Topic: Youtubers upset over Nintendo's New affiliate program

Square Enix: They revised their usage license last month (This is part of the rules and policies for FFXIV);

''You may not use the Materials for any sales or commercial use, meaning you cannot receive license fees or advertising revenue, except as part of the partner programs operated by YouTube.com, Twitch.tv, Ustream.tv, or similar programs.''[1]

Ubisoft: ''Unless approved by us, the use of our content in videos must be non-commercial.''[2]

There's plenty of developers (if not most) that have strict policies for commercial use [on YouTube]. Granted whilst it may seem that most developers allow monetisation, they get their money through their partnership with YouTube. Because, yes, YouTube takes about 50% of the ad revenue generated by each video, and I don't see anyone complain about that. How is that any different than the Nintendo Creators Program[3]?

It replaces Nintendo's previous policies on YouTube generated ad revenue, which allowed Nintendo to take 100% of the ad revenue. Yet now, when they loosen their policies, people start to complain? That's ridiculous.

It all sounds as if a lot is going to change, but I doubt that will happen. Last year we've seen some strikes here and there, but nothing noteworthy, and that was with the agreement that Nintendo is allowed to take every penny you make of a video that contains Nintendo's copyright protected properties.

The only thing I can both criticise and applaud them for is their transparency. The Nintendo Creators Program is something that needs a little work though, there are some gray areas that need clarification. Other than that, it's a better deal for the YouTube community than we've seen previously.

Not a reply to you @Aviator, but I'd like to hear what the YouTubers who actually post Nintendo videos daily think about this, because so far, I've only heard the people complain that post a Nintendo video once in a blue moon.

Source:
[1] http://support.na.square-enix.com/rule.php?id=5382&tag=authc
[2] http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/773564-Ubisoft-policy-on...
[3] https://r.ncp.nintendo.net/guide//

Maybe you have some information I don't, but here (that youtube vlog about the whole thing) he claims it's "only" 50 videos, which as he mentions is not all the videos on Nintendo that he puts out. (It's still too much, for sure.)

Is there a reason Youtubers can't simply file a copyright claim with Youtube against Nintendo? Excerpts for commentary and review fall under fair use law in the US.

With Youtube? Youtube is the system flagging these videos. They should be bashing Youtube as well

This, we've been saying this for who knows how long now, it doesn't even work 100% of the time, I've uploaded 3 Bayonetta videos, and only one of them got a Copyright claim. And Plants vs. Zombies isn't copyrighted apparently, lol

@Octane Someone here who does research to back up their posts. Beautiful!

In both cases, it doesn't seem like Ubisoft are opposed that much to monetisation. It's on a case-by-case basis, and from what you can see on YouTube if you a search on Ass' Creed, their are tons of videos. (Assuming everyone there asked permission).

With Square, it harder. FFXIV is an MMO, and so I would pretty much guarantee, much like why so many WoW accounts are popular, is for the player rather than the game. Companies need to look at videos, and try to evaluate what is making the money. Is it the game, or is it the player?

It's hard, but the popularity of live streams and LPs mean this issue isn't going away any time soon.

I'm not really affected either way by this program....BUT with that said, I read some arguments on both sides. To be honest, this is truly a remarkably stupid move by Nintendo

It is indeed a case-by-case system, as it is with Nintendo games[1]. Going back to my previous statement, I don't think this program will change a lot. As you say, there are a lot of Assassin's Creed videos out there, but the same holds true for Nintendo content; even monetised Nintendo content. Whilst they say that, and sometimes will, claim a video, it seems to happen on a very occasional base.

Although that would be a good solution, it would be very difficult to determine whether the views are there for the game or the YouTuber. Even if people watch the video for the YouTuber, there's no denial in that popular games tend to garner more views.

At the moment I will withhold my opinion and await Nintendo's next move. Their program isn't clear as it is set up as of now. What about Nintendo games that aren't included in their whitelist? Are you allowed to monetise those or does Nintendo take it all? Or even more importantly, what type of videos this program includes; for example are reviews included?

I do think the outrage we've witnessed is a bit ridiculous; But hey, it's the internet, what did I expect?

Source:
[1] https://r.ncp.nintendo.net/whitelist/

I think one way to drastically improve the system is to offer the people who are party of the system a free WiiU and a set of games that are okay by Nintendo to stream or monetize. Also I might have a reason as to why Nintendo isn't wanting monetization of Super Smash brothers WiiU and 3DS might be due to the music licensing in the game as it would hard for them to distribute the right royalties around.

@Smash_kirby: Ooh that is correct. I didn't even think about the music side. Monetizing using copyrighted music is less of a grey area...

Just because YouTube-ing might be a hobby for some, doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to profit off of it. If I enjoy a video, I have no problem watching an ad to support the creator of the video. This basically comes down to you saying "get a real job" to everyone who is happily making extra cash, some even earning a living, doing what they love.

Honestly I don't see the problem here for the program and its something that youtubers are worked up about. Nintendo gets the share and controls the video content but isn't that the case with Youtube as well? I mean Youtube removes videos that are under copy righted and all so shouldn't the blame be partly on Youtube instead of Nintendo?

