Do Video Game Companies Deserve A Cut From YouTube Videos?

The question is whether or not a video game company has the right to collect any profit from videos showing their product.

[uth11]

I think they do. I'm surprised how lenient they are about this. Any other form of media would have sent in hordes of lawyers by now.

[Pandamobile]

It's free publicity for game companies. Most people aren't making much money on Youtube anyways.

[uth11]

you could make the same argument about music. But at the end of the day, you still have to pay a royalty to the publishers to compensate the song-writers.

When lets play personalities earn more than the content creators, as some do now.. it's only a matter of time before the hammer falls.

[heychrisfox]

If you put an album on YouTube and listen to it, nothing new was generated. It was the original piece of artwork, essentially stolen, and redistributed for profit. It's akin to burning a DVD and selling it on the streetcorner. None of the money goes to the original artist and all of it goes to the uploader.

With games, every single moment, new content is generated. Although the game itself is the same game everyone plays, each experience is different, and this allows a person who is playing the game experientially to have a completely unique playthrough. They'll react different, make different jokes, etc. This is akin to wearing a brand of clothing in public. You wear the clothes your way, and your way will be different from everyone else's, a fact that was unintentional by the creators.

And studies show that, yes, if you make a good game, and an entertainer shows off that good game to their audience, sales increase. The converse is where the sticking point remains: if you make a bad game, people will not buy said game. You'll notice that most of the games that don't want their content on YouTube happen to be crappy games that nobody ended up liking.

[aCasualGamer]

No.

Game companies should give a cut from the increased revenue after YouTubers give free advertisement to their games resulting in more sales.

If YouTube didn't exist.... i doubt we would see this growth rate of sales we see today. I mean, GTAV is the greatest selling videogame of all time. PS4 is Sonys best selling console. PC games are thriving because of all the playthroughs. Look at the success of Minecraft.

Why can't CEOs and head of publishing companies just be happy with the extra sales and extra $? Do they really need to brake it down piece by piece whatever it is that made them even richer?

[freshslicepizza]

yes they do if they are using copyright material to gain income. if the youtube host is not getting paid who cares, it's free advertising for the copyright holder.

@frosty below,

it depends. can you make money without the use of other peoples copyright material? should i be allowed to sell t-shirts i made with a bands logo without their permission? my royalties are coming from the expense of someone else who has generated that marketing power without them getting paid. seems like an easy way to make money if i just take others peoples marketing value and apply it to myself without putting in the hard work that goes into how they established themselves.

[fr0sty]

Photoshop tutorial videos... does adobe deserve a cut? Or will that video encourage more people to want to learn their software leading to increased sales?

Should you have to pay Activision every time you stream Destiny from your PS4? How far does this go?

[PoSTedUP]

its their game, they can demand a cut if they want. some people are ok with the free publicly, others arent. its their game that they own the rights to, they can do with it what they please. a lot of that ad revenue adds up amoungst everyone that is making money off of the content, and i bet the majority of the time its more than what they would make from every sale that woukd happen bc of people showing a video. its complicated, id say indies shouldnt demand it bc they would benifit more, but big game studios are garanteed millions of sales most of the time due to the popularity,of the game and their marketing and a lot of people who are already buying the game are watching some videos, so they could be making money off of the same ppl too bc after all it is their game.

for instance: nintendo is doing this because: WiiU -about 10-11 million sold. thats the hardcore fanbase right there. so, the attach rate for some of these games are xtremely high, meaning, most people are going to already buy mario games. but they also watch the gameplay videos, that other people are making money off of that most likely may not boost sales all that much. possibly in some cases, but a few. because if you add up the add revenue for all the streams and youtube videos for say one specific game (lets say GTAV) it accounts for A Lot of money, there are so many streams and so many videos, its sickening. and thats because people enjoy watching others play games. GTa and big franchises sell themselves. theyll make so much money regardless, but the fact is so much money will be made by others (accumulative) that had nothing to do with the creation of the game nor have the rights to. its good that most devs are cool with it, but if you really think about it, some wont benifit asmuch as others and can be making some of that money off of Their game that others are. if that made any sense...

ok Pokemon: everyone knows pokemon, everyone who has a 3DS bought pokemon etc (almost, you get the gist). there are many many many videos on pokemon, and 99.9% (lil exaggerated) of thoes videos are for people who already bought pokemon, and the views being from thoes people. so? so nintendo can be making more money off of their games (that they have the 100% moral and legal right to) and they realized this.

sorry for the wall of text that is barely legible. sent from Vita broswer that doesnt run N4G well.

