Atlus Releases Strict Streaming Guidelines For Persona 3 Portable & Persona 4 Golden

I guess I won’t buy it then, I will vote with my wallet that I don’t like these rules

...WTF Atlus? I uploaded Persona 5 videos on my channel already, though...nothing really happened to them...so, I dunno. Ugh...stop being a Nintendo. lol

This is nothing, you should take a look at the review embargo.

All I need to know is if I can turn the music off. Please?

The games are over 10, nearly 15 years old. Seriously?

Not that I watch streamers for these kinds of games but seriously.

A lot of these are common sense and things like the spoiler warning are definitely appreciated, can't tell how many times I stumbled across a stupid clickbait-y thumbnail of end-game spoilers when researching new titles. But like...consistently displaying the copyright? Come on now. Incredibly dumb.

If you're using their IP for your content, you get to abide by their rules. It's like that with every other media platform, why would streamers be exempt?

Being able to use someone else's work directly without paying them is a privilege as it is.

More Persona streaming restrictions from Atlus/SEGA? It must be (insert any day of the week here).

@Zeldawakening Don’t forget to call them out on Twitter or one of their next customer surveys. A boycott without notification through official channels goes unnoticed.

This is nothing new; they've done this for Persona 5 and Persona 5 Royal, but they never actually enforce it, so go ahead and stream to your heart's content.

That’s ridiculous, these game are ancient.

Atlus is still stuck in the past and I'm sure the fossils at the head of the company need help even just working out their newfangled smartphones.

@KayFiOS Yeah, these guidelines are mainly just to try and discourage people from doing the above. I've seen multiple channels stream past the in-game dates specified in the guidelines for P5R (such as RTGame, who has 2.75 million subs, so I'd be dumbfounded if Atlus somehow didn't notice his playthrough at some point or another) with no repercussions from Atlus whatsoever. I've also seen multiple videos based off of musicians listening through the Persona 3-5 soundtracks, and I haven't heard of them having any negative repercussions either, so I think the streamers will be fine.

Atlus when streamers spoil the games >

Atlus when they spoil them in the spin-offs (some of which were multiplatform before the main games)

Not sure why Sega and Atlus are so strict about streaming these. It's not like these are new games, these are just ports, they're already out there. Everyone who play these on PS2 and PSP already knew what happen in these games. Most viewers who came to watch these stream of newer ports came to check on performance and gameplay only.

I understand many people would be playing these games for the first time but I know spoilers for Persona 4 especially are very easy to run into to the point where it feels like a bit of a non-spoiler nowadays

"to insert a spoiler alert when streaming Persona 4 Golden's culprit's dungeon"

They say while putting him into the multiplattform remaster of Persona 4 Arena Ultimax a year ago and making it pretty obviously that he is evil

If you want to enforce these rules, maybe NOT release the games in some unspoken timed exclusive manner.

Considering this is Atlus I am absolutely not surprised.

They would do exactly the same thing if these games were 30 years old and re-released on anything out there, including my toaster.

@Joeynator3000 Atlus is far more restrictive than Nintendo. This is them being chill. Should see what they've done with each release and rerelease of Persona 5.

"videos exclusively focused on the background music is not allowed"

lol ok.

I literally just went to youtube, and there's a full upload of the P4 OST that has been up for eleven years.

Nintendo is more aggressive about removing tracks uploaded by larger channels, but those tracks are always eventually re-uploaded by someone else.

@Ashunera84 "Being able to use someone else's work without paying them is a privelege".

The games aren't free.

@WhiteUmbrella buying a game doesn't mean you own it. You buy a license to use that game under the terms and conditions of that purchase.

@WhiteUmbrella you are paying for the right to PLAY the game, you do not own its contents. I reiterate - the fact that you are allowed to play it before a public audience at all, nevermind actually make money by doing so, is a privilege.

The right to broadcast publicly typically costs several orders of magnitude more money than the right to view/use personally throughout almost all forms of media. Public broadcast of any media can cost the IP-holder massive amounts of money.

