This happened a little while ago but recently Phil Fish came out on Twitter and said: Thoughts? Frankly I think this is insane. It's like saying reading a movie script is the same experience as watching it.
I think it's perfectly reasonable. People who upload videos of games to YouTube still don't actually own the content they're uploading. If a developer wants all the ad revenue from videos that are based around their content then they have every right to claim it simply because it already belongs to them. Nintendo did a very good job at handling the matter; they were originally going to take the money that, legally, already belonged to them but then decided, "Hey, we're nice. We'll give half of our money to the people who play are games."
No, but that's because there's a keen difference between using a tool and what a tool creates. That's why Adobe products cost so much money. You're also paying for the right to publish your work using their tools; similarly with paint brushes. If I put your painting in a video on YouTube to gain ad revenue off of your work, do I owe you money?
Depends. Are you claiming you made it? You're an A-hole. Are your commenting, critiquing or pondering it? No. I didn't write your script. I didn't take time out of my day to make that video. Watching someone play a game is fundamentally different from actually playing it. Most people watch Let's Plays not because of the game, but who's playing it. They want to see that person react to stimuli. It could be CoD, it could be Amnesia, it could be anything at all. When the game is a factor odds are the reasons are either: Interest in buying the product already, or seeing how someone else interacts with the product which they already own. These videos get thousands, even millions of viewers. A significant number of these viewers will likely look into the game and purchase it. LPs act as ads. If your game is horrible, and someone watches a LP and thinks "gee that looks horrible I'm not buying it", then it's your own fault for making a horrible thing. How many people do you think watch game footage and think "Welp, no point in buying this now!". You might have an argument for heavily scripted games like Heavy Rain, but even then, you are watching someone else make decisions and actions you yourself may not have made.
Those are all good points to make; however they're entirely subjective points. It doesn't change the fact that these game companies and developers own the games that are being played. Let me put emphasis on that: Regardless of how many views a Let's Play video gets, regardless of how popular the person behind the videos might be, the content of the video (See: the game) still belongs to the person/people who made the content. All money made from these videos technically belongs to the developer, and they have every right to claim it regardless of any public outcry. Let's Play videos are in every way, shape, and form knee deep in a legal grey area that is heavily tilted towards the developer's favor. As I said, they have every right to claim the money that belongs to them. No matter how popular a Let's Player might be, the people who made whatever AAA game they are playing and say, "No. That content belongs to us. You either stop broadcasting what belongs to us, or we will take all of the money from ad revenue that also already belongs to us." You might say, "But it's advertisement for the game!" That is true. But the developer might not care. They could take the money generated from that video and create even more advertisements for their game, making it even bigger. Or in Nintendo's case, you can get a contract where they give you 50% of the revenue generated by your videos, and I'd like to emphasize the giving part of this. The money already belongs to Nintendo. Not the player - the company. Or in Phil Fish's scenario, he doesn't want people getting a free ride off of his blood, sweat, tears, and controversial Twitter. He wants what already belongs to him to be in his bank account, and there is literally nothing stopping him from going to Google and saying, "Hey. See all those videos? That's my copyrighted content. You either take it down or give me the ad revenue generated from it." And then Google will throw their hands in the air and go, "Yeah sure boss! Just don't sue us, it's not us uploading the videos, it's our users! We'll ban 'em if you want, just don't sue us."
Legally, Phil Fish is right. Things like karaoke bars and tribute bands struggle with similar issues more than let's players, and often times they lose. It varies state to state and globally it's even more sticky. Ethically, I for the most part agree with Geers. A game in a Lets Play video can very easily be considered a tool for a performance, as it exists physically either as data on your drive or as a disc. In which case the performance is being done entirely by the Let's Player, not the developers of whatever game they're playing.
brb gonna start Let's Watching movies on YouTube since they're totally just watching it for me and my witty commentary.
This got me thinking. Which freeware licenses allow for the streaming of usage of the product to be monetized?
Except the channels which hosted MST3K owned the rights to rebroadcast every movie they ever did. It was a grey area but legally they had the right to do it. I agree with Fish on a lot of his bull***t, but the guy needs to stop actively trying to incite a mob against him.
So how many times is this him deleting his twitter account? Also I thought he stopping making games because of internet trolls? Kappa
You know what? I completely agree. Add revenue should be shared with the developers, I mean come on, if you make ADDITIONAL revenue from your videos it's only fair the devs get at least a LITTLE bit of the action, right? ... What? Oh he meant AD revenues! HAHAHAHA!!! But seriously, Phil Fish is pretty insane, and I honestly don't really expect much good to come out of him.
Fish made a really, really good game, and it only took him years and the loss of several friendships to do it. Also, I unironically agree with this fake article. http://www.p4rgaming.com/phil-fish-...im-in-order-to-cure-his-personality-disorder/
I think this is a really good video about Fish. It's exactly the opinion I've had about him that I wasn't quite able to express until now.
Phil Fish has inspired me. I will now use my Twitter account to insult and demand money from people, and then delete is 15 times.
So if he makes another crappy game and goes awol i cant say how bad it is without giving him cash just to shut him up? Also that andy kaufman look he has needs to go
