next »

[CoNamePending]

I should first explain that yes this poll is a result of the recent controversy involving Phil Fish , but I do not hate him and I for the most part enjoy his work. In his recent tweets Fish stated that YouTubers owe him part of their earnings; during this he compared youtube videos to streaming a movie over the internet (which is illegal). Therefore, are youtube videos illegal and the revenue should be shared with the developer, or are youtube videos helpful and boost sales (especially in the indie scene)?

Please vote and explain your views below.

[Boreal]

I think it should be up to the developer to state the terms of use of their content.  Because it's your IP and thus under automatic copyright in many jurisdictions, you get to say what is fair use and what isn't.  Look at software licenses and Creative Commons as some examples.

It's really a tradeoff.  Either you can make some more money by getting LPers or whatnot to pay royalties (and file an infringement claim if that doesn't happen), which will probably lead to decreased publicity, or you can make Let's Plays fair use.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.  All the legal information in this post was gathered and figured out haphazardly from experience with software licensing.

EDIT: As for YouTube itself, I'm sure they will make sure they are not infringing upon any copyrights when splitting revenue with a video of your game.

[Schoq]

It's very obviously fair use, holy fuck why is this even discussed

[CoNamePending]

It's very obviously fair use, holy fuck why is this even discussed

"The distinction between what is fair use and what is infringement in a particular case will not always be clear or easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission."

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Fair Use is still an extremely grey area in terms of new media such as youtube, for this reason it is still controversial.

[Superb Joe]

should youtubers pay? *cocks shotgun attached to my groin* Absolutely.

[Zaphos]

YouTube is actually fairly clear on this issue.

Whether you can use video game content for monetization depends on the commercial use rights granted to you by the license from the applicable video game publisher. Some video game publishers may allow you to use all video game content for commercial use and confirm such permission in their licensing agreements.

In other licensing agreements, publishers may not grant commercial rights for videos that simply show game play for extended periods of time. For these licensing terms, the use of video games must be minimal unless the associated step-by-step commentary provides instructional and/or educational value and is strictly tied to the live action being shown. For more information, please review Video game and software content.

- https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2490020?hl=en

[poe]

It should be up to the developer. That said if you think youtubers owe you money you're goddamn delusional. (HINT: Most aren't even making that much anyways)

[Irock]

As someone who's been watching let's plays for six years or so, as someone who's made let's plays before and as someone who has made a game that was let's played by an incredibly popular Youtuber, I have mixed feelings.

There are good let's players and there are bad let's players.

Good let's players do research, have a decent degree of insightful and relevant commentary, put work into their editing, et cetera. They provide something of value on top of, and concerning, the game.

Bad let's players say stupid shit while playing video games.

If you're not providing anything of value and aren't putting in very much effort while using content created by others to draw viewers in, then how much of that money do you deserve? Does some goof recording himself with a webcam and a microphone reacting to a video game like a slurring five year old deserve 100% of the revenue? Did they earn all of that?

I think it's especially shitty when talentless hacks are earning more money than the actual developers.

Though, this is all theoretical. One would have to manually set up agreements with individual let's players to make sure that only the bad ones have to pay up. That's not gonna fly unless it becomes the norm. But if it does happen, the let's players will become the let's payers $$$$

[SundownKid]

That is a pretty ridiculous concept, especially since it's basically free advertising to the person selling the game. All that forcing Youtubers to pay royalties will do is make them not want to play/review your game and you will lose more money than you gain (unless it's a terrible game and they smash it, in which case it's a bad game).

[Irock]

That is a pretty ridiculous concept, especially since it's basically free advertising to the person selling the game. All that forcing Youtubers to pay royalties will do is make them not want to play/review your game and you will lose more money than you gain (unless it's a terrible game and they smash it, in which case it's a bad game).

That's not necessarily true. If you watch a full let's play of Fez that someone you're subscribed to tossed on Youtube, then what incentive do you have to play it yourself? There would be very little value gained by playing it unless you weren't attentive while watching the videos. Roguelikes and sandbox games don't suffer from that much, but games based around pre-designed content certainly do. In that case, if the video's monetized, the guy playing your game on Youtube will make money you may have earned otherwise.

[Zaphos]

Out of curiosity, how much has let's play-ing of Nintendo games decreased since they ask for a share of the revenue?  And what share of revenue are they asking for?  (Or is all this too new to be known yet?)

That is a pretty ridiculous concept, especially since it's basically free advertising to the person selling the game. All that forcing Youtubers to pay royalties will do is make them not want to play/review your game and you will lose more money than you gain (unless it's a terrible game and they smash it, in which case it's a bad game).

I imagine the value of the free advertising depends a lot on the game and the let's player.  For example that's obviously not true if the game wasn't monetized in the first place.  (... and while I was typing this Irock gave more examples.)

[CoNamePending]

Nintendo wanted all the revenue from videos containing their games even if it wasn't a let's play, but had their trailers in it.

[Zaphos]

Yes, but they announced a revenue sharing option as an alternative to that very recently.  But, after looking into it now, I see they haven't even announced the details of it at all yet -- just that they intend to have some kind of revenue sharing program.

[CoNamePending]

Oh i didn't hear about that I'll have to check it out. It was probably due to all the hate they were getting.

[SundownKid]

EVEN if the game was free, forcing people to pay you creates a chilling effect that hurts indies and professionals. If a super popular LP'er endorses your game you will sell a lot of copies, so why would they have to pay you even more money for deciding to feature you? That will just make them abandon your games and play someone else's who doesn't have that kind of policy.

It could work, but only for AAA super popular games and if the entire industry forced LP'ers to do the same thing. In which case that would be a pretty evil move.

[louisdeb]

No. Sure maybe the bigger youtubers could afford this if it was enforced, but think about the MASSIVE amount of youtubers who aren't big.

It's like you're saying that every indie has to pay to release a game. Or someone has to pay to set up a blog.

Plus I bet some patent troll equivalent would quickly show and ruin the whole thing anyway.

[Christian Knudsen]

What it all boils down to is whether people are tuning in for the games or the personalities. If people were only watching for the games, no Let's Players would be able to rise above the rest, since all it would take is slapping some game footage on YouTube and viewers wouldn't care who put it up. But this isn't the case. The big Let's Players didn't get big because they played specific games -- they got big because of what they bring to the table. Because of their personalities. They don't owe developers any money for that.

And this is quite easy to verify. Take away the Let's Player's commentary, and you're basically left with a walkthrough. Nobody got big on YouTube by merely posting walkthroughs. Because games aren't movies. The fun of watching someone else playing a game doesn't stem from watching the game, it stems from watching someone playing the game. From their reactions and comments. Who that someone is is a lot more important than what game they're playing.

[team_q]

As I mentioned in the Phil Fish thread, It's the same as radio or Television. If you are using someone else's content to bolster your product, then you should have a licence agreement with them regarding the use of their content. Several indie developers have given up their entitlements, which is and should be their prerogative, but to suggest that just because some you tubers are small fish, then none should be accountable is silly.

Conversely, editorial producers should not have to worry about it. This would be fair use under criticism.

It's basically this:




Vs.
This:

[Christian Knudsen]

Maybe a mod should merge these two threads?

[starsrift]

If paying a percentage was enforced for every game, I think that's actually okay.

Under the various laws currently in place, however, no.