Issue & Proposal: YouTube and Verification


Although the central place for design discussion is ##crawl-dev on freenode, some may find it helpful to discuss requests and suggestions here first.

Crypt Cleanser

Posts: 721

Joined: Thursday, 9th August 2012, 20:23

Post Saturday, 27th December 2014, 20:32

Issue & Proposal: YouTube and Verification

I'm not sure if this thread goes here since it isn't in relation to playing the game, but rather to its terms of use by players.

For those who don't know, YouTube has been recently getting much tougher in regards to monetized videos that feature content from video games. This isn't anything new and YouTube changes its policies a lot - such as when they recently changed how MCN's worked.

Specifically of interest though, and the purpose of this thread, is in regards to the need for YouTube to have 'insurance' that content creators on YouTube aren't uploading content for which the uploader does not have 'absolute permission' for.

**************

To explain what I'm going on about.

YouTube allows content creators the option of monetizing videos that they upload. Monetization means that YouTube is allowed to put ads on the content creators videos - usually you see this as the little banner after 10 seconds or an actual video advertisement that plays before the video starts; other options are also available and MCN's operate a bit differently in regards to it as well. The advertisers of course posting the ads pay YouTube - and the content creator, for the resultant advertisements placed on the video.

Where money is involved, YouTube needs to cover itself in the events where a copywrite holder has their copywrited material uploaded by someone other then them - even moreso if that someone other then them monetizes their video. In the past this was simply done with an automated system that gave copywrite holders the ability to flag their content should it be uploaded - and then they could take down the content or simply just leave it be but with all ad revenue now going to them.

Now however, YouTube is not only doing the above but they are also beginning to check videos which may 'potentially' include material, and subsequently they will send a verification request to make sure that there is without a doubt 'permission for authorized use' in effect for the material.

**************

So, what does this mean in relation to Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup?

Simply put, when YouTube asks for verification, they are looking for:

    -A blanket policy or terms of use statement that specifies if game footage from a game can be uploaded for commercial purposes - with conditions if applicable. Paradox Interactive is my golden example for this, with their about page on YouTube stating:
    We permit third-party use & monetization of things like "Let's Play" Videos on YouTube under the restriction that it is clear that Paradox Interactive is the copyright holder of any material shown and that the following copyright notice is added to any such material: "Copyright © 2013 Paradox Interactive AB. http://www.paradoxplaza.com". More info: http://bit.ly/N9RVWX

    -A written contract between specific content creators and the copywrite holder, or a written letter from the copywrite holder that specifies that the content creator may use game footage for commercial purposes - with conditions if applicable. You can check the link 'What YouTube looks for in your documentation' for more information on that.

In the absence of this, the content creator isn't allowed to monetize the content.

**************

In regards to what I've stated then, Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup does not have any any terms of condition regarding YouTube of use of their game footage. This effectively means that any content creator looking to monetize their videos need to seek permission AND get either a contract or letter.

Besides that fact that content creators may be discouraged from getting their Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup videos monetized on YouTube, content creators may be discouraged from making videos in general for Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup.

To be blunt, if I am looking for games to do Let's Plays of, I'm going to be more skewed to do a Let's Play if I know that I know has something in it for me. A good example of this would be the current Let's Play series I'm doing: DavionFuxa Plays Horizon - A 4X Turn Based Strategy Game. Besides the fact that I was given the opportunity to play the game in exchange for doing Let's Plays, I was also given permission to monetize the videos I produce. While obviously this is an extremely heavily weighted skew, it does show that it is very easy for ones attention to go elsewhere when deciding what to pursue.

Even without the above example though, there should be some push for an incentive to get attention towards the game.

**************

If you have read my post to this point, then thanks, I'll keep this section quick with just a simple sentence of my proposal.

The Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup team should make it clear that monetization of their videos is allowed.

I would suggest with a link concerning YouTube Monetization after 'Documentation' in 'The Game' sub-header that is clearly visible for anyone 'NOT LOOKING' for it, or perhaps in the Documentation or FAQ links if you want to limit it only to those people that are specifically looking.
A Google Doc I wrote up in regards to making a new 'workable' definition for the Roguelike Genre:
Defining the Roguelike Genre

For this message the author Davion Fuxa has received thanks:
Brannock

Slime Squisher

Posts: 375

Joined: Sunday, 15th January 2012, 16:59

Post Saturday, 27th December 2014, 20:48

Re: Issue & Proposal: YouTube and Verification

Crawl is under the GPL

For this message the author One-Eyed Jack has received thanks:
Arrhythmia
User avatar

Dungeon Master

Posts: 502

Joined: Wednesday, 7th March 2012, 13:25

Location: Lexington, KY, US

Post Saturday, 27th December 2014, 21:58

Re: Issue & Proposal: YouTube and Verification

One-Eyed Jack wrote:Crawl is under the GPL


Speaking for myself only, not all the copyright holders:

This means that either:
  1. Let's Play videos are not derived works of Crawl, and you don't need any permission.
  2. Let's Play videos are derived works, in which case they can be distributed the terms of the GPL. That doesn't prevent you from making money, but it does mean that you can't place restrictions on their redistribution, modification, etc.
I am agnostic as to which of those is the case, but Youtube apparently believes option 2.