Let me just say that I've seen guys like Egoraptor who use their content and abuse the heck out of them and make money out of their content. Some can argue that this is free advertising, but if you're insulting video game characters like that, its not.

I mean how does Simpsons make money when the majority of their stories aren't fully original and they use copyrighted characters to make money out of it. Ok, so instead of Pixar, they called it Mixar but still they make money out of it because they use their content.

It's not abusing someone else's property. It's fair use of IPs for critique or parody. That is a fundamental part of journalistic freedom. Imagine if EA could shut down anyone who insulted their games or characters. Imagine if artists could shut down the scores of Youtube parodies. That would shut down a ton of either creativity or free dissemination of critique.

But here's the thing, they make money by using their IP's. Nearly every episode of the Simpsons isn't original and relies on IP's to compensate with the quality of every episode. Whether the characters are used as critique or parody, they are used to make money regardless.

That being said, since various animation studios don't have any issues using other IP's as means of making money for their own, then why is it that Youtube is suffering in this?

Why did you wait a month to post this? I'm pretty sure everyone has moved on from this matter and doesn't really feel like discussing it anymore. All that can be said, already has been, and no offense, your post doesn't bring any new ideas to the discussion.

I'm looking forward to reading your inevitable post in April where you tell us the dress is white and gold rather than black and blue.

You are treating IPs like actual property, they aren't. Copyrights and patents are a limited period of exclusivity to an idea, designed as a policy to encourage people to create. However, that policy has fair use built into it as well, so you are allowed to profit off of critique or parody.

You can't actually own an idea, as information freely disseminates. In other words, it can spread and used just by word of mouth, and it must be used to grow and develop knowledge. On the other hand, actual property is physically yours. Someone cannot have it unless you voluntarily give it or they take it. If you want to build on something, you can get your own to build on.

You do realize that by stating this, it would then mean that emulating games would also mean legal because of the copyrights being shortened. Companies like Titus are gone but their copyrights still exist and need to actually be bought. Universal took a long time to get the rights to make the asteroids movie and now they can do it because they managed to get the rights. Are you saying that the Nintendo cannot own their creations like Mario, Zelda, Metroid etc because of the fact that their idea's aren't really theirs?

The period of copyrights lasts for decades and decades so for each game being made has a long period of its copyright and it lasts for about 95 years.

So every game being made has a trademark and copyright claim that it won't go off quickly. Edge a game made by mobigames was removed from the app store because there happened to be a game company called edge games where the title itself is trademarked even though the actual game is completely different.

Same thing for Star Fox. In Europe, it was called Lylat Wars but in US its called Star Fox until now where its globally called Star Fox. I read this in a magazine somewhere a long time ago that a man made a clone of Pokemon and refuses to admit that he ripped out the concept from Pokemon. This goes on and on and all this is due to copyrights.

Again, like I said earlier, if you insult a character, its gonna encourage consumers to avoid buying its IP games like Mario or Sonic for instance which is what I feel Simpsons is doing. Now if parodies are fine and if reviewing games are fine, then why is Youtube the one suffering in this? Its just showing footage of a youtuber's work and just making that as a copyright unless its not gameplay footage, is just bad and a poor excuse for Youtube.

You are treating IPs like actual property, they aren't. Copyrights and patents are a limited period of exclusivity to an idea, designed as a policy to encourage people to create. However, that policy has fair use built into it as well, so you are allowed to profit off of critique or parody.

Yes they are. I own a copyright to my research that I conducted for my thesis. By law, people have to credit me when they use it, even after so many years. It is technically my property (along with my adviser's). Also, if I write a character, I own that character (provided I hold the copyright), and that will not expire as long as I hold it. Yes, parody and critique are fair use, but I still own the character/research.

The problem I see the most with this program is that Nintendo is throwing away free advertisement. Many indie games like FNAF and Minecraft are very popular thanks to Youtube. I'm not saying Youtube is the only reason those to games are recognizable, but it contributed to their popularity.

I laugh when I see people trying to defend this. Nintendo is starting to become a little bit greedy because in reality they don't need Youtubers money. They have the right to do this but should they do it is the question. Amiibo's and the 3DS are printing money so why does Nintendo need Youtuber's money?

I also dislike the plan to only have certain games. If Smash 4 or Brawl wasn't on their because of third party characters then I will understand. But since they haven't made a statement on this I am still boggled. No Smash, None of the Pokemon Games, and no thrid party games. I can understand SEGA but other companies don't do this (or at least some of them) so why you Nintendo?

I'm probably going to get backlash for this but I don't care.

The length of copyright has been extended beyond the life of the owner because companies like Disney lobbied for it. But copyright lasting beyond the life of the creator is completely against the original purpose of copyright, which is to promote creativity (hence why it was only 26 years originally).

And even in modern copyright, it's not property, because it does go away at a point. Actual property is owned for the life of the property, not for some arbitrary time. Idea are fundamentally something that freely disseminates. You can't hold exclusive ownership of them.