It's fair to say that the Nintendo Creators Program was unanimously disliked. The program has forced content creators on YouTube to give up a portion of their ad revenue, something that discourages the creation of videos featuring Nintendo content. Criticisms of this include the fact that YouTube videos act as free advertisements, displaying just how out-of-touch Nintendo can be at times.

Today, Nintendo announced that the program is coming to a close. Starting at the end of December, content creators will be able to freely monetise their content, without giving up a share of the ad revenue. There are a few guidelines, but they are far less restrictive than what we have today.

• You may monetize your videos and channels using the monetization methods separately specified by Nintendo. Other forms of monetization of our intellectual property for commercial purposes are not permitted.
• We encourage you to create videos that include your creative input and commentary. Videos and images that contain mere copies of Nintendo Game Content without creative input or commentary are not permitted. You may, however, post gameplay videos and screenshots using Nintendo system features, such as the Capture Button on Nintendo Switch, without additional input or commentary.
• You are only permitted to use Nintendo Game Content that has been officially released, or from promotional materials officially released by Nintendo (such as product trailers or Nintendo Directs).
• If you want to use the intellectual property of a third party, you are responsible for obtaining any necessary third-party permissions.
• You are not permitted to imply or state that your videos are officially affiliated with or sponsored by Nintendo.
• We reserve the right to remove any content that we believe is unlawful, infringing, inappropriate, or not in line with these Guidelines.

Nintendo have also released an FAQ, detailing the new guidelines further.

Source

 

[gundamu]

nintendo aka the apple of gaming
out dated business practices and ethics

 

[Ev1l0rd]

lmao do nintendo games even have cutscenes that are worth watching? they're all kinda cookie cutter badly pulled off garbage lmao

That's beyond the subject of discussion here. The subject is what goes under creative input, which is a rather wide phrase to apply and the only thing decisively not under creative input is well... not pressing any buttons and not providing any commentary on the footage.

 

[FAST6191]

My advice: Just ignore this bulls**t and obey the copyright fair use laws of whatever jurisdiction you're in. Nintendo has no right to limit that.

Trouble they tend to overreach a bit -- no small number of unarguably reviews were hit in various waves.

So why are let's play videos without commentary still something for Nintendo to bitch about? You have to add a commentary? You have to only show parts of a game and not an entire playthrough? Yeah, I call bullshit.

Legal training within says adding commentary on the game could turn it into a criticism/review of sorts which is an exemption to copyright.
Cynical training within says most let's play types are typically a bunch of people with voices that make my ears bleed -- I wanted to see some game footage once and all that was available was a guy with a bad dye job and the worst voice overs I have ever seen, this guy had many hundreds of thousands of subs too... I watched it on mute, which was a pain as it was a horror game and I wanted to hear the sound. For such a game I could see some people watching a playthrough and then not bothering with it, however if limited in time and with some bellend blathering in my earhole... not going to be an adequate substitute.

games ≠ movies/music
just in case you didn't knew, games are an interactive medium. you don't acquire a game to watch or listen to it, you play them.
showing footage of a game is more akin to showing a trailer, you get only part of the experience not the whole experience.

I am not aware of any court anywhere, much less the US, Europe, Japan or the English commonwealth taking that as an argument, nor do I think I have ever seen it either but that I would have to search. Certainly don't think I have seen it in any vaguely big or notable cases.
Or if you prefer go look at sampling and the cases there* to see what goes as far as transformative. No chance your dozen minutes, or indeed hours of footage, will be considered inherently transformative and/or inherently one of the copyright exemptions (education, criticism/review, parody/satire...).


*marginally related favourite video I have not shared in a while

 

[the_randomizer]

Trouble they tend to overreach a bit -- no small number of unarguably reviews were hit in various waves.


Legal training within says adding commentary on the game could turn it into a criticism/review of sorts which is an exemption to copyright.
Cynical training within says most let's play types are typically a bunch of people with voices that make my ears bleed -- I wanted to see some game footage once and all that was available was a guy with a bad dye job and the worst voice overs I have ever seen, this guy had many hundreds of thousands of subs too... I watched it on mute, which was a pain as it was a horror game and I wanted to hear the sound. For such a game I could see some people watching a playthrough and then not bothering with it, however if limited in time and with some bellend blathering in my earhole... not going to be an adequate substitute.



