Ubisoft, Other Devs, Dismissing Recent YouTube Content Claims
- Thread starter BlameTheWizards
- Start date
IDOL has been overactive in sending out automated copyright claims for a looong time. Even so much as 15 seconds or so of Assassin's Creed music is enough for them to file an automated claim. However my past experiences are that challenging the claim has been enough to get IDOL to back off. The automated system is just way overtuned and aggressive, adopting the "Guilty before Innocent" stance, and it's been like this for years already.
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/773564-Ubisoft-policy-on-YouTube-videos
Ahem. What was that again? While they're oh so generously working to repeal their misfired claims, they're talking out the other side of their mouth about how they intend to police content (including reviews) rather rigidly, as well as "We are not equipped to handle individual video appeals".
Ahem. What was that again? While they're oh so generously working to repeal their misfired claims, they're talking out the other side of their mouth about how they intend to police content (including reviews) rather rigidly, as well as "We are not equipped to handle individual video appeals".
Not just that, but they also stated that, as long as YOU are not making a profit off their games, they could care less if you post on YouTube.Charli said:
OT: I think Fair Use as been completely gray lined since the whole Metallica vs. Napster incident. It is great that some companies are allowing their games to be posted, but I am sure they are going Blizzard's route of "NO PROFITING OFF OF THIS" or they will flag you.
It's essentially he said/she said right now, and Google's pretty much walled off, so do we have a reliable way to tell who's telling the truth?
But Nintendo cares about its customer base!DaViller said:
I see nothing about letting YouTubers make advertising profits off of there videos in the article.
To be honest, the fact that they haven't even mentioned it, still leads me to suspect they're gonna act like a pack of cunts.
To be honest, the fact that they haven't even mentioned it, still leads me to suspect they're gonna act like a pack of cunts.
Yeah, that's about how I read the statement. "We know you just lost your main income streams, but please keep giving us free advertising anyway!"CpT_x_Killsteal said:
You know its hard to believe them when you read the youtube spokesperson statement.
http://www.polygon.com/2013/12/11/5200418/youtube-defends-copyright-crackdown
"This has resulted in new copyright claims for some users, based on policies set by the relevant content owners."
Youtube robot used policies set by people like Ubisoft to catch them. If Ubisoft havent set such policies to begin with the bot would have no reference to block the content at all.
Though to be fair it does look more like youtube fucking up again and crosreferencing some music owners copyright claim on a videogame video that has this as background music (which they already gave all rights to the game company by allowing thier soundtrack be in the game, they no longer have a claim in it).
So yes, you should still very much hate publishers for this, except probably not the game publishers this time.
http://www.polygon.com/2013/12/11/5200418/youtube-defends-copyright-crackdown
"This has resulted in new copyright claims for some users, based on policies set by the relevant content owners."
Youtube robot used policies set by people like Ubisoft to catch them. If Ubisoft havent set such policies to begin with the bot would have no reference to block the content at all.
Though to be fair it does look more like youtube fucking up again and crosreferencing some music owners copyright claim on a videogame video that has this as background music (which they already gave all rights to the game company by allowing thier soundtrack be in the game, they no longer have a claim in it).
So yes, you should still very much hate publishers for this, except probably not the game publishers this time.
from what i can understand in this debacle, Ubisoft was the first to come out and say they think those claism are wrong and they are going to fix it, as well as the loudest.Twenty Ninjas said:
That woudl be perfect, but as you say, wont happen. Then again, myspace was destroyed, so who knows. Personally i watch more video content here at escapist (and they host thier own as far as im aware, though they do mirror at youtube but i dont watch them there) than on youtube. The only things i go to youtube nowadays are Jims youtube channel and Desert Bus. Desert bus can be watched on twitch though, so Jims the only reason i would need to visit youtube. Ironicly. (though he seems to not be uploading anymore for whatever reason, so yeah)Steve the Pocket said:
granted i was not even aware of the incidents you pointed out as noone cares, as it wasnt reported anywhere. But i have to say in comparison this tens of thousands of removals over 1 day is much more widespread problem than localized single person harrasment. I agree that all should be reported, but as you say now everyone is hurting so everyone will care.RaikuFA said:
they were overzealous BEFORE this incident. and i speak from personal experience. Not to mention that you cant find public domain movies on youtube now because bot removes even if its in public domain. Youtubes bots were always the msot zealous of them all, they just got "new policies set by content owners" added to them.cerebus23 said:
Very true here. i know a few streamers who leave the stream on 24/7 and when they are not around they actually play youtube music playlists on it. yet, they are top contributors getting paid for it.
They stopped being a haven for copyright violations somewhere around 2009-2010 once thier bot got so active they started banning fair use content. people who want to break copyright has moved onto other sites by now.
None of them seemed to mention monetisation, though. That's the real issue here. I'd certainly like to hear some straight statements from all of them on that.
Uhm, they do. Did you even read the article? Nintendo may be a different story (cause they are retarded when it comes to PR and advertising) but most game devs see it exactly as you outlined and don't mind the content creator making some money of it - the IP holders aren't even the ones making the claims. There are posts from companies everywhere saying they didn't file any claims.RJ 17 said:
Watch Angry Joe talking about this, how Youtube flagged an interview with a Tomb Raider dev, saying the Tomb Raider people flagged it.
In this one he gets into more detail on how his stuff is flagged. This one is more interesting to watch.
It's retarded. Would be great if there was another platform everyone went to.
It's worth noting that a lot of these companies have given the go-ahead on monetisation, including Ubisoft and Valve. Why that (pretty major if you ask me) fact wasn't included in the article is beyond me.SL33TBL1ND said:
Straight from the Ubisoft Video Policy