New Youtube policy forces A LOT of game play related videos to go away

Doge

Had to double check and this is the official blurb from youtube:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/138161

youtube wrote:

What can't I monetise?

Without the appropriate licence from the publisher, use of video game or software user interface must be minimal. Video game content may be monetised if the associated step-by-step commentary is strictly tied to the live action being shown and is of instructional or educational value.

Videos simply showing a user playing a video game or the use of software for extended periods of time may not be accepted for monetisation.

Doctor DooM

jaykhunter wrote: »

It's difficult keeping up with this.
1) How does the DMCA apply to youtube copyright?
2) Is it just YouTubers under Multi-Channel Networks now getting flagged or everyone?
3) What about non-monetised videos?
4) Is anyone going after the copyright holders (eg some music company rather than games companies whose game features their music?)

1) DMCA means that if a company wants something it owns taken down off youtube, they file a legal DMCA application and if youtube don't do what they want immediately, they could own them in court. As long as YT follows the DMCA, they have nothing to fear when someone puts up copyrighted material they don't own. As an aside it means the game devs know they can control the footage that's out there to a degree.

The flip side is a false DMCA is an act of purgory.

2) It's everyone who is monetised except for "managed" partners. No one seems to know what a managed partner is but I'd bet it's pewdipie and his ilk.

3) When I was non monetised I occasionally got (wrongly) copyright claimed so I would guess it's the same.

4) Most copyright holders are unhappy with this turn of events as prominent videos on youtube lead to sales.

waveform wrote: »

I thought video game footage was never eligible for monetization on youtube anyway?

At least this is what it said in the criteria the last time I checked.

I'm currently in discussions with an MCN (this is what we call them apparently now) that claims to have acquired rights to a lot of games. There's loads of ways around it.

grizzly

I find it strange how people treat Youtube like it's a public service that they have any fundamental rights in. They were signed away 130 pages into the user agreement.

Doctor DooM

grizzly wrote: »

I find it strange how people treat Youtube like it's a public service that they have any fundamental rights in. They were signed away 130 pages into the user agreement.

Sigh...

Partners make money off youtube, youtube make money off partners.

No one thinks they have rights from youtube, everyone thinks they're being screwed by them unnecessarily.

The view from that high horse won't be so good when no one has any incentive or ability to make quality content on youtube.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Burgo wrote: »

I found the "twitch.tv europe lag fix" has made it a lot better.

Richard Stanway ‏@R1CH_TL 7m
My Twitch EU Chrome extension is being discontinued as a result of Twitch switching to HLS. Please uninstall it.

Richard Stanway ‏@R1CH_TL 4m
The extension will likely cause additional lag if used for HLS which is why I recommend removing it.


just so you know

Kirby

degrassinoel wrote: »

it was for a long time, that's how the likes of TB pewdiepie and everyone that ever did a LP made out like bandits with monetisation, also why they're all up in arms over it.

None of Total Biscuits videos have been flagged. He is protected through his management company, as are the other big hitters like pewdiepie.

He has still come out against it because he recognises it's wrong....but this won't effect them. It will crush the middling personalities and the new up and comers as they wont have the clout to fight it.

The vast majority of the publishers have come out and said it's nothing to do with them and that they have no problem with any of the youtube videos. This is all on youtube and third parties that have very little to do with gaming. Youtube are fighting battles on behalf of the publishers that they were never asked to......and are going against their expressed wishes by doing so.

Doctor DooM

Kirby wrote: »

He has still come out against it because he recognises it's wrong....but this won't effect them. It will crush the middling personalities and the new up and comers as they wont have the clout to fight it.

The vast majority of the publishers have come out and said it's nothing to do with them and that they have no problem with any of the youtube videos. This is all on youtube and third parties that have very little to do with gaming. Youtube are fighting battles on behalf of the publishers that they were never asked to......and are going against their expressed wishes by doing so.

Further to this, Blizzard, Capcom and Ubisoft are actually actively pursuing and assisting with claims for youtubers who contact them.

Those companies take a lot of flak and they don't have to do it, so I think they should get a little respect for doing so.

I also agree with Kirby that this could absolutely kill small up and coming youtubers and make it a very sterile place.

That is the problem here. No one thinks Youtube HAVE to help people. This is not about legalities. It's all about the culture of gaming and the damage this move will do to its growth, along with its apparent seeming senselessness.

Doctor DooM

This is probably the most interesting vid on the topic so far, mainly because of the guest at the end.

That's Ultradavid, well known Streetfighter commentator and Zangief fan, who also happens to be a lawyer specialising in video game copyright law. In the past he's helped Machinima partners who needed it. So if he says there's a fight to be fought, I believe him.

