YouTube Gaming Videos and Copyright Issues

[scotland171]

Do you have an opinion on the recent YouTube copyright sweep on videos with video gaming footage, such as reviews, walkthroughs, and Let's Play videos. 

YouTube has a system called ContentID that checks the database for content owned by video game publishers which is being used by YouTubers.  The ContentID system flags videos, and redirects any ad revenue it generates to the video game creators.  YouTube is trying to cover itself from potential lawsuits by doing so. Some companies, like Nintendo, has been making its displeasure known about the reuse of their content, especially if its monetized (gets ad revenue). YouTubers are protesting, sometimes very loudly, about Fair Use, history of using such footage, and their own livelihoods.  There are other issues as well, but that seems to be the crux.

[weallmissedme1]

I'm gonna be honest, while I don't think anything should be flagged, if you are doing a let's play, the company who made the game should get the revenue. You shouldn't get money by displaying content that doesn't belong to you.

[darkrage61]

I just watched Angry Joe's video on the whole thing and I'm definitely against the idea, as these claims often turn out to be BS, and several game companies have even come out and said that they have not filed any claims and explicitly gave users permission to use game footage.  If Nintendo and Sega want to monetize videos, that's their deal and they have that right(it's better then blocking them altogether anyways) but this content ID system just isn't reliable enough to be effective. Here's AJ's videos on the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQfHdasuWtI&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAi81_uvztM&feature=player_embedded

[Tron1]

I think I'm on the video game publishers side on this one. Consumers own the game, but they don't own the right to redistribute it. Showing videos on youtube is a form of redistribution. Still I think it may not be wise for the video game industry to go after these users since it is free advertising and helps create interest in the games. I guess t the question is which is worth more; the ad revenue or the free advertising? I would think the free advertising and keeping their customers happy would be worth more.  

[darkrage61]

Tron-But the thing is a lot of these claims are not being done by the publishers, many of them are due to the Content ID system being extremely faulty and oversensitive. 

http://kotaku.com/youtube-copyright-chaos-continues-game-publishers-to-t-1481517758

[Sut1]

But surely the content of a game is actually PLAYING it, not watching or hearing it, or am I missing something ?

[Calysma1]

There has already been at least one casualty of this overzealous copyright enforcement: Mark Bussler of Classic Game Room is no longer posting full reviews on his YouTube channel, instead only uploading "preview" videos directing viewers to watch the full video (now hosted by DailyMotion) at his website.

[velcrozombie1]

I'm a big fan of Two Best Friends Play and ever since these copyright
issues have come up I've been wondering about their livelihood. They
do use footage from a lot of different games both new and old but,
just like Angry Joe and (ugh) Pewdiepie, its their personalities and how
they choose to interact with the material that makes what they do stand
out; the game just provides a platform for them to work off of. They have
talked about the possibility of something like this happening on their podcast,
and they figured that if they had enough of a fanbase they could move on
to something like sketch videos.

I wonder if a healthy medium could be reached. I thinking of the way sampling
was handled after the rise of hip-hop. To use a really old and obvious example,
MC Hammer could pay a fee to Rick James and his record company for the use
of "Super Freak" and then still make a ton of money on "U Can't Touch This".
Maybe the more popular members of the Let's Play community could either
pay a licensing fee for the footage they use or a percentage of their advertising
profit to the respective video game company. I don't see why it has to be an
either-or proposition, and I think it would be foolish of the gaming companies to
make it that way.

[Rev1]

[QUOTE=Calysma]There has already been at least one casualty of this overzealous copyright enforcement: Mark Bussler of Classic Game Room is no longer posting full reviews on his YouTube channel, instead only uploading "preview" videos directing viewers to watch the full video (now hosted by DailyMotion) at his website.[/QUOTE]

That really sucks. This guy's reviews are always really funny and I enjoy watching them.

[Gentlegamer1]

Johnathan Blow had a video of his own game The Witness flagged. Most of these ContentID claims aren't even by the IP owners.

It's a terrible system, policy, and google deserves to lose money as video creators leave the site.