Getting a specific exemption would be rather difficult, because there are so many copyright holders (253 names in CREDITS.txt).

For this message the author neil has received thanks: 5
Arrhythmia, Brannock, duvessa, mechanicalmaniac, rockygargoyle

Crypt Cleanser

Posts: 721

Joined: Thursday, 9th August 2012, 20:23

Post Sunday, 28th December 2014, 01:24

Re: Issue & Proposal: YouTube and Verification

The GPL for reference: The GNU General Public License (GPL-2.0) Unless this has changed, this was the link that Galehar had given my 2 years ago when I first brought up Monetization.

In any case, the problem here is less about what a Let's Play Video is in respect to the license, but rather that Let's Play Videos aren't covered by the license and thus lie outside of the license's scope. The Preamble is pretty specific to mentioning that it is intended 'to guarantee your freedom to share and change software'. The second paragraph of section 0. also makes mention with the first sentence that: 'Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope.'

Effectively, I'm requesting a EULA policy be made in regards to Let's Plays because your GPL doesn't cover what your users can and cannot do. Subsequently, without a policy, YouTube will take this to mean their is insufficient evidence to ascertain if Monetization is allowed, or at best, information is simply too ambiguous to ascertain if this is allowed.

Also note, that while creating a specific exemption might be difficult - this might not be a case of you making an exemption. Making an EULA does not in and of itself conflict with GPL - or there would be problems with being unable to restrict how users might use your software in regards to matters that the GPL doesn't cover. A Good example of an EULA with an Open Source License comes from Mozilla - Mozilla Firefox End-User Software License Agreement. Note section 3. as its the section that covers their asses in regards to Open Source Licenses.

I don't think there would be much of an issue either with stating that Let's Players have the right to make and monetize videos either in regards to the whole idea of Open Source Licenses. It may be something that needs to be asked of Open Source Initiative on how this should be approached, but I would ask it nonetheless.
A Google Doc I wrote up in regards to making a new 'workable' definition for the Roguelike Genre:
Defining the Roguelike Genre

For this message the author Davion Fuxa has received thanks:
Brannock

Slime Squisher

Posts: 375

Joined: Sunday, 15th January 2012, 16:59

Post Sunday, 28th December 2014, 06:58

Re: Issue & Proposal: YouTube and Verification

I would like to note that from a lay perspective the notion of monetizing showcases of a particular intellectual property is prima facie pretty opposed to the whole free software movement

For this message the author One-Eyed Jack has received thanks: 3
Arrhythmia, duvessa, rockygargoyle

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 6454

Joined: Tuesday, 30th October 2012, 19:06

Post Sunday, 28th December 2014, 07:57

Re: Issue & Proposal: YouTube and Verification

Actually I would disagree, the primary motivation of the FSF is *software freedom* not "no cost software" the point of Copyleft licenses is to preserve the rights of the software's users and developers.

From the GPL's prelude
The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users.

and
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things.


In actual fact activities *related to* the use of GPL'd software are frequently monetized (for example support and integration with existing system) and it's perfectly acceptable to charge people to support or extend GPL software or to use it in a profit-seeking endevor, as long as you don't do so in a way that limits or restricts the rights of others to use any part of the software including the parts that you develop or extend yourself.
Spoiler: show
This high quality signature has been hidden for your protection. To unlock it's secret, send 3 easy payments of $9.99 to me, by way of your nearest theta band or ley line. Complete your transmission by midnight tonight for a special free gift!

For this message the author Siegurt has received thanks:
celem

Crypt Cleanser

Posts: 721

Joined: Thursday, 9th August 2012, 20:23

Post Sunday, 28th December 2014, 22:11

Re: Issue & Proposal: YouTube and Verification

If the above link is indeed for DCSS's License, it does indeed state that you may offer a fee both for the act of transferring the program or providing a warranty in regards to it not making your users computers go boom; paraphrased from the last sentence in section 1. of the agreement. As a note though, Open Source Initiative also says in their FAQ that there is nothing to stop the people who receive your program from turning around and distributing it themselves - whether for free or even by also selling it.

