YouTube gaming stars blindsided by Nintendo's ad revenue grab

By Thomas the Tank Engine
in Nintendo

 Share

Recommended Posts

Mentor

eddman

Posted
Posted

It's their IP and they can legally claim anything related to them, but aren't they overreacting here?

 

These youtubers are making some advertising money, yes, but they are also providing free advertising for nintendo. Is it really that bad? What harm can it do them? It's not like they're taking money directly out of nintendo's pockets.

 

Claiming a video showing a game in its entirety from start to finish, I sort of understand (although a game is still not a movie), but claiming any video that have footage from a nintendo game as short as a few seconds?

 

They even claim videos from non-monetized, ad-free videos, so it's not just money. They want to control the whole thing.

 

P.S. you should read some of the comments on other websites. Some are defending this practice as if they have major stock in nintendo or fill a major position in the company; as if their lives depend on it. Some have a nintendo related avatar too. Go figure.

Grand Master

trag3dy

Posted
Posted

It's their IP and they can legally claim anything related to them, but aren't they overreacting here?

 

These youtubers are making some advertising money, yes, but they are also providing free advertising for nintendo. Is it really that bad? What harm can it do them? It's not like they're taking money directly out of nintendo's pockets.

 

Claiming a video showing a game in its entirety from start to finish, I sort of understand (although a game is still not a movie), but claiming any video that have footage from a nintendo game as short as a few seconds?

 

They even claim videos from non-monetized, ad-free videos, so it's not just money. They want to control the whole thing.

 

P.S. you should read some of the comments on other websites. Some are defending this practice as if they have major stock in nintendo or fill a major position in the company; as if their lives depend on it. Some have a nintendo related avatar too. Go figure.

 

The funny part is they also do it to people who are using video taken directly from their trailers.

Grand Master

HawkMan

Posted
Posted

This type of stuff is fair use, the way I see it. It's also free advertising for Nintendo. They need as many people plugging their games as possible these days.

It may b a lot of things, but I'm not sure full play troughs of games or even "just" entire levels counts as "fair use".

 

The movie trailers in movie reviews example in the OP Article isn't even comparable, as firstly they only show small clips of the movie secondly it's clips provided by the studios. 

 

Do they have the right to take down the videos, probably. Should they... I dunno. I'm not going to miss let's play videos at any rate. and I don't see why people can make a living of them, or that they should. 

Grand Master

trag3dy

Posted
Posted

It may b a lot of things, but I'm not sure full play troughs of games or even "just" entire levels counts as "fair use".

 

The movie trailers in movie reviews example in the OP Article isn't even comparable, as firstly they only show small clips of the movie secondly it's clips provided by the studios. 

 

Do they have the right to take down the videos, probably. Should they... I dunno. I'm not going to miss let's play videos at any rate. and I don't see why people can make a living of them, or that they should. 

 

So because you don't like them others shouldn't be able to enjoy them (or make money from them)? Is that what you're saying? Because it looks that way.

Community Regular

johnnyq3

Posted
Posted

So because you don't like them others shouldn't be able to enjoy them (or make money from them)? Is that what you're saying? Because it looks that way.

I just want to know the difference between monetizing an Let's play and monetizing your reactions to a movie and uploading it up onto YouTube with the full movie.  I think Nintendo should be a little more willing to allow people to monetize their IPs, that they own the copyrights on every individual part of it.

 

Possibly throwing in a free or greatly discounted Wii U with a bundle of games that Nintendo would be okay with being online.  As part of their current plan Super Smash Brothers for the 3DS/Wii U isn't listed due to the problems of licensing the content and music, it is one of the reasons why there is only a 2 Disc official sample album instead a full album be able to be purchased. 

Grand Master

trag3dy

Posted
Posted

I just want to know the difference between monetizing an Let's play and monetizing your reactions to a movie and uploading it up onto YouTube with the full movie.  I think Nintendo should be a little more willing to allow people to monetize their IPs, that they own the copyrights on every individual part of it.

 

Possibly throwing in a free or greatly discounted Wii U with a bundle of games that Nintendo would be okay with being online.  As part of their current plan Super Smash Brothers for the 3DS/Wii U isn't listed due to the problems of licensing the content and music, it is one of the reasons why there is only a 2 Disc official sample album instead a full album be able to be purchased. 

 

It has to do with transformative works if I'm not mistaken. No two play throughs of a certain video game will ever be the same while every single viewing of a certain movie is always going to be the same.

 

That is why people get away with posting video game lets plays and can't post full movies and claim they are reviews. Even if they are talking over the entire movie like is typical for a lets play.

