Nintendo To Nab Ad Revenue from Youtube


vcoleiro1

Hardcore Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
4,685
Just read the story below which mentions Nintendo are planning to take Ad revenue from Youtube videos which feature Nintendo game play . 

So fans who make a video of themselves playing a Nintendo game and upload it to Youtube praising how good the game is, are now penalized by Nintendo .  ie People advertising Nintendo's games for free are being penalized by Nintendo.

Either this story is untrue or Nintendo have lost their mind.

http://www.slashgear.com/nintendo-to-nab-ad-revenue-from-youtube-users-gaming-videos-16282491/
 
Just read the story below which mentions Nintendo are planning to take Ad revenue from Youtube videos which feature Nintendo game play . 

So fans who make a video of themselves playing a Nintendo game and upload it to Youtube praising how good the game is, are now penalized by Nintendo .  ie People advertising Nintendo's games for free are being penalized by Nintendo.

Either this story is untrue or Nintendo have lost their mind.

http://www.slashgear.com/nintendo-to-nab-ad-revenue-from-youtube-users-gaming-videos-16282491/
I vote for the latter. They are completely clueless, so this would be no surprise if true.

Chris
 
Nintendo's lawyers don't understand "derivative work". I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure in most cases the actual act of playing the game adds enough originality that the creator can claim fair use. If there's commentary as the primary purpose of the video then Nintendo doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Of course they'll get away with it, they have the money. Are you going to hire a lawyer over a couple bucks of ad revenue? Maybe someone might start a class action lawsuit, but I don't know if that's possible in this case: youtube is very careful with its EULA and may not allow class actions over disputes.
 
Since when video gameplay is copyrighted? Under what right can Nintendo claim their property over such kind of things?
I'm pretty sure copyright covers the imagery, artwork, audio etc in games.  It's Nintendo's right I suppose to go down this path - although one could reasonably argue fair use.   It just doesn't make sense to do it when it penalizes their fans and those promoting their games.  Others like SONY have adopted a strategy to try and do the opposite and greatly encourage sharing and discussion on there games as they understand the free marketing power(and sales) it brings.  Nintendo on the other hand just don't seem to get it.

Also, I don't know if it would be legal for Google to take away Ad revenue from a YT video and give it to Nintendo .  It's a can of worms that Google shouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Since when video gameplay is copyrighted? Under what right can Nintendo claim their property over such kind of things?
I'm pretty sure copyright covers the imagery, artwork, audio etc in games.  It's Nintendo's right I suppose to go down this path - although one could reasonably argue fair use. 
For the individual elements, yes, Nintendo has copyright, but the experience created by the player is certainly not under copyright by Nintendo. That's the player's creation. That's the interactivity part of videogames which makes them different from movies and music which are strictly linear. 

For example, playing Magic involves using Copyrighted cards and rules, but filming yourself playing Magic is certainly not Copyrighted by any means. 

That does not even start to make sense. 
 
The main idea behind copyrighted materials is prevent others from gaining money directly with your product.


When it comes to media, in copyright laws, there are clear fair uses of what's allowed and what not.


It's not even allowed to post pictures of a movie on the internet without asking the copyright holder for commercial purposes (otherwise, it's just "fair use" - unless you post enough pictures that it tells the story of the movie).


Commercial means that you get money by using the content.


For example, if you post the description of a DVD cover and some pictures and link to amazon to buy it (with getting profit from that), that's clearly covered under copyright.


Writing a critics of the movie using your own words and posting pictures with that is a citation, and that's allowed (even when you make profit with it).


Now, with video games, it's the same:


Showing part of the game, reviewing it, or explaining how to pull of certain tricks, etc., is okay. It's your own content which just does citations of the game.


Doing a full playthrough of the game, even if you explain what's happening, is NO derived work, because that's part of the experience: Playing the game and experiencing the story.


Even if it's just a bit of gameplay you show (I.e. one minute playing Zelda):


If you just play without any own work, it's covered under copyright laws.


But even for citations there are limits: In order to count as your work, the majority of the video has to be your work: So when someone plays a game while babbling something along, it has to be checked individually whether this is new works or not.


In most case it isn't - as the main content in playthroughs still is the game.


It would have to be a good review, but a review doesn't need to show the full game.


So it's like that:


* Playing a game without any added content (regardless of the length): Okay when you're not making money (so: no ads, etc.). Otherwise: Copyrighted.


* Playing a game through while commenting what you do: still the same


* Doing something like a review of a game, where the main part of the video is your review and not any content of the game: Okay, even for commercial use.


* A game being played in your movie in a small scene: Okay, as the content of the game is not important, it could be any game that's being played there.


Most videos in the internet fall into the first two categories, so Nintendo can actually do something about them.


Especially if longplays of games DO damage. A big part of a lot of games these days is the story - and quite a few people are happy just watching someone play the game, so they might've bought it but didn't have to anymore.


Note: That's all according to copyright laws in Germany, but it's probably very similar for most civilized countries.
 
Especially if longplays of games DO damage. A big part of a lot of games these days is the story - and quite a few people are happy just watching someone play the game, so they might've bought it but didn't have to anymore.
I seriously doubt that part.

If you watch a video of a game from start to finish it's probably that you have no interest in playing it in the first place, therefore no intention to buy it. So where is the damage coming from ? 

The selling point of games is that they are interactive. A video of the game may damage the "story" part only, but that does not remove the value of "playing the game" in itself. 
 
That's only true for games which don't have a story and it's the exact excuse that's being used by gamers playing illegal copies:


"I wouldn't have bought it anyways".


I, for example, played and bought 'Dirge of Cerberus' as I was interested in the story (part of the Final Fantasy 7-Story).


I hate FPS games though, so would I have bought it if I could've watched the full story online?


Probably not. And I'm sure I'm not the only one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's only true for games which don't have a story and it's the exact excuse that's being used by gamers playing illegal copies:


"I wouldn't have bought it anyways".
Even for games that have a story, like RPGs, there's usually much more than just the story, there are many secrets to discover, there are fighting parts, there are sub-quests, some have non-linear stories and endings, exploration and so on. I don't see how watching one video make up for the whole game :p

The only kind of game that may indeed get damage from it is... visual novels with 0 interaction :p
 
Back
Top