I also agree with his point that we may all just simply go elsewhere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcILyCkNmvM

ScumLord

waveform wrote: »

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/138161

youtube wrote:

Videos simply showing a user playing a video game or the use of software for extended periods of time may not be accepted for monetisation.

By that definition photoshop tutorials wouldn't be allowed????

Dr Bob

Mentioned this elsewhere but..
I'm not sure how much this'll effect me .I make videos that are somewhere between a review and a 'lets play'
Most of the games I cover are 10-25 years old. (cough... http://www.letsgetretro.com/ )
I dont use copyrighted music (Know a sound (literally!) lad who does royalty free music which I use .)
I've had 2 claims in 2 years (all Konami), no strikes though.I dont monitize.
I just backed up my entire youtube channel last night (I have about 170 videos) .Possibly look at starting over on vimeo or one of those places if it gets bad, as I think,a lot of other gaming YT'ers will.

Doctor DooM

ScumLord wrote: »

By that definition photoshop tutorials wouldn't be allowed????

They'd get a pass as being instructional and/ or educational.

Ross_Mahon

My account is now 'Not in a good standing'. Archiving my entire channel incase i get removed. What other video hosting websites are decent enough?

richymcdermott

Classic game room who I have been subscriber off for years has left youtube.
If anything fell over fair use it was his channel , complete bollocks if you ask me.

Doctor DooM

Ross_Mahon wrote: »

My account is now 'Not in a good standing'. Archiving my entire channel incase i get removed. What other video hosting websites are decent enough?

That sucks, sorry man.

I've uploaded a few to dailymotion and it seems ok.

richymcdermott wrote: »

Classic room room who I have been subscriber off for years has left youtube.
If anything fell over fair use it was his channel , complete bollocks if you ask me.

Ah no, that's an indication of where this might all go.

jaykhunter

Ross_Mahon wrote: »

My account is now 'Not in a good standing'. Archiving my entire channel incase i get removed. What other video hosting websites are decent enough?

Vimeo is excellent. I've never had any problems with copyright -- the copyright holder must flag your video and then something'll happen. Free users get 500MB/1HD vid per week. They convert your vids to be played and offer a download version. If you do the pay service (~65/year) you get 5GB upload/week, and they keep the original file available for download. The only downside is that it's not a nearly as popular as YT or DM. They have a sweet option to upload an updated version of your video and it'll keep the comments/views/metrics etc.

nesf

I would truly be interested to see someone try to take a copyright claim to court over a Let's Play, never mind a review or whatever. Never mind that developers generally are ok with them, if you tried to claim this you'd run into some serious issues because whilst you own the game assets in the video you cannot make any claim over the play in the video (assuming it's not some telltale games "game"). Let's Plays are not simply the game that is being played, they are transformative works based on that game and to a greater (Civ V) or lesser (The Walking Dead) extent. You really cannot think of this as the same as me uploading the latest Metallica song to the Pirate Bay. It's somewhere in the murky waters between me doing that and me uploading a parody of that song.

I think you'd get almost nowhere with anything resembling a normal review. I think with Let's Plays it'd be quite complicated as the copyright system was never designed to handle this kind of content. Actually, it does make me curious about the covers I see on Youtube where people transcribe music to a different intrument and often several instruments to one instrument e.g. vkgoeswild's piano covers of metal and rock, guitar covers of theme tunes, violin covers of gaming music. I'm pretty sure these are protected but I'm not sure if it's been tested.

This is a minefield.

Pushtrak

SmurfX wrote: »

I personally think the monetisation of that sort of content is wrong and it would only benefit the quality of gaming channels if it was restricted to those with a genuine passion in the field rather than those who see it as a business opportunity.

I don't think the motivation of the content producer is, or should be an issue. People will watch those content producers that know what they are doing, or doing well, so that'll sort that out.

(How would you measure it anyway?)

There's an awful lot of sob stories these days from youtube "personalities" afraid of losing their livelihood which is irritating considering youtube in its prime was filled with people purely delighted to have any sort of audience they could contribute to.

There's a strange thing about people. If they make money doing something, and a point comes where that will no longer be the case, they aren't happy about it. It's almost like making money helps people stay alive.

SmurfX wrote: »

Depends really, for something like Beyond, Heavy Rain, Stanley Parable or telltale games it could be seen as replacement for the gaming experience since so much of the value in those games comes from watching the plot.

The Last of Us is more linear and if someone ups a play through then it simply spoils the individual experience.

I think the problem is that if someone watches a playthrough of a game they are less likely to go out and buy that game. Would you watch a film if you had seen how it ended or knew of all the twists? Anyone I know who watches playthrough videos rarely would then go out and play the games themselves

I think the wrong correlation is being made here. You look at how things are and say "people who look at a full lets play are less likely to buy the game" whereas I would suggest it is "people who are less likely to buy a game are more likely to watch a lets play."

