Nintendo Putting Ads on Videos of their Content

So people are freaking out currently and are outraged because Let's Players whom which play Nintendo games and comment over them are no longer getting ad revenue from said videos. Nintendo is running ads on the video and making all of the money from the videos, I believe youtube may be also getting a cut but the Let's Players are not. I was wondering what people think of this.

Personally I think it shouldn't have happened, but that Nintendo is totally within their right and are reacting to the way youtube has evolved. People buy a game and then use the visuals, gameplay, and other aspects of the game that are owned by Nintendo to promote themselves and make money without anything actually being given to Nintendo in return. Think of it this way, Rifftrax don't sell a DvD of the movie with them commenting over it, they sell an audio sample you start at a specific time and syncs up with the movie. The audio of them riffing on the movie is totally their own content and plays off of the film which does not belong to them, but they aren't making any money selling the actual film.

A lot of youtubers take someone else's content and make money off of it, perhaps if they were doing it well enough Nintendo wouldn't have cared but think about it.

They search for a bunch of Let's Plays about their games and find, people just talking about their daily lives, friends, ****, anything but the game whenever they can. A game intended for children might have someone talking about having sex with animals, there might be a face in the corner of someone else slapped over their game, tons of annotations advertising other videos and the youtuber basically trying to use the game as a platform to sell themself.

For the longest time Nintendo didn't care, back in the day people promoted the games. They would talk about Nintendo, the developer that made the game Nintendo published, while also providing commentary about the actual game itself. They'd make the game seem very enjoyable and something you'd want to play, the person making the video could then also make money. It's advertising pure and simple.

Advertise my game, more people buy my game, you make money advertising my game, win win.

These days people don't care as much about the game and instead focus entirely on the person playing.

"Oh a new Pewdiepie video, I want to laugh at his faces and hear him scream!"

Not, "Oh a new Game _____ video, I wanted to know more about this game!"

There are cases where companies have benefited from Let's Plays, Minecraft is a prime example and Notch acknowledges is, that is a case of a game going absolutely viral. However even he is turned off by some such as Machinima, whom which have asked him to pay them to make videos of them playing his game. Videos they would already get ad revenue off of making, essentially it seems like the Let's Players of youtubers have gotten greedy.

However at the same time it seems like Nintendo is looking to actually hire Let's Players to play through their games and talk about them. I'm a bit iffy on this, it may become corporation **** sucking or people who are passionate about a game and spend a ton of work going over detail getting paid for pointing out the good parts of the game while also analyzing the negative aspects, this may be good or bad it's too early to know.

So, what does everyone think about this whole Nintendo Debacle?

the only problem I got is that is peoples jobs and so their putting people out of work and the economy is bad enough as it is also those videos are free self promotion

A lot of them are free self promotion, of the youtuber and not the game. A lot of people just play the game and try to sell themselves and not the game, that isn't advertising.

It would only put people out of work that exclusively do Nintendo videos, and some of them don't even try to live off that money anyway. For example SA Let's Players generally have jobs and just LP as a hobby.

Also a funny little thing apparently I was not correct on.

Apparently Machinima didn't directly ask for money to advertise minecraft.

They said they should get a portion of all sales of the game. Oh Machinima...

I'm going to wait and see how it all unfolds first, as it stands, it seems like an unneeded provocation, but perhaps Nintendo has a new take on the Let's Play world that may actually be for the greater good.

Depends on the particular LP. Someone who meaningfully contributes to the game (ie, provides so much of their own content that their video is more about the LP/uploader than the game) has every right to monetize that content, which is spelled out very clearly under Fair Use. Of course, that doesn't describe every uploader.

Disregarding the legal intricacies, it's a really stupid move by Nintendo. Stirring up the hornet's nest that is the internet (particularly Youtube watchers), provoking the ire of gamers, and stepping on the company's biggest fans is not a path to long-term financial success.


EDIT: Also, if you're presenting a game in a good or neutral light, you're advertising it. Plain and simple.

@DE5PAIR

Glad you mentioned the fair use act, saves me from doing it.

Also I agree this is a stupid move for Nintendo but a even more of a stupid move by Youtube. Youtube at the moment is pissing a lot of people off with the no end of false copyright claims and general flagging abuse some companies and people do because they don't like what other people have done with their works or general criticism of their works. If Youtube continue to use censorship like they do or abuse people's input to content in a large fashion what Nintendo are doing, people will just take their content and input elsewhere. Youtube is at risk becoming like Myspace if it's not careful.