The gaming streamer community would do well to remember they are using someone else's property without their express permission to make money. In most fields, this is plagiarism or theft.

@Ashunera84 Conflating playing a game with broadcasting a movie or music is a fallacy, because there is an element of performance involved in streaming or, as you put it, "broadcasting" a game over the internet, which would not be present in simply streaming someone else's film or music. Inherently, when someone streams music or a movie they are making the entirety of that media available to the viewer, providing a 1:1 experience, something that is not true of a game. The true impact on sales of game streaming can't be defined, since it's impossible to ascertain just how many people might buy a game that they were previously unaware of having seen it streamed, vs those that would be put off of a game they were previously interested in.
Typically though, at least some streaming is considered beneficial to the sales of a game, part of the usual promotion of a game, and something that publishers would have to pay for, were streamers not to provide this service to them for free.

I have an opinion, you have the EULA. Why not just post a link? No need for all that typing.

So whit? Is this really a reason to boycott 2 of the most highly anticipated games for Switch this year?
Grow up, folks. Don’t be such entitled little babies.

According to Atlus, spoilers will ACTUALLY kill you now, even if it’s for an over 10 years old game.

@Ashunera84 I don't stream, I don't buy download games outside of Steam, I'm also fortunate enough not to suffer some kind of Napoleon complex that would drive me to try to spontaneously enforce the rules set by others so that I can feel some sense of power in my otherwise powerless life.

I'm sad that my comment removed. Yes, that was passionate. Yes, that could be misread as as threatening rant.

Let me re-iterate the thoughts in a sorta-less-threatening way, because I think the message is very important for the younger generation.

When you stream someone's work, you actually reap the rewards for someone's work for FREE.
So if the original creator asks for as little as "put my copyright on the stream pretty please" and you disobey - then you are a freeloader and should be treated as such.

@duerer What, exactly, do you get out of reinforcing this "corporate line"? Are you a major shareholder? These aren't your rules, so why do you feel so desperate to reinforce them?
I will reiterate. Games ARE NOT FREE. Some other things that are not free include internet access, devices that play games and allow streaming. Taking the argument you are perpetuating to its conclusion, do you then also believe that a musician should pay royalties to the maker of the instrument? No, they pay for the instrument, absolutely the work of many other people, and then they use that device in their own performance. Use of the instrument is transformative, and many people who play games online as performance have exceptional skill, and they are spending their own time and money and dedication to do it. Nothing is owed at all, and to suggest so is ridiculous to me.

They sound like a match made in heaven for Nintendo and their idiotic policies.

@WhiteUmbrella The comparison from instruments to games is pretty out of whack for me reading it as a musician and a gamer.

Game dev tools are the equivelent of instruments as are the DAWs, VSTs and all the other elements that enable you to create the music. Games are the music.

When you buy an instrument you're not buying a license to play it under agreed conditions as part of the purchase. There would be some IP issues if you tried to replicate it and sell it to others...But that's another can of worms

To expand on why Atlus might do this - if they feel the story is the USP of their product which will make it sucess then if people stream it, give out the entire story for free (essentialy) then that could affect sales. The story is a very key in thing a lot of the Persona games. If people experience the story without paying for the game and someone else reaps the financial rewards then how is that fair on the creators of the game?

@WhiteUmbrella

Well, the business math simply won't work with your logic.

YOU buy the game for personal entertainment - that's OK, you pay $50 for Atlus. As someone pointed out earlier, you pay for the rights to play and get entertained. Like it or not, that's the fact.

YOU stream the game for your wide audience for free - that's NOT OK, because you are sharing Atlus' work to others for free. (not just to your close friends, which is OK, but to masses of unknown people, which is NOT OK).

YOU GET PAID for your stream - that's ABSOLUTELY NOT OK, because your income depends on Atlus' work and not yours.
You add nothing of value to Atlus' work with your stream, therefore why get paid based on Atlus' work?

See? Here lies the problem: you get paid for a job done by others.

