Nintendo Now Taking Ad Revenue from YouTube Let's Plays of Their Games

[DeletedUser9]

Contrary to what a few people have said in this thread, this actually isn't Nintendo's right. As far as I understand copyright law, fair use is a real thing that absolutely applies here; LPers are not in fact selling their game or product, but displaying it in a way where the product itself cannot actually be played by their viewers. This is the same kind of thing that gaming news sites or guide websites do, and they make revenue off it in the same way. There is nothing wrong with people publishing and making money off video of Nintendo's games, because they are not distributing the game itself or making money solely off the copyrighted material but actually off material that is sufficiently different from it even if it's derivative, and Nintendo does not in fact have the right to stop them from doing so.

However, YouTube does.

Let's not forget that YouTube isn't a publicly owned publishing venue. It is a private company. They can do whatever they damn well please with anything published on their service; you have no rights regarding use of the service or what you're allowed to put on the service, because that service does not belong to you.

The fact of the matter is that this is not actually people getting prosecuted or targeted by Nintendo, but YouTube being targeted and them complying with Nintendo. And it makes sense, frankly. YouTube doesn't have much if anything to gain from protecting YouTube users who publish content that falls under fair use when they can instead make revenue off non-problem videos, or at least comply with the original copyright holders and keep the content on and make money off it while avoiding any legal disputes. Just because they could win the dispute -- and they probably could -- doesn't mean it makes sense for them to.

Bottom line is if LPers really want to make money off it without this happening, then they need to find a different venue where they can represent themselves without relying on YouTube to do it, because YouTube is no charity and will absolutely -- and rightly -- do what's best for their interests.

 

[Garo]

This isn't any different than, for example, Nintendo coming around and saying they have the right to all the advertising on Nintendo-based fan sites, like this one. Which, if they did so, they'd have no way to support themselves and many would shut down. Many other potential ones will never start because other companies will not do that so they'll make it about something else. It's the same thing. The fact that it's about the commentary and not the content is important. It is hardly a childish reaction either. You are at a disadvantage to continue it. Other companies' games don't have the same handicap, you'll gravitate towards them instead. Nintendo loses the free advertising it gets.

This is pretty much everything I wanted to say about the main topic. Wholeheartedly, 100% agree. I don't think Nintendo has overstepped their legal bounds, but I don't think it was the most wise decision. I do want to add that this does not specifically target Let's Plays, but also any videos that depict Nintendo owned properties at significant length. So this will almost assuredly affect reviews and legitimate discussion videos as well as commentated Let's Plays. So consider that as well.

Additionally, there are a number of assertions being bandied about that I find intensely troubling.

No, sitting on your *** and making easy money on things that you didn't create just by commenting is a dick move.

It's called taking the initiative to try and find a real job. You know... EARN your ****, not effectively steal it.

Finally and most importantly, LPs are for fun. No one is doing it to make money. If anyone is, they are defeating the purpose of LPs.

...among others. I object quite strongly to the absurdly judgmental attitude going into these assertions. While I am sure that there are some people who turn to YouTube for a lack of drive to contract employment elsewhere, the fact is that there are also those who don't, and turn to YouTube because it is a source of income that can help them make ends meet. It's a tough economic climate out there right now, and some people are having difficulty finding employment, and not for a lack of trying. Who are we to say that these people are simply being lazy, or, "sitting on [their] ***"? These may well be people struggling to pay for necessities, or to pay for critical expenses like health care that their day job can't account for.

If you don't think that they should be making money doing this, that's fine, and it's your prerogative to think that. But this judgmental attitude is appalling, because at the end of the day, regardless of your opinion about whether they should or shouldn't be making money on this, it may very well be, and I'm sure in many cases is, that this is all that some people are able to turn to in order to make their ends meet. Calling them lazy or saying that they haven't earned the money is monstrous.

 

[Terminus]

No. I refuse to stoop to a level that low. If I'm going to make a living, I'm going to EARN it by doing my OWN work, not mooching off of others'.

That's a personal choice then. No need to slander LPers who, likely through no fault of their own, depend on this income.

 

[Ventus]

No. I refuse to stoop to a level that low. If I'm going to make a living, I'm going to EARN it by doing my OWN work, not mooching off of others'.

That's fair. Call it as low as you like, but mooching off others' is how the entire world works for the most part. :yes:
@Axle
Nintendo is NOT stopping LPs, they are stopping the monetary gain from LPs.

 

[DeletedUser9]

Nintendo is NOT stopping LPs, they are stopping the monetary gain from LPs.