Keep in mind that Youtube really has to walk a razor's edge in order to avoid being held liable for users' content. DCMA prescribes its actions to the letter; so far the steps it has taken are basically necessary to keep it running.

I was in this scenario myself with my most recent DkS2 gameplay analysis vid. Unless this is some sort of special case, the uploaders have the ability to dispute Nintendo's claim and the ads will come off immediately. If Nintendo drops the claim, the user won't even get a copyright strike against their account. I don't know what else we could expect Youtube to do, since legally it can't shelter or protect the uploader in any way.

Fair use does not cover let's plays, if you use some footage of a game it is fine, however if the majority of the content shows footage of a game that is third party content that you do not have the right to use.

As well youtube in its terms of service brings up that you should only upload content you own, and not anything that can be considered to belong to a third party. Nintendo owns the games that you are showing in your videos.

Yes LP's advertise games, when they are advertising the game. When they aren't they aren't.

Some guy plays Metro and screams through it like a baby with his face in the corner and doesn't talk much about the game other than at small points, he isn't convincing people to buy the game.

Some guy plays Metro and goes over mechanics, talks about the game's design, brings up what type of people may enjoy the game, other games in the series, that's advertisement.

Now this sucks for the people who are doing a good job, it is everyone getting punished for the terrible majority of Let's Players that don't advertise the game. However Nintendo has also shown interest in paying people to do Let's Plays of their games, so perhaps in the future they will be offering work to the people who do it in a professional manner to make the Let's Plays for them.

This is a sad state of affairs but frankly one that has been a long time coming.

In regards to other issues with Youtube, hell yes they have shady things going on. I think Nintendo was completely within their right but there are other instances where Youtube has given content owners rights over the content that is blatantly not their's.

EDIT: They aren't taking down videos or making copyright strikes, they're just making all the money off the videos.

They aren't Sega Japan so far.

It already is a job, on youtube. Become a let's player, earn money. Pewdiepie lives off of playing video games, it's his job to play them. We're already at that point.

Tolvo wrote:Fair use does not cover let's plays

But Nintendo profiteering off other people's content containing their IP unedited is fair use?

BTW it's a grey area regarding let's play videos. I haven't heard of a single court case of a let's play being classed illegal to do. As far as I know it's never gotten that far yet.

They aren't illegal to do.

However it is also the right of the company that owns the rights to the game to remove ad revenue or take ad revenue.

And no that isn't fair use, because fair use doesn't apply there.

Tolvo wrote:Fair use does not cover let's plays, if you use some footage of a game it is fine, however if the majority of the content shows footage of a game that is third party content that you do not have the right to use.

As well youtube in its terms of service brings up that you should only upload content you own, and not anything that can be considered to belong to a third party. Nintendo owns the games that you are showing in your videos.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Yes LP's advertise games, when they are advertising the game. When they aren't they aren't.

Some guy plays Metro and screams through it like a baby with his face in the corner and doesn't talk much about the game other than at small points, he isn't convincing people to buy the game.

Some guy plays Metro and goes over mechanics, talks about the game's design, brings up what type of people may enjoy the game, other games in the series, that's advertisement.

You don't know what advertising means.

EDIT: They aren't taking down videos or making copyright strikes, they're just making all the money off the videos.

Yes, that is what they are doing wrong.

And I say you don't know what you are talking about.

So now we get to the point where we agree to disagree?

Tolvo wrote:However it is also the right of the company that owns the rights to the game to remove ad revenue or take ad revenue.

No it isn't. The IP ceased being solely Nintendo's the minute someone put their effort into it making it new content. If Nintendo did their own let's play then yes, but this isn't the case. There's a big difference.

It depends on how different the new content is.

For example playing through a whole game, that whole game is now a part of the content.

Doing a review with clips, okay that's just footage of the game.

There is an issue to my understand where Nintendo may be able to claim things like reviews too but if that is the case I do think they are totally overstepping their bounds.

Similar to music, you take a few audio samples and make something totally new that is generally fine, but if you take a song and slightly pitch shift it, generally it isn't unless the song is just something that is free or too small for any sort of lawsuit to be worth the money.