Technically, you should either split your income between you and Atlus, OR pay Atlus for a broadcast license to compensate all those hard-working faceless, nameless people you will never ever get to know for their honest work made for YOUR entertainment.

Why hasn’t capitalism adjusted to people liking viewing gameplay reactions and movie reactions and stuff? A subscription service or something where it’s agreed by the streamer to offer a percentage of money to the creator of the original product but the streamer also gets compensated for their content while following the original creators rules so not to spoil the game for people who don’t want to be spoiled.

@Dylansuxx Twitch and Youtube.

@duerer It's called fair use, which is also legal, since you're fond of regurgitating rules created by others, you should respect that concept too. Your post suggests you do not. It also didn't escape me that, while you replied, you didn't answer why you have such a vested interest in spouting what is clearly not so much an opinion as "the corporate line".

@WhiteUmbrella As I explained in my post, this is NOT fair use. We can talk about fair use when both parties interests are met - which is clearly not the case here.

As for the "against corporate line" agenda of yours: we live in a free world, you believe what you want to believe...
... but at the end it all boils down to this simple concept: being part of the society, thus having a job, getting paid for work and securing a honest living, and eventually strengthening the society. Everything else is pure idealism. I am no advocate of any "corporate line".

Don't worry though: it took me many many many years to understand this. In time you will understand it too.

@duerer Dude I think Mr. Umbrella might be what we call in the UK a Freeman of the Land type

@duerer There is nothing in the terms of "fair use" specifying that both parties interests must be met. If there is any "agenda" here, it's going to be obvious to anyone reading this that you have at least as much "agenda" as I do, also that your most recent post is one of the most condescending replies to ever be posted anywhere. If I were you, I'd come back later once you have a cool head and delete it to save yourself future embarassment.

@Jacket_p Oh I know them, funny people
Proof that Monty Python's and Yes Prime Minister's legacy is still strong, in fact it spawned a whole new species

@Ashunera84 This comment makes no sense. You’re not using their work without paying them. That would indicate that you pirated the game and then uploaded footage on YT or something. Streaming isn’t “using their work.” You’re playing their video game on a streaming platform, not using assets from the game for your own usage in say, a fan-made Persona game. No streamer considers the works of a game developer to be their own.

I get that Atlus decides on their guidelines for streams to avoid spoilers but your logic on the matter isn’t ticking right.

@duerer Depends on the content of the stream. If it's a silent streamer with no mic and no webcam, streaming only gameplay to the audience, then you're probably right.

If the streamer has their own sound alerts, a webcam showing themselves play the game, and is actively participating with their viewers, then all of that extra stuff is the streamers work and no company (other than Twitch) can touch it.

Makes you wonder why streaming accrues the amount of ad revenue that it does. It's certainly different than simply broadcasting a game, to be sure.

@SonOfDracula
Hmmm, I won't be popular with this one, but anyways...

The streamer's their own sound alert and their visible persona are surely the streamer's work ... but it has not much of a value.

If I play Persona 4 and stream myself playing it:
Have I added something to the Persona 4 experience? Nope. I play exactly the same game as you.

Have I made Persona 4 a better game than it already is? Definitely not. The game was already expertly crafted by the developers. I am not involved with the game's quality whatsoever.

Have I persuaded you to buy the game? Probably not, in fact I might damage the game's business. As pointed out earlier, Persona is a story oriented game, so if I spoil the story for you, why should you buy the game? You've just binge watched the whole stuff for free!

So what is the "value" I added to Persona?
Well, my ugly face, plus my annoying personality, and... that's it.

If I would just show myself not playing anything, merely being silly, would you watch my stream? Probably not. You would watch my stream because of Persona 4.

See? I, as a streamer, I would be totally nothing without Persona 4 — thus I owe a great deal to Atlus for that.

@SonOfDracula you pay to play, not use the software as you see fit.

Streaming absolutely is using the work of those you're streaming. It may not be a 1:1 broadcast, but you ARE using their work, and potentially benefiting from it.