I'd watch a Lets Play if it was something I knew I wasn't going to play, or just brief bits to see how it looks when running as a preamble to deciding whether to buy or not.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'll often check out gameplay videos for something I'm curious about but can't get a demo of but I'd never watch more than a few minutes and if there was any major spoiler in the footage I'd be quite annoyed.

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not that I don't like them, I just find them incrediably pointless.

What do you think is the most important aspect of gaming for most gamers? Graphics? Story? I'd suggest it is gameplay. I'd often hear people say if they wanted a good story they'd read a book or watch a movie. So, if gameplay is the biggest draw for most people, which I think is the case, at least, then how would such people get gameplay out of just watching lets plays? It's FUD to proclaim that lets play videos are doing damage to developers or publishers, frankly.

landsleaving

Can't see vimeo being the place people go, you can't have ads and you've to pay to upload a lot. These guys making money from their videos won't be too into that I'd imagine, and a 30 minute let's play is going to shatter that free download limit unless the quality is very low.

nesf

Pushtrak wrote: »

I think the wrong correlation is being made here. You look at how things are and say "people who look at a full lets play are less likely to buy the game" whereas I would suggest it is "people who are less likely to buy a game are more likely to watch a lets play."

I'd watch a Lets Play if it was something I knew I wasn't going to play, or just brief bits to see how it looks when running as a preamble to deciding whether to buy or not.

(Not specifically aimed at you Pushtrak) Remember the whole Strategy game Let's Play industry. The one where developers range from publicly encouraging to sending out early review copies to popular Let's Play video makers. In games where the "story" is player generated, where the mechanics can be complex and overwhelming for a newcomer Let's Plays are a crucial part of bringing new people in. Games like Civ V, Crusader Kings II, Europa Universalis IV all have strong followings on Youtube and the developers very actively encouraging people to stream their play.

With things like the Walking Dead "game" (sorry, interactive story is probably a better description despite it being very, very good) I get the complaint about Let's Plays because the gap between playing and watching is so small but with grand strategy games where the player carves out their own empire really the same argument doesn't hold.

Pushtrak

But even with something like The Walking Dead, the issue is if there are people who'd think "I would buy this but I can watch the lets and get the same results" which I don't think will apply for many people. The value of games are in the interaction. I don't think the lets plays are undermining sales at all, really.

nesf

Pushtrak wrote: »

But even with something like The Walking Dead, the issue is if there are people who'd think "I would buy this but I can watch the lets and get the same results" which I don't think will apply for many people. The value of games are in the interaction. I don't think the lets plays are undermining sales at all, really.

I can see the argument with the Walking Dead and I'd be ok with TellTale pulling down full "Let's Plays." If they pulled down reviews/teasers/limited replays it'd be taking the piss though. I agree with you that for most people interaction will trump passive watching but there would be some lost sales there I think.

Mostly I'm concerned by some people just seeming to use games like The Walking Dead as an argument against YouTube gaming streaming and ignoring say Starcraft where Blizzard gave explicit permission for people to upload videos and monetise them. Or bloody Company of Heroes 2 where they integrated Twitch streaming into the game so any numpty could try and do it. :P

Doctor DooM

nesf wrote: »

I would truly be interested to see someone try to take a copyright claim to court over a Let's Play, never mind a review or whatever. Never mind that developers generally are ok with them, if you tried to claim this you'd run into some serious issues because whilst you own the game assets in the video you cannot make any claim over the play in the video (assuming it's not some telltale games "game"). Let's Plays are not simply the game that is being played, they are transformative works based on that game and to a greater (Civ V) or lesser (The Walking Dead) extent. You really cannot think of this as the same as me uploading the latest Metallica song to the Pirate Bay. It's somewhere in the murky waters between me doing that and me uploading a parody of that song.

I think you'd get almost nowhere with anything resembling a normal review. I think with Let's Plays it'd be quite complicated as the copyright system was never designed to handle this kind of content. Actually, it does make me curious about the covers I see on Youtube where people transcribe music to a different intrument and often several instruments to one instrument e.g. vkgoeswild's piano covers of metal and rock, guitar covers of theme tunes, violin covers of gaming music. I'm pretty sure these are protected but I'm not sure if it's been tested.

This is a minefield.

I do follow an American lawyer who's heavily involved in all this (David Philip graham, well known in fighting game circles too) and he often says part of the problem is it's yet to be contested and is unlikely to be (why would YouTube when taking the vid down or changing its monetization costs them nothing?)

That leaves you with the content maker and I'm not sure if there's any legal basis for them arguing against YouTube taking a video down any more than a user here could against a mod deleting a post. It's a privately owned site.