Grand Master

JustGeorge

Posted
Posted

It may b a lot of things, but I'm not sure full play troughs of games or even "just" entire levels counts as "fair use".

 

The movie trailers in movie reviews example in the OP Article isn't even comparable, as firstly they only show small clips of the movie secondly it's clips provided by the studios. 

 

Do they have the right to take down the videos, probably. Should they... I dunno. I'm not going to miss let's play videos at any rate. and I don't see why people can make a living of them, or that they should. 

For me the essence of a game is actually playing it. Interaction is fundamental, unlike TV, which is passive. Watching someone play a game isn't the same, which is why I don't feel any infringement is committed here. Should game endings be shown, no. Thats a spolier.

Veteran

Vandalsquad

Posted
Posted

heh, no, Nintendo has a ridiculous bank account. basically they could run at a massive loss for decades and not be in trouble. 

 

Nintendo has been running at a loss for years but, Wasn't it last year alone they lost half a billion? And had been running at losses the years before that? Just because Nintendo has money in the bank from the original wii doesn't mean the investors and stock owners will be impressed with billions in loss over the last few years.

 

I hate twitch youtube plays etc but this is a terrible move by Nintendo I don't understand how anyone could defend this.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Posts

    • Tidal won't monetize AI slop music, company says

      By monterxz · Posted

      I've been on Deezer for over a decade, but glad that Tidal joined them in fighting AI slop. Can't stand such takes as Spotify's: "Spotify's CEO recently pushed back against listeners who call AI music "slop," urging people to stop using the term and instead embrace the creative potential of AI music."
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States

      By Cosmocronos · Posted

      “Could” … in the IS the healthcare is run by insurance companies that make indecent profits denying basic treatments to people that are paying money for nothing. Besides, where are all the Trump epigones who were stating that the tariffs were going to paid by foreign companies and not the US citizens? …
    • Microsoft Teams gets smarter at spotting sneaky meeting bots

      By Usama Jawad96 · Posted

      Microsoft Teams gets smarter at spotting sneaky meeting bots by Usama Jawad Microsoft Teams is set to receive a couple of new features soon, including a dedicated Recap app and a rather controversial location tracking functionality. The Redmond tech giant has also explained how it has made online communication and collaboration a lot more performant this year. Now, the company has detailed more secure bot admission mechanisms, as first reported by us in March 2026, and now available in Teams. As the use of AI has expanded across enterprise environments, Microsoft has begun allowing users to integrate bots into their meetings for various tasks, such as note-taking. While this has a tangible productivity benefit for users, Microsoft has highlighted how misconfiguration has allowed bots to join meetings that they shouldn't. This has created security and privacy risks, which Microsoft is now combating using a new Teams admin policy that allows organizers to control how external bots access meetings. Admins can leverage a policy called Manage external bots and their access to meetings. The default configuration is "When detected, require approval before joining", which places detected bots in a lobby before they are explicitly admitted into the meeting. The other option disables the experience. Microsoft has also requested admins to only allow organizers and co-organizers to manage access to a meeting, so that other people don't randomly allow bots into meetings. Teams will now be able to leverage infrastructure signals to intelligently detect and distinguish between bots and humans. Microsoft will soon also trial a registration experience for independent software vendors (ISVs) to build a system that registers a bot with Microsoft, so it is marked as a "known" bot. Teams will also categorize bots as trusted and suspected threats so that organizers can quickly identify which bots they want to allow into a meeting. Additional safeguards to block accidental admission of a bot into a meeting include: No one-click Admit option for identified bots Confirmation prompts when admitting participants that include bots Warnings when organizers choose Admit all, and bots are included Microsoft has begun rolling out this experience, and it will be retiring the current CAPTCHA verification implementation. In the future, the company plans to roll out new capabilities like allow-lists, organization-wide policies, admin reports, audit logs, and more granular controls.
    • Bypassed Windows 11 shows surprising stability on ancient, completely unsupported hardware

      By +Warwagon · Posted

      With the current hardware prices Microsoft should lift the restriction. Then if you have the correct TPM then allow you to use X feature, if you don't have the correct TPM then don't but still actually let you run windows. 11. With a disclaimer during install that X features would be unavailable.
    • Meta is reusing old DDR4 RAM in its servers instead of buying new hardware

      By C:Amie · Posted

      It's good for recycling of course. But commence inflation of a second hand RAM bubble and price gouging on DDR 4 inventory in 3... 2... 1...

  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Year In
      BA the Curmudgeon earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Conversation Starter
      rosiecharles earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      KMilenkoski1202 earned a badge
      First Post

  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      538
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      266
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      98
    5. 5
      macoman
      66
    Show More

  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!