Irrelevant. As I said, the LPers have not overstepped any legal boundaries and are in fact creating content that they have full rights to under fair use. They legally own their LPs and own the copyright to them; Nintendo is in fact violating their copyright by hijacking their revenue or claiming ownership over their work, although I guess not in this case explicitly since they've only gotten YouTube to agree to enforce it on their service.

 

[Justac00lguy]

No. I refuse to stoop to a level that low. If I'm going to make a living, I'm going to EARN it by doing my OWN work, not mooching off of others'.

At the end of the day though they enjoy what they do, so what if they play games for a living? They provide entertainment to thousands of people, at the end of the day this isn't Nintendo's work that's entertaining the viewers it's the LPers manipulation of the game that is. I don't agree with the ridiculous amount that some people make but there is a reason for the share of money, YouTube is a profitable site that generates money from advertising and views if LPers are providing a chunk of the views that add to the revenue of the site then they deserve a share of that profit, that's how a lot of Businesses work.

Plus I'm not completely sure on uploading and such but I heard it's quite a timely and costly process for some.

 

[DarkestLink]

What, are you mad because the commentators make easier money than you do? Well...go grab a mic, a popular game, some capture equipment, and have a blast.

I refuse to put ads on my videos. Trying to profit off of something done for fun is as low, to me, as selling your own pee to aid people with their drug tests.

In either case, you are not being a productive member of society. Half of these people who just talk randomly or scream nonsense into a mic do not deserve the money they get. This isn't always the case. There are some people like LittleKuriboh and the Nostalgia Critic who I think deserve the money they get because they are putting so much more time and effort into it.

 

[DeletedUser9]

I refuse to put ads on my videos. Trying to profit off of something done for fun is as low, to me, as selling your own pee to aid people with their drug tests.

In either case, you are not being a productive member of society. Half of these people who just talk randomly or scream nonsense into a mic do not deserve the money they get. This isn't always the case. There are some people like LittleKuriboh and the Nostalgia Critic who I think deserve the money they get because they are putting so much more time and effort into it.

How much fun you do or don't have is irrelevant in terms of how right it is to market it. If it's of sufficient quality, and more importantly, if people just enjoy watching it, then you are creating a product that people want, and as long as it's in demand it's worth making money off of. I don't see how someone could decry others simply for making money off something they have fun with. Honestly that's what most people strive for: To Enjoy your work.

This is just wrong.

Look at that.

If you are making money off of it, it is most certainly not fair use, especially when you look at how much of the product is Nintendo's and how much of it is the LPers. If 50% of it is Nintendos (arguably more), it does NOT fall under fair use. Now, according to my fair use policy research, there's no SPECIFIC definition of fair use, so if the LPers really don't like it, they can go to court over it, but I feel like Nintendo would win that one.

Would this be from Canadian law? You said your fair use policy was strictly in your last post. Where was this quoted from?

It's also not in any way true that a substantive portion of the work is being used. A substantive portion is being displayed, and this would make it illegal if this were, say, a movie, which is a medium that is only displayed. But a video game is an experience that's meant to be played by the user, so with the possible exception of maybe almost purely story-based games like Asura's Wrath or Heavy Rain, in fact only a third or less of the product is being used. Certainly, the use of the product isn't being touched: Video games are games that you play, and people watching LPs cannot play them.

 

[DarkestLink]

By the way, has anyone covered this yet? A lot of LPs are done from ROMs...does this have an impact on the copyright law?

 

[Ventus]

It's also not in any way true that a substantive portion of the work is being used. A substantive portion is being displayed, and this would make it illegal if this were, say, a movie, which is a medium that is only displayed. But a video game is an experience that's meant to be played by the user, so with the possible exception of maybe almost purely story-based games like Asura's Wrath or Heavy Rain, in fact only a third or less of the product is being used. Certainly, the use of the product isn't being touched: Video games are games that you play, and people watching LPs cannot play them.

This is definitely true. Here in Texas at least, there is a label on game boxes that say something effective to "you cannot allow pay to play sessions with these game discs". And that's because the medium for gaming is PLAYING them, not VIEWING them. If viewing them were the issue, I believe there would be messages like what the MPAA has up now. Otherwise, copypaste again what Axle said.

 

[Mercedes]

It's also not in any way true that a substantive portion of the work is being used. A substantive portion is being displayed, and this would make it illegal if this were, say, a movie, which is a medium that is only displayed. But a video game is an experience that's meant to be played by the user, so with the possible exception of maybe almost purely story-based games like Asura's Wrath or Heavy Rain, in fact only a third or less of the product is being used.