I am not aware of any court anywhere, much less the US, Europe, Japan or the English commonwealth taking that as an argument, nor do I think I have ever seen it either but that I would have to search. Certainly don't think I have seen it in any vaguely big or notable cases.
Or if you prefer go look at sampling and the cases there* to see what goes as far as transformative. No chance your dozen minutes, or indeed hours of footage, will be considered inherently transformative and/or inherently one of the copyright exemptions (education, criticism/review, parody/satire...).


*marginally related favourite video I have not shared in a while

TL;DR - it's not worth recording gameplay without commentary because Nintendo is being the over-protective, litigious troglodytes over their IP as usual.

 

[stephrk398]

so, no "commentary-less" playthroughs of games? that's still kinda retarded

Using no commentary in a gameplay video is as close as you can get to breaking Fair Use law in gaming videos. But pretty much every other game giant allows it, so yeah, still pretty lame but I can see where Nintendo is coming from.

 

[DarkKaine]

They just don't seem to learn or push forward as a company outside of hardware.

They haven't pushed forward with their hardware since the GameCube lol.
Wii was pretty much the same design and specifications, addon chips aside. Cashed in on a fad.
WiiU was also another PowerPC based design including a horrible CPU. They somehow made a system where the CPU is actually the bottleneck in an age where most games utilize the GPU for many tasks.
Tried to cash in on a fad again, this time failed miserably. You get no sympathy from me.
The Switch? Cool system but unoriginal. Nothing nvidia hasn't done before, just better execution backed by popular IP's that drive sales. A lot lower clock speeds than stock Tegra X1.
In the end, I think Nintendo fans want a beast of a console that can play a Zelda game without a "unique art style" that's really just there to cover up how terrible their hardware is.
You're not going to get anything close to what the WiiU Zelda tech demo looked like until the next generation of consoles.

 

[RedBlueGreen]

Guess you never heard of fair use policy wich this was an utter middle finger against. https://www.adweek.com/digital/fair-use-youtube/

It isn't fair use though. Yes you can show copyrighted material to make commentary on it, but just talking while playing a game isn't making commentary on the game which is what's intended with fair use laws. It's there so people like critics can show footage from a game or movie they're reviewing while they discuss the game, or for commentary like a sports announcer would make, actually discussing the subject, giving your thoughts and creative input not just talking about random shit and making jokes while playing a game.

 

[kumikochan]

It isn't fair use though. Yes you can show copyrighted material to make commentary on it, but just talking while playing a game isn't making commentary on the game which is what's intended with fair use laws. It's there so people like critics can show footage from a game or movie they're reviewing while they discuss the game, or for commentary like a sports announcer would make, actually discussing the subject, giving your thoughts and creative input not just talking about random shit and making jokes while playing a game.

It is and was fair use. Even reviews were targeted by Nintendo if they didn't like the reviewer. It is and was fair use and Nintendo was abusing their power. It's a simple as that. Even if a video was 10 minutes long and showed Nintendo footage for a second, Nintendo would take it down as can be seen in Angry joe's vids or Jim sterling and plenty of others

 

[RedBlueGreen]

It is and was fair use. Even reviews were targeted by Nintendo if they didn't like the reviewer. It is and was fair use and Nintendo was abusing their power. It's a simple as that.

Again, fair use is there to protect critics who show copyrighted material and make commentary on the actual product, so something like game design, mechanics, etc. Some guy saying annoying shit is not in the spirit of fair use and I'm almost certain that the latter won't be a bullet proof defense in court. The former will because that's actually what fair use laws protect.

 

[kumikochan]

Again, fair use is there to protect critics who show copyrighted material and make commentary on the actual product, so something like game design, mechanics, etc. Some guy saying annoying shit is not in the spirit of fair use and I'm almost certain that the latter won't be a bullet proof defense in court. The former will because that's actually what fair use laws protect.

