The legal copyright holder of a critique of a game including footage is the critic. However if you don't have the clout to make a stink Youtube has to listen to, they're going to just let Nintendo eat your lunch.
-
-
Replying to @simonm223 @NMamatas and
To the point where some video creators will deliberately use footage claimed by two different national divisions of Nintendo in hopes both will claim to be the legitimate owner, at which point Youtube gives nobody the money and only Google wins.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
Replying to @NMamatas @iridienne and
Using trademark to silence critics is fucky too though anyway. ;)
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @simonm223 @NMamatas and
And DCMA remains the principal mechanism of corporate action.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @simonm223 @iridienne and
And yet, my seven-year-old manages to watch a zillion hours of video game play critiques and run-throughs on YouTube anyhow, and a bunch of floating heads who say things like "Whoa, this is EPIC!!!" are now millionaires.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @NMamatas @simonm223 and
The annoying thing here is that copyright law is in an extreme state of flux, enforcement is highly selective, so people talk past each other all the time about this The stronger argument in my view is that existing case law says streaming is copyright infringement, full stop
1 reply 3 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @NMamatas and
It seems incredibly obvious that streaming a video game is a "public performance" of the content of that game -- it's somewhere between screening a movie/playing an album and producing/filming a script (It can't possibly be a MORE transformative work than filming a screenplay)
4 replies 3 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @NMamatas and
IF we were trying to hew to the way copyright worked before streamers started doing their thing, then every single one of them is blatantly infringing, all of them owe pretty much 100% of their profits to the IP owners of the games they stream, and the industry shouldn't exist
2 replies 2 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @NMamatas and
This is, obviously, not going to happen, and once streaming was established as a thing that all the kids were into now the developers and publishers decided "Well it's better to roll with it than be the bad guys like Metallica were"
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes
But this is just benign neglect -- no new laws were passed, no court case was held, and if you actually seriously try to argue with a straight face that this is what "fair use" ALWAYS meant and every single rightsholder in the past century was getting away with robbery, well
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @NMamatas and
And this is why this debate is highly annoying, because no one's really having it in good faith The copyleft side doesn't really think copyright should exist at all, or thinks it should end after 10 years from creation, or whatever
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @NMamatas and
So their definition of "fair use" is very unlikely to meet the courtroom standard of the "reasonable person definition" -- their position defaults to "EVERYTHING should be fair use until proven otherwise because don't give them a fucking inch"
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.