[SilentNegotiator]

They are fair use because the experience is transformative.

Everyone's playthrough of a game is different to some degree; a different experience. And when you are WATCHING someone play a game, you are not PLAYING the game, as is its intended use. No one ever said "Hey, let's not PLAY this game; let's go to Fred's and WATCH him play!"...it's the personalities, help beating the game, and deciding whether to purchase a game that have people watching Let's Plays, not it being an alternative to playing.

And if they're discussing the game, as they usually are, then there's the critique factor on top of it.

https://iplsrutgers.wordpre...

[DragonKnight]

The answer is no but the following exception would make it yes.

If a youtube video is literally nothing but the game, then the company definitely deserves a cut. In that instance, nothing but the game is being showcased as though the person making the video has the right to make money off of nothing more than the game itself.

Let's Plays with commentary, reviews, walkthroughs, or any video showcasing gameplay with unique commentary are different and the company deserves $0 from that. Why? Because at that point the game isn't the focus, it becomes kind of a medium from which a message is made.

Example: I'm subscribed to a guy named Dashie on Youtube. To me, he's absolutely hilarious. I don't watch his gameplay videos to see the games he's playing. I watch his gameplay videos to see his reaction to the games he's playing. He is using the games to showcase his particular personality and style. The game is an interest, not the draw save and except for the very first video of that youtuber you've ever seen.

Youtube videos provide free advertisement. In many cases youtube videos have been the cause for immense success for game companies like Mojang. Those companies profit off of the personality and style of every youtube video showcasing their game when people then go out to buy that game. In a sense, taking a cut from those youtube videos is a copyright infringement of the content creator's own IP, their personality and style.

So again, for the umpteenth time that this has been asked and will be asked again, no gaming companies deserve a cut from youtube videos.

[PoSTedUP]

@silent and dragonknight:

what you guys, and a lot of people, dont understand is that videogames are art. and not only do they contain actual artwork that is copywrited where it is illegal for people to make money from showing it to people even with the help of a machine or device, it also contains music that is copywrited and is illegal for anyone who does not own the rights to the content to make money off of. this is a fact.

so the answer is yes and there are no exceptions because a unique commentary does not alter the artwork, graphics, music or anything that is copywrited in anyway shape or form. you cant steal art and make money off of it, you cant steal a beat and make money off of it nor movies or anything that is copywrited. were jus fortunate the devs are cool, but nintendos being a certain way now and they want a piece of their Own pie, too. which they have every right to.

[DragonKnight]

@Posted: Again, you're ignoring why people watch let's plays. In the case of the "art" of games, they are the frame of let's plays, the commentary is the picture.

And copyright law is archaic, ancient, and being latched onto by dinosaurs who will refuse to change to the last day but will be forced to change as more and more companies come up with newer ways to protect their IPs yet still satisfy the creative needs of their consumers.

Wiz Khalifa stole... I mean sampled Schala's theme in one of his tracks called Never Been.

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

A guy named Sol stole... I mean sampled Forest Interlude from Donkey Kong Country 2 for his song Falling Stars.

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

What happened to either of those tracks? Absolutely nothing.

Final answer is no.

[PoSTedUP]

lol. the content has to be altered enough . or they have to get permission, or pay for it. 'nothing' "can" happen bc its up to the owners of the rights to do something about it or not.

what i said about the art in video games is the law, facts, and guess what nintendo are doing it (proof) because they have every Right to. it doesnt get anymore factual than that actually. you, me or anybody cannot stop nintendo from doing this, which just proves that was i said is 100% true. there is no debating it.

the copyright law protects what it should. you Cannot take someones art, and make money off of it unless you get permission. its up to the company because they litterally own the content. that is why that law is there, lol.

[DragonKnight]

@Posted: Please, the law hasn't recognized games as art and you know they haven't. Nintendo is being brash and arrogant and unfortunately their success has nothing to do with law but everything to do with fear.

I'd love to know A) Why you're latching on to such archaic out of date laws, and B) Why you're defending corporations who would definitely find a way to screw you over, illegally, given the chance.

[freshslicepizza]

@dk,
"Nintendo is being brash and arrogant and unfortunately their success has nothing to do with law but everything to do with fear."

ok, then why are they able to take down videos if you think you are right? it's not just because they can strong-arm people. show me where the law states they are unable to do this. show me why popular youtubers are not taking them to court. I will wait.