Nintendo is also interested in creating their own Let's Plays. As I mentioned earlier that is probably related to this.

Tolvo, that's not correct. A (decent) LP's commentary significantly transforms the original content to the point that it becomes new property. The transformative clause is one of the four points used to determine whether or not the use content is considered Fair Use. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the length of said content.

Please stop insisting that you're right when you've obviously never read up on the issue.

EDIT: Also stop comparing video games to music and/or movie commentary. Music alterations and/or movie commentary is delivered in the same way that the media is released (a riff track is delivered while watching the movie, for example). An LP is not/cannot be digested in the same manner that someone plays a video game. This relates to the nature of the work, another completely separate Fair Use clause.

@Tolvo

Games behave differently to the likes of music and film because they're not linear. Games require input from a person. The fact you are playing is your creative work.

Just really think about it for a second. Speedruns in general require a good level of skill and knowledge from the player. Speedrunners will use tricks and exploits to achieve the fastest time. It is also still a playthrough. The effort to do this is still creative yet Nintendo think that these people are not entitled revenue for their creative effort.

Even if playthroughs don't look creative works that doesn't mean they aren't. I would even go as far and say that all playthroughs are art, even if the effort was minimal.

Here's a link in case you feel like not being wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Length means more of the content is being used.

As I believe I brought up earlier, there is a difference between uploading a review of a movie with clips of the movie shown at times, some editing work done, etc, and just uploading the movie and talking over it.

There is also a difference between that and a person really examining the game and more so doing an inspection of it, even mechanically sort of like a documentary.

It is a difficult thing to gauge I will say but I think it is still their content on screen.

When it comes to a person playing a modded version of a game, things get a bit cloudier. As well if it is an old game that would not reasonably sold anymore, like Super Mario 3, that's a point where I say they should be allowed to use it if Nintendo is no longer going to make anymore money off of such content anyway.

Speedruns I do agree should be fine, that is taking a closer look at the game and really adding your own personal content which is the route for the run.

It really depends on the playthrough. For example if you've watched the little video fo the Two Best Friends playing Dark Souls, if they made an LP it would be absolutely terrible. They know nothing about the game, are poorly representing it and don't make it seem like a fun game to play.

Someone like ENB, Vageta, the various people who know a lot about the game, they are teaching people about it and making the game the focus rather than their reactions being the focus, they act more like real advertisement and create interest in the game.

The only case where ****-content really adds to the company is in the case of when something goes viral, and while I think he is a terrible Let's Player Pewdiepie is a case of this with his Amnesia Let's Plays, or the Yogscast with their Minecraft stuff, but they created their own story with it and truly created their own content so I consider that far enough from the original to make it really their own thing.

There are definitely gray areas though. I will admit that.

Tolvo you don't get it that companies like Nintendo are profiteering from other people's creative works. Nintendo by the sound of it isn't consulting with the video creators on coming to a deal for their works. The fact that Nintendo is taking all the profit could end up with them and Youtube being taken to court.

In a way I actually hope it does.

Part of the issue is that no matter how much effort you put into something if it technically isn't yours, it technically isn't. Similarly if a person likes to make fan drawings of DC characters and tries to sell them at a convention, DC can put a stop to that. Even if the person draws them in a different style. When the content is vastly different then sure.

Are there things they can take down because of how Youtube works that they really shouldn't be able to? Yes, and that is a problem. I haven't heard of them doing it but if they are I don't believe they legally have the right, but as I brought up reviews and such things. Other companies have done this in the past but with how youtube works they can make a copyright claim on a review when they really shouldn't be able to. There are serious problems there and I do think things should be changed in regards to that.

Also, the people who made those videos didn't consult with Nintendo when using their content in the first place.

In either case I would like for it to be brought to court just so things can be totally laid out and understood. If Nintendo has rights via youtube that do not coincide with the law and those are found during any sort of court based investigation, I want those rights changed to fit with the law. If everything is honky dory then at least we then know things are honky dory.

We're talking about companies like Nintendo stealing money from other people's works. Sure Nintendo have the right to claim copyright infringement and get the content removed just like DC can stop someone selling their trademarked characters. They can't however profit from other people's creative works even if it's based off or contains their IP's without their consent.

Please understand the difference.