12-13-2013, 10:01 AM
From I've heard from other LPers they're content matching video game related, and (allegedly) denying monetizing videos. So if you were currently making/going after that sweet Youtube money then this could put a bump in your plans. Me personally could care less, and I like the way one of the sandcastle poster put it:
Sundowner Wrote:I disagree that you have "no right" to upload and use footage in a review.
This video sums everything up pretty nicely from someone who actually does film/TV reviews rather than game stuff but the general concepts still apply. Commentary and criticism are valid "excuses" to be using video content of intellectual property, authorized or otherwise. It falls in to Fair Use and probably free speech at some point. Now when it comes to LPs and wholesale uploads of game footage, I agree and think it's fair that they have every right to de-monetize or claim that content (perhaps there are some very severely strict cases where it isn't fair) but when you're using heavily edited footage and clips to give context and meaning to a criticism, that's absolutely fair and requires no permission.
Reviews aren't solicited work (they CAN be, but aren't REQUIRED to be) and it's not in the same grey area as LPs.
Edit: Oh and while this doesn't necessarily apply directly to LPs, it's certainly a sadness to see a guy like Mark Bussler have to reel it in and move elsewhere. I was generally okay with this whole thing (in the sense that I knew what I had clear rights to and what I didn't) but now that I see CGR jumping ship, I'm a little worried. Considering his entire catalogue is critical works and yet even he has to consider other avenues. I don't want any of my critical works (:spergin:) to be tagged, removed or de-monitized. That's where I draw the line.
Zorak Wrote:Accepting that kind of thing comes with the risk of doing a Let's Play of any modern platform game. After all, other people control the license to the games being Let's Play and it's in a weird legal area as a result.