"I'd love to know A) Why you're latching on to such archaic out of date laws,"

oh, so then you agree the laws currently in place protect nintendo. good to see you are starting to move forward on the subject.

"B) Why you're defending corporations who would definitely find a way to screw you over, illegally, given the chance."

how is this screwing me over? i don't earn a living hosting videos of videogames on youtube and nor would i want to. i just checked and there are videos on youtune showing nintendo games. i can still view them to check out those games if i want.

[PoSTedUP]

nintendo arent doing anything illegal, if so wed be able to stop them lmao. i mean cmon, in NY weve stopped a huge hundred+ billion dollar energy company from Fracking bc it was illegal and messing.up our water. dont ya think wed be able to stop lil old nintendo from doing this is it WAS illegal?? cmon use ur head. youre wrong, its not illegal what theyre doing and you have commonsense starring you in the face. videogames are copywrited as art by the supreme courts on the same level as anyother form of media. oh look, more facts.. more of what i "dont" know eh?

i support peoples Rights.

at this point, i think youre just f***ing with me, right? ha-ha, u got me, Good Prank.

[DragonKnight]

@moldybread: I see you're following me around. That'll work. You should talk to the last 3 people that did that. Oh, but you can't though. They aren't here any more. That's what tends to happen when you follow someone around to harass them every chance you get.

@Posted: I didn't say Nintendo is doing anything illegal, I said they would if given the chance. You've never heard of companies that have twisted laws to their own favour? And you know technically violating Fair Use is actually illegal.

[PoSTedUP]

i didnt say you said what they were doing was illegal, it was an example to prove my point that what they are doing is within their right and if it were illegal we would be able to stop them. just like we did a 100+ billion-dollar-most-likely-cor rupt-corporation here in NY. Nintendo wont be twisting any laws... (laughs at the thought of Nintendo twisting legislation).

and fair use is for people to be allowed to just Use the content, it is Not copywrite infringement to Show gameplay/ with commentary for news purposes etc or Use the content-- just as long as youre not making money off of it. it becomes copywrite infringement at the second they make money off of said content. fair use has nothing to do with nintendo. youre really digging, huh?

and yes corps bend the rules all the time, but i cant predict the future nor have any reason to just ASSUME that nintendo might if given the chance. theyve been a pretty honest company thust far and my reasoning for possibly supporting them in the future has nothing to do with this discussion. ASS-umptions and future speculations arent my style, i tend to like Facts a whole lot more, as you can see.

[freshslicepizza]

dk,
"I see you're following me around. That'll work. You should talk to the last 3 people that did that. Oh, but you can't though. They aren't here any more. That's what tends to happen when you follow someone around to harass them every chance you get."

really? so me replying in the same thread i was in before you and because i updated that same thread in the same response window it somehow stipulates reasons of harassment and stalking. in what world is that response ok to anyone who was on-topic and questioned your reply? do you just make your own rules as you go along to serve your own needs?

you have shown time and again your not here to discuss anything, only to shove your views on everyone else and if you don't like the response in return anything goes. thanks again for explaining to me how discussions/debates ought to be.

my response to you was on-topic so if you feel you are being harassed or treated unfairly then by all means contact a moderator. in the meantime i'm not going to engage in your games whenever you feel like moving the goal posts.

nothing is illegal about asking for compensation for using intellectual property if that person or persons are making income off of it, or taking down videos that violate copyright laws on youtube. so stop being so dramatic all the time just because you don't agree with how the current laws are. you've got two issues all entwined with another. you are masking what are the laws with what you think should be the law and acting like if we don't agree with your views we are condoning companies to screw us over.

[annoyedgamer]

That is like saying commercial producers should pay the company who makes the product they are advertising. It does not work that way.

[hellothere1977]

Your ability to make an analogy is sorely lacking.

[uth11]

You are aware of sampling, right? It's when you create entirely new songs using samples from existing songs. In the beginning artists tried to claim it was their right to do so. But the music industry clamped down on the process so that there's now some kind of licensing deal to do it.

For all the cries I constantly see about how greedy game companies are trying to screw us... People do not realize how lenient game companies are in allowing this practice. They could clamp down anytime they want, and copyright law would be on their side. So enjoy it while it lasts is all I can say! :)

Although most likely they would go for revenue sharing rather than trying to kill the practice outright- you use their content on an ad supported channel, they get 10, 20% of the cut or something.