If you're not benefiting, and you're not causing harm to the IP-holder, it probably falls under fair use in most jurisdictions. If you make anything off the streaming, however, most of the rights shift back to the IP-holder. Most game companies have simply recognized responsible streaming doesn't harm their product, but can and should remain able to impose restrictions like this.

These rules exist for good reasons.

@Ashunera84 Again, the logic you're using is nonsense, and I won't be feeding the troll further. You have a clear prejudice that is clouding your vision.

@duerer Whether or not you find value in the streamer does not negate the work that they put in to make the experience unique or valuable. Heck, I donated $300 to a streamer when I got my Christmas bonus last month and wanted to share. I found their content to add a great amount of value to the experience. You obviously wouldn't understand, and it's not my job to make you understand, either. The takeaway from this, is that your personal preferences don't exist to override those of another; they exist solely to help determine your personal outcome, and can be used as a way to relate to others. I've watched streams where the broadcaster is annoying, and I've found others where they are wholesome and entertaining. It's pointless to paint them as a group with your stereotypes.

I know this won't be read and will fall on deaf ears, so I'll be moving on from the conversation. No need to reply.

@SonOfDracula It's not predujice - it's the law - IP or copyright. I mentioned before that if the key thing that Atlus thinks will make the Persona series sell if the story then they're well within their legal rights to take steps to protect it and ensure they get money back in so their workers get paid and keep their job. Their taking the steps they see fit to protect that.

If a streamer streams the games, 1000 watch it then because they've seen how the story plays out don't buy the game then there is the potential for a loss of sales/revenue. So they're taking the steps within the law to protect that.

I'm not saying it's the 100% case but I can absolutely understand why they would do it.

Tis solid business sense. If they didn't have any they'd be out of business, people would lose jobs and no more Persona. And considering they're reported as running at a loss for a good few years before 2022 I'd imagine they'd want to do everything to protect the money coming in.

@Jacket_p If you bothered reading my initial reply, you would see that I acknowledged the rights of the IP holder and I'm not arguing against the law. I'm arguing that no, you are NOT using a game devs work by broadcasting it. Otherwise, nobody would be allowed to broadcast/stream, period. Since there's already millions of people streaming on Twitch and YT alone, that point is moot.

An example of using a devs work would be taking the assets and making something of your own out of it, like a fan-made game and then selling it. That's illegal. Different subject. Hopefully your next reply gets the memo.

With your logic, a gaming website wouldn't be allowed to post screenshots, since that's just another thing that adds to their ad revenue. A gaming website is also using a game devs assets, by your logic! lol

@SonOfDracula the logic I'm using is what would apply to you if you found yourself in court for not following these rules. If you can't understand that despite your overwhelming degree of self confidence, that's not on me.

Atlus owns the Persona IP. If you use the Persona IP to either damage the Persona IP or profit without their express consent, you are required to follow their rules. This is true of all media. Paintings, movies, books, TV, video games.
The logic is very basic. If a streamer is removed from this process, very few people really care. If the game is removed from the process, the streamer's product has no value. The streamer is quite literally and directly relying on an IP they do not own for traffic. You can try to explain away this fact, but a fact it remains. Streamers have a privilege, not a right.

And yes, screenshots etc. Are typically owned by the IP holder. Most IP-holders don't enforce their ownership outside extreme cases, but a review site like this will usually be restricted from posting certain content as a part of their legal agreement to be allowed a review copy resulting review.

@Ashunera84 Tell me you're ignoring what I'm writing back to you without telling me you're ignoring what I'm writing back to you LOL

Strange! If your logic prevailed, Twitch, YouTube and any other type of online streaming service would be shut down. There must be SOME reason they are still up! There's no point in speaking to people like you. You lack the nuance.

@SonOfDracula
"... you are NOT using a game devs work by broadcasting it. Otherwise, nobody would be allowed to broadcast/stream, period. Since there's already millions of people streaming on Twitch and YT alone, that point is moot."

... and there lies the misunderstanding. The fact that millions are streaming does not negate the fact that these millions are acting against copyright laws.

