Partner Nintendo 3DS Central Social

End of paid LPs

VirusZero

VirusZero

Well-Known Member
Full GL Member
1,186
2011
21
Awards
6
Credits
0
Youtube has been up to making some changes again. This time it's not just limited to a new layout for the site either.

They've begun to push toward a new stance (that will take effect in 2014) regarding usage of footage from videogames.

Formerly they allowed people to post gameplay video (either with commentary or without) and monetize it (so that uploader could earn money for each view of their ads). But now Youtube has decided that just isn't going to be allowed anymore.

If you want to be allowed to make money from game videos you'll have to provide proof that you have permission to do so or that you infact own the content you're uploading. And until they get satisfactory proof, ads won't run.

Here's a small list of companies and their stance on video uploading and monetization:
* Activision - Does not allow derivative works per their terms. See 3. License.

* Bungie - Specifically says not to create derivative works from their software in their terms. Probably why Halo is a pain.

* Capcom - OK if you aren’t making any money. See this FAQ post on their forums.

* Codemasters - Does grant permission to monetize videos as confirmed here.

* GungHo Online - These guys do stuff like Ragnarok Online. Videos OK, monetization not OK.

* Microsoft - Videos are completely fine as long as you are not paid. They say part of this includes Halo in their rules, so Bungie may or may not still get on your case. Check out the rules here.

* Natsume - These guys are famous for Harvest Moon among others. From an email they allow videos without monetization.

* Naughty Dog - The Last of Us, Uncharted, Jak and Daxter… great games, but they don’t want you to use ANY of their footage (said via email).

* Nintendo - Encourages videos (especially Let’s Plays), but may decide to monetize your video. The exact wording is on Go Nintendo.

* NIS America - Famous for stuff like Danganrompa and Disgaea. Encourages videos, monetization not allowed.

* Rockstar / Take-Two Interactive - Encourages videos unless they are just straight cutscene footage (Let’s Plays with cutscenes OK). Pretty sure they don’t want things monetized. See the full rules here.

* Sega - Does not give any license for YouTube footage .

* SNK - They do not give license for derivative works.

* Square Enix - Does not grant individual permission to use their works, but DOES grant permission to larger entities. .

* TecmoKoei - Famous for stuff like Dead or Alive and Ninja Gaiden. Specifically in the words of the email, “TecmoKoei does allow people to make video reviews and other similar works, but we do not typically allow monetization.”

* TellTale Games - The Walking Dead, Wolf Among Us, Sam and Max… these guys have some really good stuff. Let’s Plays are definitely allowed, monetization is not. See this permission post on their forums.
Click to expand...
Source

Should gamers be allowed to upload videos of gameplay and earn money off it?
 
oh man, that is going to kill people like the game grunts and machinima. But this is debate that can go either side but as the people in charge of Team Four Star have stated:

"It isn't right to make money off something they don't own rights to."

You may buy a copy of the game and do with it as you please, but you should not contentiously make money from it. So I'm kind of on board with this but curious to see where this will go for everyone who earns money with Lets play.
 
In one regard I do agree with that line of thought. So for people who were doing Lets Plays posting just the raw footage and getting adsense money? Fuck those guys.  

But then at the same time there are people who might have gameplay footage showing (for something to see) but the main attraction and reason to watch the video is what they're actually talking about.  And so it's not that they're profiting of the gameplay footage entirely, there is a lot of their own original content in there too. (Which in those cases, I sort of think it'd be fair for the person to be able to opt to take a reduced cut, say 50% and then the game maker gets that other half. This way the person talking gets some for their work and the game studio gets some for their part, rather than no one get anything.)

Plus there are instances where like The Angry Joe Show might show a few clips of a game when he's doing a review of it. So is it fair for them to make it so he doesn't earn money off that video (since he showed some gameplay) even though the video is actually 99% him. (I'm sure Angry Joe show could probably get permission for reviews or could possibly use the fair use act since he's showing only a portion of the game and not doing a whole playthrough.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top