Jump to content
Awoo.

YouTube changing how you upload videogame footage.


Badnik Mechanic

Recommended Posts

I think he means old movies that are uploaded in parts.

Those are against the terms of service anyway, so they've always been able to remove those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, it only affects partners, right?

Because it sucks for them a lot, but for someone like me, this won't affect me right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a partner I put clips of trailers and such in my videos I also upload trailers of these games. Guess I won't be making anymore money, though, I never cared for it. Nor did I join Youtube for it.

 

Youtube is seriously going downhill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with youtube is that anyone can become a partner and start uploading third party content and making money from it. I can totally see why youtube would want to start dealing with that.

Game footage seems to be among the biggest genres to do this so I guess that's why they're targeting them.

 

I wonder how this will affect channels like Caddicarus, they should really be ok as they're using the game footage they capture for the purpose of review.

The problem comes when people are using them without any form of review, like for example many of the let's play videos I've seen.

I've seen several videos on youtube of people discussing topics and simply using game footage as the background. The footage is nothing to do with the topic at hand and is therefore being used illegally.

 

I dunno, seeing as they only seem to be saying that you can't monatise your content, as long as it doesn't start affecting youtubers that use the footage for review purposes I don't really see the pproblem here,

Frankly I'm surprised it;s taken so long for it to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem comes when people are using them without any form of review, like for example many of the let's play videos I've seen.

I've seen several videos on youtube of people discussing topics and simply using game footage as the background. The footage is nothing to do with the topic at hand and is therefore being used illegally.

Why is it any more illegal to use it while talking about something unrelated than to use it in something more relevant? I don't think that's how it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it any more illegal to use it while talking about something unrelated than to use it in something more relevant? I don't think that's how it works.

It's because of the copyright laws surrounding it, I think. There's a category of fair use for critique purposes, which the latter would be covered by while the former isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like getting in trouble, should I just delete all my sonic videos and never post a youtube video again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like getting in trouble, should I just delete all my sonic videos and never post a youtube video again?

Those should be fine to keep, just so long as you don't post music videos or anything since for some reason youtube really likes striking people for those but I have no idea why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it any more illegal to use it while talking about something unrelated than to use it in something more relevant? I don't think that's how it works.

 

Because content creators are free to use third party content without paying any fees if the content is for purposes of review or critique.

 

For example, people taking clips of Sonic Lost World and turning them into music videos are breaking the law as the footage (not to mention the music) hasn't been properly licensed and paid for.

Using that same footage in a review of the game or a critque, either positive or negative, of some of the games elements is perfectly legal and SEGA couldn't do anything to have the video removed.

..in an ideal world away *coughgarrysincidentsplutterhack*

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with YouTube's copyright removal system is that it's basically 'shoot first, ask questions later, if questions are asked at all'. There's no penalty for false copyright claims, whether it be fair use, parody, or even content that the person making the claim doesn't even own.

 

Of course, the incumbent copyright-reliant companies waging war on 'piracy' would complain if the system was any less convenient for them, and they would freak out if there was any actual penalty for not actually doing work on their copyright claims, because if there was, the effort required to remove all that 'genuinely infringing content' would be far, far too much, which is pretty much proof that copyright is becoming increasingly obsolete in the digital age. Unfortunately, in the US, the clause of the DMCA that's supposed to prevent such abuse of the law is virtually toothless due to recent court cases.

 

God, I hate copyright maximalism.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The entirety of Game Grumps and Two Best Friends Play is fucking video game footage. How the hell is that supposed to work?!

 

So, who actually wins here? If YouTube is meant to cater to every kind of user, how is putting bans on video game-related content going to help? Shouldn't the people behind YouTube SAY SOMETHING?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how Let's Plays wouldn't be covered by the review and critique settings then, when basically what it is, at least for some people, is a walk-through of the game with critique of the game the entire way through. It is one thing to have a silent walk-through, but when you are commenting on the game the entire time you are playing the game, how is that a bad thing?

 

Don't these people realize that let's plays and reviewers are massive free advertisement? You would rather whine over money someone is getting over ad revenue than be happy at all the free advertisement you are getting?

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, despite the free advertising you get from it, Let's Plays aren't always good for business.  For starters, the player's opinion of the game can shape the opinion of the viewer, so if the particular person doesn't like the game, it will lead to consumer aversion.  Second, the LP allows people to see the game's story (depending on the LP'er in question), which could be their only desire anyway.  Granted, that's a small minority of your market, but it's nevertheless money you could have otherwise had.  Third, and perhaps most importantly, showing real gameplay has a tendency to highlight all the game's flaws, which could deter a purchase as well.