Open Source Initiative also goes further to say:
    How do I make money if anybody can sell my code?
    You can sell services based on the code (i.e., sell your time), sell warranties and other assurances, sell customization and maintenance work, license the trademark, etc. The only kind of profit strategy that is incompatible with Open Source is monopoly-based sales, also known as "royalties". See this article for how to think about business strategies that make money from Open Source.
A Google Doc I wrote up in regards to making a new 'workable' definition for the Roguelike Genre:
Defining the Roguelike Genre
User avatar

Tomb Titivator

Posts: 857

Joined: Monday, 31st January 2011, 23:19

Post Monday, 29th December 2014, 17:20

Re: Issue & Proposal: YouTube and Verification

you can draw a soup can and don't owe anything to the people who make the soup, someone did it once
i doubt anyone cares at all if you make a youtube video; it's the same thing as drawing a soup can kinda (though less creative)
i think a derivative work is like if i take the crawl code and modify it, maybe add more floors or monsters

but paintings or stories or videos or songs about something isn't copying it/modifying it. at best it's free advertising and at worst someone might send you an angry letter about using their trade-name. god forbid you mention mcdonalds on youtube! you have to say wcdonalds instead or something like they do in those japanese cartoons. no one will actually sue you though unless your a big company. like, people have had their cat videos taken down because of some music playing in the background, but that's just retarded shit because some computer algorithm can't tell background music from a music video

copyright laws are fucked in general because they were written back in an ancient forgotten time, before basically every person on the planet had all the information in the world in a tiny little computer in their pockets, and any movie or painting or story that every existed could be instantly put into everyone elses's pocket for basically free at any time, and you have to have a trust system that not one single person out of all 7 billion people will do it. and if they DO do it, then you have to trust that no one ever looks in their pockets at that secret information because OH NO IT'S ILLEGAL but no one can tell if you look or not without so much effort that's it's just not worth it unless you're like a serial killer or something.
Attachments
Warhol-Campbell_Soup-1-screenprint-1968.jpg
soup
Warhol-Campbell_Soup-1-screenprint-1968.jpg (35.24 KiB) Viewed 3928 times

For this message the author snow has received thanks:
mechanicalmaniac

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 8786

Joined: Sunday, 5th May 2013, 08:25

Post Monday, 29th December 2014, 19:06

Re: Issue & Proposal: YouTube and Verification

parody is protected speech so i wouldnt worry about it

For this message the author duvessa has received thanks:
archaeo

Crypt Cleanser

Posts: 721

Joined: Thursday, 9th August 2012, 20:23

Post Monday, 29th December 2014, 23:54

Re: Issue & Proposal: YouTube and Verification

The problem is less about what YouTube thinks about the nature of Let's Plays, and moreso about the fact that Let's Plays are a giant grey area in the law and YouTube can't ignore it. Let's Plays are a new phenomenon and as thus there is little to go on in law other then similar mediums that could be used as a reference in relation to Let's Plays. Also worth mentioning, there hasn't been any court cases distinctly really about or relating to Let's Play videos.

Regardless of how archaic the copywrite laws are, YouTube is still respective of their potential to cause problems, headaches, or financial distress. YouTube wants absolute insurance in the event that a copywrite holder decides to try a 'Nintendo' on them.

Additionally, Parody in and of itself is protected, but it must make up the majority of the work to transform it into a work of Parody.
A Google Doc I wrote up in regards to making a new 'workable' definition for the Roguelike Genre:
Defining the Roguelike Genre

Slime Squisher

Posts: 415

Joined: Monday, 8th December 2014, 10:31

Location: Sweedledome

Post Tuesday, 30th December 2014, 01:44

Re: Issue & Proposal: YouTube and Verification

Having monetized a few Let's Plays from other titles I can say the OP is right on the money. For all the licensing discussion, YouTube does not care. They need explicit permission for monetization of gameplay footage, nothing else will cut it. As mentioned, its a grey area and they are covering their butts.

On money and the spirit of the GPL: Mention above was made of the 'spirit' of open source software and initiatives when it comes to making money. This was really quite off the mark

The GPL (and the majority of free licenses) say nothing about the earning of money by any parties and takes no moral standpoint on it. Siegurt is correct above, the only stipulation of these licenses generally is that you provide source for the program (and often preserve the license as in GPL, though not BSD). You can still sell the actual software binaries and other services.

Remember that these licenses are heavily in use in the commercial sector and are not limited to the world of fan-made game ports, if money was counter to it's spirit we woulda have ditched it decades ago.

For what its worth I am a freelance coder, I spend all day generating code under the GPL for the financial sector in Sweden. Im obliged to issue free (gratis) copies of the source to my employer, but I actually make my living charging for the compiled binaries, which they lack the time/skill/inclination to build themselves. I dont even do the support stuff, just compiling is enough.

Free as in speech, not beer!
Online Wins: MiFi, GrFi, TrMo, HOGl, SpEn, {DEWz, DDNe}, {OgBe, CeHu}, FoFi, VSFi, MfGl, {HaGl, VpEn, HESk}, KoAs, DsFi, TeMo

Slime Squisher

Posts: 375

Joined: Sunday, 15th January 2012, 16:59

Post Thursday, 1st January 2015, 04:29

Re: Issue & Proposal: YouTube and Verification

You're all right, I misinterpreted open-source design philosophy.

Edit:why would I be talking about this here

Return to Game Design Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests

cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by ST Software for PTF.