you have come for, not simply watching it. So watching somebody else play it is not going to diminish its potential. It's not like there's some vital plot twist that makes or breaks the game, playing it is what you're there for. (Would you kindly not get Bioshock's plot twist involved, that's something else.) You can stream these kinds of games until the cows come home, and it won't diminish the sale potential of the game, it will only encourage other people to want to play it.
I'm sure somebody mentioned by now that publicity is a factor. Personally, I haven't bothered to buy Fez because the screenshots look boring to me. If I actually took the time to see a video of it, I may actually have become interested in buying it... you know, if I actually had time to play the games I bought already.
What he's saying is that a great deal of sale potential of video games is for people who want to see the game. If somebody records gameplay - or even the entire game - and publishes it all on YouTube (or whatever), then all of that sale potential has just been ripped out of the creators' hands and thrown into public domain. If the person derives cash from it, that's adding insult to injury.
That said, I would say that it depends on the game.
Take, for example, a point-and-click adventure. Those are basically games about discovering what the click on in order to see what happens next. If somebody knows what to click on and simply shows me what happens in the entire game, from start to finish, I'm not going to bother buying that point-and-click adventure because I pretty much got to see all of its entertainment potential without any of the bother of having to pixel hunt. Honestly, some lousy point-and-click adventures are better enjoyed having somebody else do the work!
For an example of a game that watching it played would not diminish its sale potential, take an arena game like Titanfall (FPS example) or DOTA 2 (MOBA example). Running around shooting things in Titanfall is the experience you have come for, not simply watching it. So watching somebody else play it is not going to diminish its potential. It's not like there's some vital plot twist that makes or breaks the game, playing it is what you're there for. (Would you kindly not get Bioshock's plot twist involved, that's something else.) You can stream these kinds of games until the cows come home, and it won't diminish the sale potential of the game, it will only encourage other people to want to play it.
I'm sure somebody mentioned by now that publicity is a factor. Personally, I haven't bothered to buy Fez because the screenshots look boring to me. If I actually took the time to see a video of it, I may actually have become interested in buying it... you know, if I actually had time to play the games I bought already.