Received a Copyright Claim... On a Video That Follows Fair Use...

[RelentlessAF]

Hey guys, I'm not going to link the video as that would be advertising, but I did a review of a game. I gave it an unfavorable review not too bad like a 6/10 and today I received a copyright claim from them saying I was illegally using video content from the game. As you all know review and criticism falls under fair use and is protected by law. I made a dispute for this very reason, it will probably be rejected due to the way disputes are handled kind of sucks since I'm a very small YouTuber so I don't have a partner to protect me from things like this. Funny how "The Law" is only a one-way street with Game developers.

[flibberdipper]

I have 2 BF3 gameplay videos, one Halo: Combat Evolved, and one The Plan and they're still fine... Weird that it happened to you.

[RelentlessAF]

I have 2 BF3 gameplay videos, one Halo: Combat Evolved, and one The Plan and they're still fine... Weird that it happened to you.

Depends on the dev, some of them are really butt hurt when you use video of their games and especially when you give it a bad review.

[Gala]

I have 2 BF3 gameplay videos, one Halo: Combat Evolved, and one The Plan and they're still fine... Weird that it happened to you.

bf3 vids pls

[Anthony10]

Is it a game that is allowed to be recorded and uploaded to youtube?

[Trik'Stari]

Sounds like BS, if they take it down, make a follow up video explaining that the Dev was butthurt about having a bad review, and then made a false copyright claim to get it taken down.

[RelentlessAF]

Is it a game that is allowed to be recorded and uploaded to youtube?

Yes, there was no NDA for the game.

[flibberdipper]

Depends on the dev, some of them are really butt hurt when you use video of their games and especially when you give it a bad review.

I didn't review it, so that might be part of it...

 

bf3 vids pls

Channel is tmcclelland47. They're nothing special.

[RelentlessAF]

Sounds like BS, if they take it down, make a follow up video explaining that the Dev was butthurt about having a bad review, and then made a false copyright claim to get it taken down.

Planning to haha, so far they haven't taken action to take it down, instead they monetized it for themselves.

[Builder]

If you are monetized, they may have a valid claim. Commercial purposes don't necessarily fall under fair use.

[RelentlessAF]

If you are monetized, they may have a valid claim. Commercial purposes don't necessarily fall under fair use.

Yes it does, review and criticisms are things that fall under the category that you can profit from.

[Builder]

Yes it does, review and criticisms are things that fall under the category that you can profit from.

Precedent?

[Trik'Stari]

Precedent?

Um.....every single video game review on youtube?

[Builder]

Um.....every single video game review on youtube?

The fact that they haven't been taken down doesn't make it legal. Some companies care more than others, and it's impossible to find all the infringers of your copyrights.

[RelentlessAF]

The fact that they haven't been taken down doesn't make it legal. Some companies care more than others, and it's impossible to find all the infringers of your copyrights.

All companies that make game reviews, IGN, Gamespot, and others all still exist because you can legally profit from a review or criticism. It works in all places of media, music, movies, or whatever.

[Builder]

All companies that make game reviews, IGN, Gamespot, and others all still exist because you can legally profit from a review or criticism. It works in all places of media, music, movies, or whatever.

But those aren't the same thing. IGN has relationships with developers and publishers for review samples. Do you?

[RelentlessAF]

But those aren't the same thing. IGN has relationships with developers and publishers for review samples. Do you?

I don't need review samples for something open to the public That's be like saying a tech YouTuber couldn't profit off a review for his iPhone 4 because he doesn't have a relationship with Apple. 

 

Also I have gotten one before from Respawn Entertainment but this game wasn't made by them.

[Builder]

I don't need review samples for something open to the public That's be like saying a tech YouTuber couldn't profit off a review for his iPhone 4 because he doesn't have a relationship with Apple.

Yes but the iPhone 4 is not copyrighted. Apple doesn't get to say where it can and cannot be shown. That's an overall poor comparison because the iPhone is a physical device.

[Trik'Stari]

Yes but the iPhone 4 is not copyrighted. Apple doesn't get to say where it can and cannot be shown. That's an overall poor comparison because the iPhone is a physical device.

Anything available for purchase to the general public is also open to review by said public. If he bought the game he has every right to profit off of making a review for it.

[Builder]

Anything available for purchase to the general public is also open to review by said public. If he bought the game he has every right to profit off of making a review for it.

Read the fair use doctrine and you'll see that commercial use changes things.

[Briggsy]

Total biscuit laid into some small time publisher for doing this. it happens fairly often as damage control. Youtube has a hands off policy, which has caused many reviewers to only show press release screen shots or footage without any in-game audio.

 

 

EDIT*  found it

 

[Trik'Stari]

Read the fair use doctrine and you'll see that commercial use changes things.

Critique and review are considered protected speech under US law.

[RelentlessAF]

-snip-

Which is ridiculous. You can't censor bad publicity because you want your game to sell that isn't fair to the consumer.

[Technous285]

If you are monetized, they may have a valid claim. Commercial purposes don't necessarily fall under fair use.

Valve Software - Valve Video Policy

We encourage our users to make videos using Valve game content, such as playthrough or instruction videos or SFM movies. We are fine with publishing these videos to your website or YouTube or similar video sharing services. We're not fine with taking assets from our games (e.g. voice, music, items) and distributing those separately.

Use of our content in videos must be non-commercial. By that we mean you can't charge users to view or access your videos. You also can't sell or license your videos to others for a payment of any kind.

You are free to monetize your videos via the YouTube partner program and similar programs on other video sharing sites. Please don't ask us to write YouTube and tell them its fine with us to post a particular video using Valve content. It's not possible to respond to each such request. Point them to this page.

Of course this policy applies only to Valve content. If you include someone else's content in your video, such as music, you will have to get permission from the owner.

Valve are fine with you making money off of videos of their stuff you put on YouTube and such, but you can't put them behind a PAYWALL where people can't access your content without paying in advance. They aren't the only ones who prefer YTers using word-of-mouth to spread information and reviews of their games and get money (through ads and donations) for their time (only Nintendo has really had a problem with folks monetizing videos of Nintendo games such as LP's, though that's mostly due to cultural differences and their higher-ups not really understanding the value of LP's and such).

Subbable, Patreon and the like aren't paywalls as they are donation services for those who want to fiscally support creators who would otherwise (and often still are) stuck getting ad revenue from AdSense and such.

[Raid]

Critique and review are considered protected speech under US law.

Doesn't mean anything. Youtube does not necessarily operate under US law. If you check their Terms of Service it says that Youtube operates under the law of whichever country that particular translation of the ToS is for.

For example, The UK one says: "The Terms, and your relationship with YouTube under the Terms, shall be governed by English law"

The Finnish one says: "Ehtoihin ja suhteeseesi YouTubeen Ehtojen alla sovelletaan Suomen lakia" Which basically means: "The Terms, and your relationship with YouTube under the Terms, shall be governed by Finnish law."

The following is specifically about fair use, Source: https://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/fair-use.html

"Different countries have different rules about when it’s okay to use material without the copyright owner’s permission"

EDIT: Damn links.