[DragonKnight]

Copyright law is archaic and in desperate need of at minimum a revisiting, and most a complete revision/overhaul.

[solid_snake3656]

AAAAWWWWWW HELL NO! What's next, they're going to charge us for letting our friends borrow our games. They already drain our wallets by purposely leaving out content and selling it as dlc.

[TitanUp]

I believe people shouldn't stream the full game and make a profit but quick lets plays, reviews and podcast should all be allowed to continue as is.

[Muzikguy]

I don't believe they deserve a cut. Who's making money off YouTube? I don't want more ads! As for them thinking they're owed something, you can't monetize everything. That leads to people moving on

[UKmilitia]

its a double edge sword imo.

its free advertising but the people doing it are also making a living from making the videos.
i think there should be a royalties paid the devs definatly.
if i made something and somebody else was using it to make a living i would wanty a cut of it for sure.

youtube,twitch,ustream users are all making money from games and while some are given the game for free and paid by the publishers no doubt i think the makers should be paid on all platforms.

as you say if they can do this then i can charge people to come to my house and watch blurays??

these days we have the full games being played and watched but tit can also have a bad effect with the guy doing the video on The Order which i think was missing bits because it took me 10 hours and his video made it look like it was under 5 if i remember reading.

im suprised lawyers havent been knocking yet.
youtube is low pay but can still earn £30k a week,twitch on other hand they paid subscription to the channels(no idea why its sad)so they should 100% pay something.

[Neonridr]

Hard to say. I mean it's free PR one on side. Let's Plays have become quite popular and if it's someone with a lot of subscribers, that's a lot of eyeballs on your product which could lead to an increase in sales.

Conversely, if it's a single player, story driven game, this could lead to potentially less sales because someone could just watch the Let's Play, know how the game unfolds, and save themselves the purchase price.

[DanielGearSolid]

It depends on the popularity of the streamer in my opinion...

What I mean by that is, viewers might be coming to a person's channel just to see a certain game played

Where as someone watching pewdewpie, is a there to see whatever content he creates, not necessarily that specific game

[Yi-Long]

Didn't they already 'get their cut' when the customer bought their game?

[freshslicepizza]

you bought the right to use that license, you did not buy the license itself to promote it anyway you feel like while making royalties off of it.

[OUROSMAG]

I don't think so, a youtuber generates quite a bit of free promotion for that particular product. I know for a fact people are inclined to buy a product if they enjoy what they see on a stream, and in that scenario the devs get their share anyway.

[hellothere1977]

Lmao. You know "for a fact"? Must be true since you "know for a fact", right?

[OUROSMAG]

People I know have watched Twitch and Youtube and based their purchase decision off of that. So Yes I do for a fact know that it happens, I've seen it first hand

:)

[rainslacker]

I would assume that some companies feel that they are losing sales because people watch the videos and then don't purchase the game. If I were a content publisher, I'd be annoyed if someone else was profiting off a huge investment, and it actually turned people away from the game because they saw the story and then it's not fresh, or they completely ruin the massive marketing budget from an actual marketing firm which specializes in selling products.

Just speculation of course, but I would wager that most people do not drop $60 on a new game when there isn't much left to experience.

[Rachel_Alucard]

It's their IP but I think they are just being dicks about it most of the time now. It didn't get this way till someone said "HEY THAT GUY HAS A LARGE AUDIENCE AROUND OUR GAME WE WANT THAT TOO"

[hellothere1977]

Why don't you start a business. Make a product. Allow one person to buy one item from you. Then tell me it's cool with you if they digitally reproduce the content in another form and make boatloads of cash and giving you nothing.

[uth11]

exactly, many game studios struggle to make ends meet. Many have been forced to close. They spend years creating these games, often working long hours in the process. But somehow they are always the greedy demons, who have no right to royalties to content they own the copyright to!

A cut doesn't mean they take all of it, the youtuber still earns money. But people act like they don't deserve any of it.

I don't understand people *smh*

[Tankbusta40]

The Chinese do it every day...

[Rachel_Alucard]

@uth11
@hellothere

I'd agree with you but the publisher is the one taking the cut not the dev. Why are the devs suddenly struggling so hard that using somebody else's free promotion of their game became a necessity for them? Mojang would have never been sold for 2.5 billion if not for youtube spreading its popularity. Besides, sharing a movie/tv show and sharing a game walkthrough are 2 different things, I don't buy a game to watch it. In the end, the youtuber gets money from ad revenue instead of the literal profit off a game like many think, I could upload anything as long as it gets views and still get revenue off it.