 

I'm not saying I agree with the policy, but I don't think it's as simple as "free advertising, therefore should be okay."  Keeping a good public image is essential to maintaining a healthy business, and a single LP can make or break that.

  • Thumbs Up 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because content creators are free to use third party content without paying any fees if the content is for purposes of review or critique.

 

For example, people taking clips of Sonic Lost World and turning them into music videos are breaking the law as the footage (not to mention the music) hasn't been properly licensed and paid for.

Using that same footage in a review of the game or a critque, either positive or negative, of some of the games elements is perfectly legal and SEGA couldn't do anything to have the video removed.

..in an ideal world away *coughgarrysincidentsplutterhack*

   I am just curious though, If you are not getting money for it, and you tell everyone what song or show it is, wouldn't that be like free advertising? I mean, I can completely understand if I was posting music and getting money for it... I just don't get it. Just hoping for a clarification :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's Plays aren't always good for business. 

 

Not only that, some early youtube videos of games are believed to have led to the cancellation of some games.

 

Anyone remember this?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJwXBw86g30

 

The incident occurs at 2:25... but the guy realises it at 3:00 and then shortly after this broke out the game got cancelled.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, despite the free advertising you get from it, Let's Plays aren't always good for business.  For starters, the player's opinion of the game can shape the opinion of the viewer, so if the particular person doesn't like the game, it will lead to consumer aversion.  Second, the LP allows people to see the game's story (depending on the LP'er in question), which could be their only desire anyway.  Granted, that's a small minority of your market, but it's nevertheless money you could have otherwise had.  Third, and perhaps most importantly, showing real gameplay has a tendency to highlight all the game's flaws, which could deter a purchase as well.

 

I'm not saying I agree with the policy, but I don't think it's as simple as "free advertising, therefore should be okay."  Keeping a good public image is essential to maintaining a healthy business, and a single LP can make or break that.

 

 

Though one thing that makes me wonder as well when you mention this stuff. What about when the let's plays aren't of currently new released games. Like when you are showing games of years ago or that aren't recent releases. With older games, the developers aren't likely going to be getting any more money from the games that point, and likely it is just going to spur the used game market or the digital games market on Steam. I've bought several games in the past due to what the one Let's Player I watch has shown me over time.

 

Yes, you get to see real footage, but wouldn't you rather know the flaws up front to begin with when it comes to these older games? I know the situation is a bit different when you are talking the newly released games, but most of the Let's Plays the guy I watch does are often either a year or more old, or often many of them end up being ten or twenty years old as well.

 

It almost sounds like there should be a time limit on some things like how people keep saying they want to ban used games, but that wouldn't be a good idea. Why not just have timed lock outs or something that release at latter times since by that point the amount of money you are getting from the product is going to drop drastically anyway. The same games with Let's Plays and other video game media. Why worry so much about the older stuff that you aren't going to be making next to any money from anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though one thing that makes me wonder as well when you mention this stuff. What about when the let's plays aren't of currently new released games. Like when you are showing games of years ago or that aren't recent releases. With older games, the developers aren't likely going to be getting any more money from the games that point, and likely it is just going to spur the used game market or the digital games market on Steam. I've bought several games in the past due to what the one Let's Player I watch has shown me over time.

That's why I don't agree to the policy.  Old games, such as licensed, movie-based titles for NES and SNES, will probably never be re-released, and as such, there's no way for any company to gain revenue on them.  There's no reason to claim copyright on something that you're not only not getting paid for, but have abandoned for decades. (Unless they're making a profit off the use of actual characters, which is never the case with an LP)

 

Even games that have been re-released time and time again such as the original Sonic titles, the Mario NES trilogy, and Zelda NES probably do not suffer tremendously as a result of LP's because by now it's pretty common knowledge how those games are played.  So yeah, for those types of games, there's no reason why any company should ever have a problem, because that really is free advertising on their part.  (Especially when they've already lost a good deal of their sales to emulators, anyway)

 

 

Yes, you get to see real footage, but wouldn't you rather know the flaws up front to begin with when it comes to these older games? I know the situation is a bit different when you are talking the newly released games, but most of the Let's Plays the guy I watch does are often either a year or more old, or often many of them end up being ten or twenty years old as well.