Not a solicitor myself though, obviously.

nesf

Doctor DooM wrote: »

I do follow an American lawyer who's heavily involved in all this (David Philip graham, well known in fighting game circles too) and he often says part of the problem is it's yet to be contested and is unlikely to be (why would YouTube when taking the vid down or changing its monetization costs them nothing?)

That leaves you with the content maker and I'm not sure if there's any legal basis for them arguing against YouTube taking a video down any more than a user here could against a mod deleting a post. It's a privately owned site.


Not a solicitor myself though, obviously.

Yeah it's Youtube covering their own ass (fair enough) and the copyright "holders" using this rather than taking anyone to court (fair enough). However, if someone with a big following set up their own website...

It'll happen, not with the YouTube world we currently see, but it will happen in the next few years, most likely with some attempted copyright claim from a small dev/publisher. I don't think you'll see EA or Ubisoft or whoever being dumb enough to test this one out but a small developer trying to suppress bad reviews? Maybe.

Myrddin

richymcdermott wrote: »

Classic game room who I have been subscriber off for years has left youtube.
If anything fell over fair use it was his channel , complete bollocks if you ask me.

The channel is still there though?

Grumpypants

Doctor DooM wrote: »

I do follow an American lawyer who's heavily involved in all this (David Philip graham, well known in fighting game circles too) and he often says part of the problem is it's yet to be contested and is unlikely to be (why would YouTube when taking the vid down or changing its monetization costs them nothing?)

That leaves you with the content maker and I'm not sure if there's any legal basis for them arguing against YouTube taking a video down any more than a user here could against a mod deleting a post. It's a privately owned site.

I have been saying that all along and have been constantly told by you and others that I haven't a clue!

Doctor DooM

Grumpypants wrote: »

I have been saying that all along and have been constantly told by you and others that I haven't a clue!

Let's see if I can put it this way.

Can YouTube do this? Yes.

Do they have to do this? Not at all, legally they were completely covered. It appears to be what is known as a "dick move" against both their partners who've given them millions over the years and the game publishers who're being denied the oxygen of publicity.

Most of all, the service YouTube provides to the public will likely take a hit as anything gaming related can't be relied on to generate any form of income, and as people need to eat and keep warm, the effort spent on the burgeoning culture of gaming will likely be ripped to shreds, which saddens me greatly and, once again, only seems to play into the hands of those who want the only public words about their products to be ringing, tightly controlled endorsements.

So the problem is not can they do this. The problem is it sucks that they would do this at all.

ShadowHearth

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Let's see if I can put it this way.

Can YouTube do this? Yes.

Do they have to do this? Not at all, legally they were completely covered. It appears to be what is known as a "dick move" against both their partners who've given them millions over the years and the game publishers who're being denied the oxygen of publicity.

Most of all, the service YouTube provides to the public will likely take a hit as anything gaming related can't be relied on to generate any form of income, and as people need to eat and keep warm, the effort spent on the burgeoning culture of gaming will likely be ripped to shreds, which saddens me greatly and, once again, only seems to play into the hands of those who want the only public words about their products to be ringing, tightly controlled endorsements.

So the problem is not can they do this. The problem is it sucks that they would do this at all.

In fairness. There are only 2 things I got to youtube for - Video game content that I got subscribed too and listening to music when I am ****lesstly hammered by alcohol.

If I will need to swtich to other website, I have no Problem. Same as most people who look for gaming stuff. I can use Spotify now when I need a music fix while hammered....

RasTa

Why doesn't Angry Joe pay for using copyright material in his videos?

Myrddin

RasTa wrote: »

Why doesn't Angry Joe pay for using copyright material in his videos?

Maybe because the majority of the copyright holders don't have a problem with him using their material

nesf

RasTa wrote: »

Why doesn't Angry Joe pay for using copyright material in his videos?

This is the problem. Say he reviews some Paradox game. Paradox give people blanket permission to do videos on their games and slap ads on, you just can't put them behind a paywall (because this would reduce the number of viewers which Paradox want to be as large as possible). The problem is say there's some song used in the soundtrack that Paradox licenced and paid for but whose copyright is held by a third party, then the video could be pulled because of this song being played in the background of the video for 30 seconds in an hour long upload. The problem is the bot doing this isn't looking for YouTubers doing Let's Plays of this game, it's looking for people uploading this music to Youtube but it can't tell the difference between the two as how it currently works (as is best known) is by matching audio samples from the video to its list of copyrighted material.

The system is crazy, inefficient and not even enforcing the copyright when the copyright holders want it enforced, mainly because it's totally automated and there's no human oversight to say "eh, this doesn't look like a music video, let's put this on the maybe pile and get in touch with the music library."