[slate91]

They already do get a cut. Free advertisement

[hellothere1977]

Yeah, because I'm sure the developers of The Order loved the free advertising they got from that YouTube who uploaded their entire storyloaded game a week before release.

[Summons75]

That's a double sided knife though. Sure it's free advertisement but say 10 people watch the let's play and 2 go "Hey this looks cool" and goes and buys it then yes they did make some extra sales but the other 80% are saying "Eh, I've seen it and don't need to buy it". That a huge hit. It's also a hit if those 2 people go to the store and 1 buys it new while the other buys used to save some money.

It's can go many different ways and Let's plays can be dangerous for sales but I do enjoy the content people will make with lore videos or top 10s. It's weird but devs should make something for their hardwork. All these let's players are doing is hitting record while dozens if not hundreds have spent years working to make it.

[Mrveryodd]

No... It's like buying a car , racing it and then the car company wanting a cut of the prize money. But then what would I know . Half the games out there a shite.

[GUYwhoPLAYSvideoGAME]

the order+telltale games are debatable, basically everything else, no

[InTheLab]

You know when I first heard about it I was in support of companies being paid for their content but then it hit me... Someone paid for the game once so why should companies be allowed to double dip, especially given the amount of effort it takes to create the best YouTube let's plays....

[Dan_scruggs]

So if I bought a movie once then I have the right to upload it 10 minutes at a time to Youtube.

However difficult it is to make a Let's Play it will never compare the making the game itself. And without the game the Let's Play wouldn't be possible.

[Dan_scruggs]

Could YouTuber's make the Let's Plays (and money) without the games... No. OK then. Game companies share the games. YouTuber's should share the money.

[Chapter11]

No, full stop.

[Mikeyy]

I think they need to take the money out of YouTube. Getting payed by uploading a video is stupid anyway. People would be more then happy to upload their smugs for free.

Then the lawyers can F off. YouTube fixed.

[Muzikguy]

In that case I'd PAY some ladies to upload a few videos.....

J/k

[Rachel_Alucard]

THIS

[Donnywho]

This really shows how dumb we are as a community. Just because something sucks doesn't mean it's debatable.

[kurruptor]

Hell no.

If you think so, why stop there?

You wore Nikes in a video? Pay Nike.
You used a Honda in a video? Pay Honda.

No, I don't think so.

[rainslacker]

When it comes to regular TV, almost every product with a trademark attached to it in a scene has to get permission from the trademark holder for use in that scene. That's why things are often blurred out when on live TV. I think certain forms of media are exempt...such as the news, but anything for entertainment, like a live TV show interview on the street, needs those permissions.

I don't believe there is any payment involved.

[sungam3d]

Uh no...

There was once a time companies had to pay for ads and PR.
Youtube gets it out there for free!

You can't double dip like what nintendont is doing...

[crazychris4124]

Why dont we ask the tiny companies behind games like next car game wreckfest, five nights at freddys, banished, besiege, and many more how they feel about taking a cut from youtubers that helped the games explode pretty much over night. I know for a fact that the Wreckfest devs were on the verge of bankruptcy n were forced to release a tech demo early. Videos popped up almost immediately and now the company has hired more people to help make the game. Indie devs dont have to pay for advertising just some keys to the big youtubers.

Look at EA, they beg the big battlefield youtubers to come try their game out because they know they are more influential than the top gaming sites.

Things are fine the way they are, why ruin a good thing?

[The7Reaper]

I don't think they do they got enough of a cut when people spent money on the game and YouTube gives the game more exposure which make more people spend money to get it.

[TheSaint]

No, I've bought games I wouldn't have normally because of Youtubers.

[WikusVanDeMerwe]

Given that people uploading videos about a game is free advertisement and a LP is technically the uploaders own work and is not property of the video game company any longer...

NO

[deathtok]

The video game medium makes it hard to discern where "fair use" can be applied. I'm not certain there is a good answer to the question.

For example, it's not acceptable to upload portions of movies and claim "free advertising". Yet many think this argument applies to video games.

I suspect clear legal definitions of "fair use" including parody and something to the affect of "reviews featuring no more than X minutes of footage" are required before gamers and publishers are satisfied.