I advise you to read up on the official link by youtube itself that defines what fair use is. The examples i gave out is clearly fair use. You claiming it isn't clearly also shows you're a Nintendo white knight trying to minimalise their shitty bad behaviour. A video being purely creative for 10 minutes and then showing Nintendo material for a second falls under fair use.
''fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner.'' here you go white knight.
Maybe you also want to hear it from a lawyer wich i rather believe than you
https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/

 

[FAST6191]

I advise you to read up on the official link by youtube itself that defines what fair use is. The examples i gave out is clearly fair use. You claiming it isn't clearly also shows you're a Nintendo white knight trying to minimalise their shitty bad behaviour. A video being purely creative for 10 minutes and then showing Nintendo material for a second falls under fair use.
''fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner.'' here you go white knight.
Maybe you also want to hear it from a lawyer wich i rather believe than you
https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/

Why are you making RedBlueGreen's argument for them? The idea of a simple let's play is not inherently or all that likely to be transformative as most courts define it, and I don't think it is a suitable candidate for a further exemption either. If said commentary on the let's play would make it constitute a review/criticism, education, parody or something then that would be a different matter but it is not inherently part of the format.

 

[RedBlueGreen]

I advise you to read up on the official link by youtube itself that defines what fair use is. The examples i gave out is clearly fair use. You claiming it isn't clearly also shows you're a Nintendo white knight trying to minimalise their shitty bad behaviour. A video being purely creative for 10 minutes and then showing Nintendo material for a second falls under fair use.
''fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner.'' here you go white knight.
Maybe you also want to hear it from a lawyer wich i rather believe than you
https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/

A let's play where someone is just talking over the game doesn't constitute that definition of fair use. I'm not a Nintendo white knight by any means, but fair use is clearly defined and let's plays don't fall under those definitions. Comment in this sense describes actually commentary and discussion on the game, not just talking over it. Saying a let's play is fair use is like saying piracy isn't illegal because it's not a criminal offense, it's just a copyright violation.

 

[kumikochan]

A let's play where someone is just talking over the game doesn't constitute that definition of fair use. I'm not a Nintendo white knight by any means, but fair use is clearly defined and let's plays don't fall under those definitions. Comment in this sense describes actually commentary and discussion on the game, not just talking over it. Saying a let's play is fair use is like saying piracy isn't illegal because it's not a criminal offense, it's just a copyright violation.

Where did i state a let's play ? I said multiple times a review like angry joe and jim sterling getting targeted by Nintendo even if they only showed a second of footage and 10 minutes being their own creative input that did not shown anything at all. I never stated lets plays or whatever. I literally said multiple times '' reviews and such'' so i really don't get why you're bringing up lets plays suddenly while i never said a single word about that

 

[FAST6191]

Where did i state a let's play ? I said multiple times a review like angry joe and jim sterling getting targeted by Nintendo even if they only showed a second of footage and 10 minutes being their own creative input that did not shown anything at all. I never stated lets plays or whatever. I literally said multiple times '' reviews and such'' so i really don't get why you're bringing up lets plays suddenly while i never said a single word about that

It is what everybody else was talking about in this discussion. Reviews as you mentioned them seemed like a later addition to the discussion.

Them taking out reviews and such was always bad/contrary to fair use and has little to do with this creator program lark either during its existence or now it has seen its demise. Though I shall have to look into the Angry Joe stuff for what I do recall of his fun and games with copyright takedowns/demonetisations and whatnot had small segments of audio, not even audio from the game (not that it makes a lot of odds in the case of otherwise known songs) and him not appreciating the reasons so well.

 

[foob]

https://kotaku.com/5784314/the-nint...forget-gambling-gangsters-and-love-hotels/amp
I guess not all negative criticism of Nintendo's origins can be silenced.

99.9% of reviews on the internet are from shills.

They either have:
* 'relationships' with the companies who make the product
* have a retailer who sends them the product for free
* profit selling what they review from CIA-collaborating retailers like Amazon through the all-too-common referral links

The fact that they get free stuff, may get invited to 'events' for promoting their product online by being a popular 'influencer' (and so on) encourages an overly optimistic 'nice' review, no matter what people say about an objective fair review.