I'd rather know of these flaws when deciding on a newer game as well, to be honest.  With the exception of a select few franchises, I never make a purchase without seeing a gameplay video for it, especially now that Blockbuster is gone and Red Box markets itself on being current.

 

However, from a marketing standpoint, I can see why it could be damaging.  That's what I was primarily getting at.  Also, a year doesn't change that much in terms of what video games are on the shelves.  As long as they can be purchased from first-hand retailers, companies are going to be interested in as many blind sales as possible, and for good reason.

 

 

It almost sounds like there should be a time limit on some things like how people keep saying they want to ban used games, but that wouldn't be a good idea. Why not just have timed lock outs or something that release at latter times since by that point the amount of money you are getting from the product is going to drop drastically anyway. The same games with Let's Plays and other video game media. Why worry so much about the older stuff that you aren't going to be making next to any money from anymore.

I don't believe there should be a time limit on LP's one way or the other.  If it steers people away from your product, then... well, that's business.  If you make a subpar product, you face the financial consequences that ensue.  McDonald's can't sue you for sharing your burger with someone so that they know how awful it is, and video game companies shouldn't be able to either.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think pretty much the main thing I was getting across there, was that I can understand somewhat, these companies maybe being a bit more cautious about lets plays and reviews and all that such on newer games because it is going to have a lot more influence on current sales. I've seen many times though, the indie companies actually WANT the lets players to play their games, and believe me, one of the very few download games I have, I bought because it was an indie game the indie company actually wanted him to lets play for them. I liked the way it looked and went and got it myself.

 

Just after awhile, I would think you should not care as much about what people are showing on youtube, because you will have gotten your main beginning influx of sales which is likely going to be more than 50 to 70% of your main sales I would think. Thats how it sounds like these companies make it sound, that you make the majority of your profit in like the first three weeks or months of the game being released. After that, it is slow trickle sales of people waiting for price drops and people that have had other things to do, or people that have seen other people play the game and want it for themselves.

 

I can understand there being negative reactions yes to bad games being hurt by lets players and other such thing like that, but that's more the companies fault for the game not being good than it being the lets players fault. They are helping their fellow gamers. I have a business mind yes, as I went to business school. I know you want as many customers as possible, but I tend to have more a customer based thought in my mind than a down and dirty cash approach like someone who works for EA may have or Apple who could care less about their customers. Heck, my business books flat out told me Apple does not care about customer feedback, since they say customers don't know what they want, we know what they want.

 

Oh well, that's my thoughts at least. I just think they are making way too big a deal on this and are getting way too uptight about this stuff. If your games are good, you shouldn't fear lets players and game footage showers, because if your game is good, people will want to check out the game for themselves at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think pretty much the main thing I was getting across there, was that I can understand somewhat, these companies maybe being a bit more cautious about lets plays and reviews and all that such on newer games because it is going to have a lot more influence on current sales. I've seen many times though, the indie companies actually WANT the lets players to play their games, and believe me, one of the very few download games I have, I bought because it was an indie game the indie company actually wanted him to lets play for them. I liked the way it looked and went and got it myself.

Indie games are much different affair as gaining exposure is their biggest objective, whereas companies like Nintendo and EA already have enough exposure.  It's still not a very good excuse, but I do see their position on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently this is only one piece of the copyright change:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5u_AAJuO7Bs

 

And this does affect everybody, partners, non partners, etc. I had a video of some off screen sonic generation 3ds recording up for like 6 months with no copyright notice, until today, I deleted the video since there was no use, but you know "matched third party content." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it begins. I'm gonna C&P this from my status':

So youtube has some third-party content stuff on some of my videos. For me, as long as they aren't deleted, fine. It sucks for others though. But some of my Pokemon videos are simply flagged with "AdRev". That's not right.

Apparently this is only one piece of the copyright change:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5u_AAJuO7Bs

 

And this does affect everybody, partners, non partners, etc. I had a video of some off screen sonic generation 3ds recording up for like 6 months with no copyright notice, until today, I deleted the video since there was no use, but you know "matched third party content."

Also, because this affects people like IGN, I really doubt this will be around for long.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just some, Psi? Word now is that masses of videos are being flagged, all of them affiliates and non-MCN, and often by third parties that look unrelated to any copyrights involved.

 

Edit: Not that they're being removed, just that the channel owner can't make money off the flagged vids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.