Not really. A game is comprised of a variety of assets, and most of those assets are visual and audio; every single texture, every single model, every single particle effect, soundtrack and music track, that's the game. The bits you actually play are just long script files of coding, so, in reality, you're point's a clever one but not really correct. If we took every element a game is made out of, the 'playing' bits are actually not a lot. I mean, if you look at an average game's 7GB, most of that is taken up with environments, models and graphics, sound, and engine. And LP'ers display that all.

So that's a point that wouldn't really stand up in court.

 

[DeletedUser9]

By the way, has anyone covered this yet? A lot of LPs are done from ROMs...does this have an impact on the copyright law?

The LPs wouldn't. The downloading of the ROMs would, probably. But that's not really the issue here... it's not what Nintendo or YouTube is targeting and dealing with in this case.

 

[DeletedUser9]

One third is quite a bit, especially given that its commercial. I think fan sites and review sites and whatnot certainly fall under fair use, even if profitable, but I don't think LPs do. I think Nintendo has the right to get the revenue from an LP. It might be difficult to say, but as of right now, it appears to me that Nintendo has the right to do what they are doing. Whether you think its morally right or wrong I think is where this argument boils down to. I don't think it's wrong myself.

Actually that's really misleading. Discounting screenshots -- which are virtually exactly the same legally as video game footage as they are visuals from the game captured in different ways -- and guides of various kinds, much of fansite content is things like official artwork, model renders, and game music. These things are arguably lesser parts of the product's whole, but they are more complete parts. A piece of artwork is a specific asset in itself that the company owns, and it's an asset on its own as much as it's a component of the product.

Video someone captured themselves of your product is not actually a component of it; it's something they retrieved themselves. Again this wouldn't be an excuse if it damaged the product's marketing as in the case of movies, but with a game, I'm sorry, but you really cannot argue that watching video of a game damages the game's marketing. If anything, it helps the marketing of the game. The fact is that video captured of the material is not in fact part of the material, and when it's made into a bigger thing with commentary, editing, and jokes, it's files well under fair use.

Not really. A game is comprised of a variety of assets, and most of those assets are visual and audio; every single texture, every single model, every single particle effect, soundtrack and music track, that's the game. The bits you actually play are just long script files of coding, so, in reality, you're point's a clever one but not really correct. If we took every element a game is made out of, the 'playing' bits are actually not a lot. I mean, if you look at an average game's 7GB, most of that is taken up with environments, models and graphics, sound, and engine. And LP'ers display that all.

So that's a point that wouldn't really stand up in court.

See most of the points I stated above. The fact of the matter is that determining if an excessive amount of content was used is extremely relative, and captured footage of a product meant to be interacted with -- planned, created, and marketed with that use in mind -- is not significant.

A very telling equivalent would be video footage of people playing a board game. It displays the game. It displays how it works. It displays the art or stickers on the board, and the sculpting of the game pieces, but it is not in fact using the work but displaying it, and no one would have the right to prosecute me for making a video of their board game.

 

[Mercedes]

*his post*

I guess it can be argued either way but, the argument can go another way; when you make a video, say, a 60FPS video for a Let's Play on Youtube, you're capturing 60 screenshots from the game per second. In each of these screenshots, you are using assets from the game. Whether it's a lot of assets or not a lot, you still are using assets. If we're going purely visible, you're taking textures, you're taking lighting and any associated software to produce this, all the 3D models and any associated textures too. Skyboxes, meshes. etc. It may not be a lot of the entire game as you said but, it's still Nintendo's property, and you need a right to earn money from their property, however small it may be.

Copyright, afterall, doesn't need to be expansive. Noel Gallagher (musician, from Oasis), I remember, got sued for a song because just 1 line was lifted from another song. Just 1 line. So, as little as that needs to be taken in order for legal action, and it happens all the time, everywhere, if it's someone else's IP, so Nintendo can easily argue their case with this, as long as all of their game was created by them. If I ripped just Link's character model and textures and used it to make money, in the grand scheme of things, that's not a lot, it's not a lot of the game and the game's primary purpose isn't to stare at Link's character model, and I'm not stealing him actually being played or anything kind of like how you said, but I'd still be breaking the law because I didn't make it. I remember in my College days downloading a 3D model from online and being warned never to do that and use it in my work because of copyright.

I think Nintendo are legally in their right to uphold this, really. But, as I've said, it's really not too bad, is it? The few people it will effect can complain if they wish to but, it's not really our place to force their hands in their air and complain for them.

Also I'm tired so sorry if my post has mistakes or something.

 

[DarkestLink]

Does it really matter? If you're an LPer who's out to do this for money...just don't play Nintendo games I guess. *shrug*