It is rare as heck to find someone reviewing stuff they bought with their own money with zero connection to a retailer, manufactuer, distributor, etc.

Anyway, Just for once I'd like whoever is in charge of making these decisions at Nintendo to be named and shamed.

Because obviously they are still living with the dinosaurs.

 

[kumikochan]

https://kotaku.com/5784314/the-nint...forget-gambling-gangsters-and-love-hotels/amp
I guess not all negative criticism of Nintendo's origins can be silenced.

99.9% of reviews on the internet are from shills.

They either have:
* 'relationships' with the companies who make the product
* have a retailer who sends them the product for free
* profit selling what they review from CIA-collaborating retailers like Amazon through the all-too-common referral links

The fact that they get free stuff, may get invited to 'events' for promoting their product online by being a popular 'influencer' (and so on) encourages an overly optimistic 'nice' review, no matter what people say about an objective fair review.

It is rare as heck to find someone reviewing stuff they bought with their own money with zero connection to a retailer, manufactuer, distributor, etc.

Anyway, Just for once I'd like whoever is in charge of making these decisions at Nintendo to be named and shamed.

Because obviously they are still living with the dinosaurs.

Not only that, they have their whitelist. People who talk positively about Nintendo and don't critique them will get review copies and won't get taken down notices by Nintendo while other reviewers who do a more honest approach get constantly bombarded by take down notices from Nintendo or people they work with and never get send any review copy whatsoever. One prime example would be Angry Joe and him not even doing any Nintendo related review since it automatically will be taken down by Nintendo so he doesn't even bother anymore. There are plenty of others but he's one of the more famous ones. Also thanks for that link, i really didn't know that.

 

[foob]

Not only that, they have their whitelist. People who talk positively about Nintendo and don't critique them will get review copies and won't get taken down notices by Nintendo while other reviewers who do a more honest approach get constantly bombarded by take down notices from Nintendo or people they work with and never get send any review copy whatsoever.

Yep. And it is basically the same with print media or TV. This kind of behaviour has been going on for ages, no matter the medium.

 

[the_randomizer]

So only shills and sycophants get whitelisted. Figures.

 

[FAST6191]

I will have to look into this myself but I have not heard of NIntendo playing at those levels, and moreover they send things to GBAtemp (a piracy friendly place with a history of low scores and critical reviews... if there are places general notions of "always happy and on the level" type marketing say you don't send things to it is a place like this). There are plenty of straight up "with my/my donations" money types out there as well and I have not heard of them getting pushed out. I don't doubt that their actions these past few years have some odd and unexpected effects, and likely some fairly chilling ones, but those sort of things would be far beyond what I do hear of.

 

[kumikochan]

Yep. And it is basically the same with print media or TV. This kind of behaviour has been going on for ages, no matter the medium.

No it hasn't. Only on youtube as a platform a company can abuse their power in the way Nintendo did

 

[foob]

No it hasn't. Only on youtube as a platform a company can abuse their power in the way Nintendo did

I was making a general point about the incestuous relationship between 'reviewers' and their suppliers. But yes, you are right.

Print media = don't upset advertisers. Put in an 'article' that is really a thinly-veiled advertisement. Advertising money offered for positive press, etc. Similar with TV, etc. All manipulative filth. Sifting through all the BS these days requires just as much effort as it ever did.

My general point: money talks. Very few reviews are from real people with no 'skin in the game', even in this internet age where things are supposed to be more decentralised. Heaps of sites censor customer reviews (more polite term: 'moderate', if you prefer). So many Chinese sites have unbelievable 5-star reviews from just about every reviewer for absolute junk. They refuse to post your negative reviews (banggood is just one example. Well-known B&H is another). Countless others. Truth is hidden from customers. All filthy merchants just looking for the next payment.

Nintendo Japan. This kind of behaviour shows me who they are at their core. It shows me who is running the show. Of course many working in Nintendo disagree with the controlling of content like this, which is why certain people must be named and shamed, personally.