Now consider this: by law, Atlus has the right to cashgrab the income of streamers... but NO, they don't want to do that.
All they ask nicely is to be a responsible streamer, put on their copyright and mask out the story twists with a spoiler banner.

What exactly here that upsets you so much?
That Atlus is actually a very cool company for creating cool games and for not behaving as a greedy corporate b*stard?
Or that Atlus actually asks a small favour in return of using their games for YOUR purposes?

If this would be rich boys Microsoft or Sony, I might somewhat agree with your anti-corporate idealism, but Atlus is a small firm, struggling to survive in these desperate times.
And heck, I'll support them, because they gave me one of my best gaming experiences in recent years (SMTV for life!)

Nobody replying can explain why Twitch and YouTube are running off of broadcasts, yet they think the whole operation is illegal. Gets a big LOL from me! Quick! Someone do something; the big bad Twitch streamer is doing a bad!

@SonOfDracula
"Nobody replying can explain why Twitch and YouTube are running off of broadcasts"

This one is easy. Because Twitch and Youtube (Google) has their own exclusive agreements with a common copyright management agency, that certain percent of their revenue will be sent to this agency — and this agency will split this revenue among its members (musicians, movie studios, game publishers, you name it)

There, you have it.

@SonOfDracula those sites are up because they provide a service to users. You are not required to use other people's IPs to post to YouTube, Twitch, or whatever.

Content relating to any game that uses game assets that financially damage the company by providing its content to others, or for profit for an unaffiliated individual is, again, a privilege. These companies are allowing them to do it. They do and should retain the right to submit copyright claims if they see fit to do so.

This is not complex stuff. The fact that you do not know this common information is a failure on your part. Copyright basics are taught in elementary school.

And also, yes, what @duerer has been saying.

@SonOfDracula those two are just trolling, it may even be one person with two accounts. I set them to ignore when I came to believe reason was useless, but I admire your tenacity.

People disagree with me so I'll ignore them because I'm wrong. Welcome to the 21st century

@SonOfDracula I'm sure the game websites will have an agreement with the publisher. Or it'll be under fair use.

Dude. Stop digging.

I've given enough reasons why atlus may act like they do. Choose to disagree. Whatever. I don't really care as much about it as you do. I just find copyright law, IP and also entitled people fascinating

On whether video game streamers are covered by fair use we won't know until either congres or the courts weigh in.

The issue being that game streamers generally don't have the time and/or money to see a case through.

@snarls200 Fair use is a legally gray term anyway.
Ideally it should be a "live and let live"-situation, while in practice this is more of a "you rub my back, I'll rub your back"-scenario.

The first one is extremely hard to define legally, while the latter is a basic non-hostile business behaviour that could be taken out of context very easily and to be turned into a very aggressive business behaviour.

In both cases, lots of legal disputes are imminent — so the case is all yours Mr Phoenix Wright

@WhiteUmbrella Yeah, I'm gonna do the same, that's good advice. Appreciate it!

@Jacket_p I'm not arguing that Atlus shouldn't protect their IP by setting up stream restrictions. Read my original posts, 'cause you're arguing against a point I never made and succumbing to be the same trolling as the others. Trolling is becoming increasingly frequent on this site, unfortunately. It was feeling like a "last bastion" type of thing but it's clear that more and more users are just trying to start POINTLESS arguments.

Don't care. People refusing to buy this because not only no physical but this?! People overreact these days...

@PessitheMystic Exactly!

It's funny that they think they can do that. 😆 HILARIOUS.... VERY terrible of them

@Ashunera84 no you're just wrong, it's fair use.

Its not like Atlus can do much about it, as long as video doesn't violate youtube or twitch guidelines. But its not like its a new game or anything

@duerer Thanks for white knighting for Nintendo and Atlus.

They both are getting treated oh so unfairly.

Kind of hard to stream something I don't physically own.

