- Dec 31, 2011
xaszatm said:No it doesn't. You have better legal and moral stances on you side. Stop using the untrue one in your arsenal. You can do better than this.bug_of_war said:YUP.Laggyteabag said:Quick question, though: Does this policy apply to review content too?
Perhaps you missed the extremely relevant quote by unacomn here. Its not just LPs that get hit. Its ANYTHING with Nintendo in it. Including news and reviews.unacomn said:I used to do a news show, like ENN, and on occasion there would be Nintendo stories. It didn't matter if they were 30 seconds or 8 seconds, out of a 10 minute show. Nintendo would claim it all, like my work meant nothing compared to their 8 second video.
Anyway, its pretty absurd how people are conflating it with films or books because that's just not how it works. Experiencing a book is just reading the book. Experiencing a film is just watching the film. They're both passive experiences and, rightfully, putting it up with commentary is a breach of fair use.
Experiencing a game is NOT watching a game. Its playing it. So lets take more appropriate similar circumstances. Someone takes a video of them and some friends playing a game of Cluedo or Warhammer. I think most people would agree that it'd be totally unreasonable for Hasbro or Games Workshop respectively to claim monetisation of that video on the basis that its their product and they should be paid as such. Or as an even more off the wall one someone takes a video of themselves riding a bike. Does Raleigh have the right to claim money for that video?