@SonOfDracula YouTube and Twitch fall under the DMCA "safe harbor" clause for user-generated content. Essentially, as long as someone else is responsible and the sites follow some rules, they're legally safe.
There are many, but the most important ones are the rule to (A) have agents that receive takedown notices, take infringing content down, and let the infringer submit a counterclaim (if desired), and (B) terminate repeat infringers. They both do those (& all other rules), so they're legally in the clear.
(Note, from here on out I'm assuming Atlus West sued a streamer in a US court. If Atlus sued in a Japanese court the streamer would just be boned, Japan doesn't have fair use.)

Regarding "You’re playing their video game ... not using assets from the game for your own usage in say, a fan-made Persona game." - fair use doesn't work like that.
Rogers v. Koons (1992) illustrates this - an sculptor used a copyrighted photograph (entirely) as the basis for his sculptures and got $100K+. The photographer sued him and won. The copyrighted work was not a sculpture and the photographer didn't consider making sculptures, but the fact that a potential market for the sculptures existed meant that the sculptures were infringing.

There hasn't been any case I know of regarding whether game playthroughs are fair use, but I doubt they would be. Let's say a streamer played the entire game (since usually people making videos do).
Here's the 4 factors of fair use and how they'd play out:
1: Nature and purpose of the use - Streaming is commercial (bad), but providing commentary is transformative (good). Mixed bag.
2: Nature of the copyrighted work - It's a fictional work, not factual. (Factual works are less protected.) Weighs against fair use.
3: Amount of the use - It's the entire game. Weighs heavily against fair use.
4: Effect on the market - It's heavily story-based, and Atlus could easily argue that if someone watched the stream they wouldn't want to spend 50 hours playing it on their own, so the market for their work was harmed. Weighs heavily against fair use.

I'd be very surprised if the streamer won.
Also, I'm not just trying to defend Atlus or Nintendo or anyone. I'm saying how this works because I don't like the current state of IP law.
Seriously, I would love if courts determined that streaming (and mods, remixes, and mashups) to be fair use, but as of now I strongly doubt they would be. And look at my username - to paraphrase LazyTown, I've "done what I want" many times (only for media where the creators wouldn't make anything off of it, like if a game isn't being made anymore).

@Deviant-Dork I'm copying the relevant part of my above comment:
There hasn't been any case I know of regarding whether game playthroughs are fair use, and I looked. So (unless you know of one), the question of "are they fair use or not" has no definitive answer. I can't accurately claim they definitely aren't and you can't accurately claim they definitely are.

But let's say a streamer played the entire game (since usually people do full playthroughs). Here are the 4 factors of fair use and how they'd play out:

1: Nature and purpose of the use - Streaming is commercial (bad), but providing commentary is transformative (good). Mixed bag.
2: Nature of the copyrighted work - It's a fictional work, not factual. (Factual works are less protected.) Weighs against fair use.
3: Amount of the use - It's the entire game. Weighs heavily against fair use.
4: Effect on the market - It's heavily story-based, and Atlus could easily argue that if someone watched the stream they wouldn't want to spend 50 hours playing it on their own, so the market for their work was harmed. I definitely think a court would be persuaded by that. Weighs heavily against fair use.

Given how many those things weigh against the streamer, I would be VERY surprised if the streamer won.

Also, I'm not just trying to defend Atlus or Nintendo or anyone. I'm saying how this works because I don't like the current state of IP law. Seriously, I would love if courts determined that streaming (and mods, remixes, and mashups) to be fair use, but as of now I strongly doubt they would be.

@yarharr it's ok you're wrong, no big deal.

@Deviant-Dork Do you have any actual reason you think that, like, idk, a counterargument to any of the factors of fair use I cited? Or a relevant court case that decided game playthroughs are fair use?
Or are you just trying to appear confident so that people believe you instead of them asking you for a justification and/or source for your claim?

Well that’s the funny thing. Has no one told Atlus that these rules are illegal to propose? They are not allowed to tell a customer who owns the software what they can do with it. Only that they cannot steal the software. If they wish to record themselves or stream it live they may.