Copyright strikes on Retro game Youtube vids - Paul Andrews?

[Clipper]

One of the retro youtube channels I watch occasionally (based on their appearance on digitiser) is octavius kitten. She has tweeted saying she has had copyright strikes on quite a few of her videos from a company called subvert/subversive.

 

https://twitter.com/Octav1usKitten/status/1184530191156236288

 

It doesn't take much to find out it is this bunch

 

https://www.facebook.com/613761509078293/posts/779578122496630?sfns=mo

Run by Paul Andrews - I thought he was a good guy in the retro scene - why is he pulling nonsense like this?

 

[Peter St John]

I mentioned it in the Head Over Heels thread, but yes, vampires. They also claim to have asked WoS to remove Automata IP, though a quick check indicates that they're still available.

[Clipper]

Thanks for that - hadn’t seen the thread before. I would ask for this to be merged but I think it’s worth advertising wider that Andrews has turned out to be a bit shitty to the retro scene. 

 

Not it sure how I feel about the, previously instabuy, full size c64 now!!!

[Clipper]

Actually this has annoyed me so much I won't buy the fullsize c64. I don't really need one as I have a c64 so it was always a nostalgia "nice to have" purchase. Fuck that guy - I won't support someone in the retro community who fucks over others in the same community. This is the sort of shit you expect of "atari".

 

He is almost as bad as the rest of the vega team

[Clipper]

She has now taken all her videos offline as she is scared and posted up a video explaining.

 

She was struggling up til recently and looks like this has set her back.

 

I hope the scumbag is happy with what he has achieved by worrying about the sexualisation of a fucking 8 bit sprite from 40 fucking years ago that he might have bought the rights to.

 

[Peter St John]

Ah fuck. I know she hasn't been okay recently :/

[Quest]

https://subversive.uk/

 

Absolutely everything on their website makes them come across as complete tossers.

 

Facebook link taken down now. Probably trying to avoid the fallout from all this.

[Clipper]

Things have hit the fan a bit for Andrews and subvert - the facebook link is now gone due to the negative comments it was getting. In addition lots of tweets in support of Octavius some with Horace as their avatar and some with crude sexualised versions of Horace posted - including by Biffo.

 

It seems some in the retro community were not aware of his connection to TheC64 project and some of those have contacts with people in that project - they are warning their contacts of his behaviour and how that impacts the support/ire that might attract from those they are trying to sell to.

 

Let's hope it all works and Mr Andrews has a tough morning/day.

[Lorfarius]

 

She's had to pull all of her videos after 2 copyright strikes.  1 more and the channel is closed.

[gone fishin]

I'll hold out jumping to conclusions until there's more info from the "other side", because I'm really not sure a) using old video games is copyright infringement and b) that some of the games are owned by Subvert (their website doesn't say it owns games by Online PLC - which is the CRL group of games, which owns Soft and Cuddly as well as 3D Monster Maze which looks like it's owned by Titus - who also owns Mastertronic and Virgin). So I'm not sure why they've asked for a copyright take down, unless she made a video criticising The 64 and it's a bit of spiteful revenge?

 

The other thing is that when it was announced Paul Andrews had got the Manic Miner/Jet Set Willy name rights (although Matthew Smith confirmed he now owns the copyright of the original games), then that was seen as a "good thing" because it stopped Steve Wilcox of Elite selling Manic Miner themed cards, because he was seen as exploiting an old IP he owned (which it turned out he didn't). 

 

Here's a list from her Twitter feed.

 

 

[Clipper]

Well you could wait or you could watch her video where she explains a conversation she had with Andrews where he complained about her making money from Horace (her Patreon income) AND made it clear that he owned Horace and didn't like the way her videos "sexualised" the character.

 

The reason there is  a takedown on videos of games Subvert does not own? Because she used to use the Horace character in her intros and those videos have Horace in the intro.

 

She has not made a  video criticising the TheC64 or the mini ever.

 

Finally he deliberately split the copyright strikes into 2 reports so she would have two strikes - 3 and your channel is gone, so it was a deliberate attempt to put her channel "on the edge".

 

it is a joke.

[gone fishin]

I've not seen any of her videos, so I can't really comment on what the original Horace videos in question where, but I can sort of see Paul Andrew's point. If he's planning on doing something with the Horace IP like a new game, then if there are videos where Horace has, I dunno, a knob drawn on him that are being actively promoted by YouTube's recommended algorithm (because they're monetised), then I can see why he'd want those videos taken down. From watching that video it sounds like he had a conversation with her asking her to remove them and she only de-monetised them, which I'm presuming then caused him to contact YouTube directly for a takedown. It does seem a bit harsh going straight to that, but I don't know what the conversation was leading up to it from his side.

 

Disney would do the same thing with someone doing video featuring Micky Mouse with a knob drawn on it, yet the guy who invented him died years ago.

 

Like I said, I've never watched any of her videos before, what exactly was the sexualised nature of Horace? Had the Horace image been changed?

 

 

 

[Camel]

Who is Paul Andrews?

[Lorfarius]

4 minutes ago, Camel said:

Who is Paul Andrews?

 

Guy behind the Vega/Vega +

[Clipper]

34 minutes ago, gone fishin' said:

I've not seen any of her videos, so I can't really comment on what the original Horace videos in question where, but I can sort of see Paul Andrew's point. If he's planning on doing something with the Horace IP like a new game, then if there are videos where Horace has, I dunno, a knob drawn on him that are being actively promoted by YouTube's recommended algorithm (because they're monetised), then I can see why he'd want those videos taken down. From watching that video it sounds like he had a conversation with her asking her to remove them and she only de-monetised them, which I'm presuming then caused him to contact YouTube directly for a takedown. It does seem a bit harsh going straight to that, but I don't know what the conversation was leading up to it from his side.

 

Disney would do the same thing with someone doing video featuring Micky Mouse with a knob drawn on it, yet the guy who invented him died years ago.

 

Like I said, I've never watched any of her videos before, what exactly was the sexualised nature of Horace? Had the Horace image been changed?

 

 

 

No they were simple skits where Horace was making mild sexual advances to her character. It was absurdist humour. She explains that in that video as well.

 

 

EDIT - I did selectively quote but I need to put ti back and mention some things! Firstly watch her video again as your timeline is wrong. His first action was that he raised 2 copyright strikes against her channel covering 8 videos - he could have done one for all eight but he did two as everyone knows it is 3 strikes and you are out. 

Secondly she contacted him - so not only did he not contact her about it before he sent the strikes he certainly did not seek her out to change her vids he just raised strikes as his first act.

 

Finally - mentioning Mickey Mouse as an example when we are talking about a near-40 yr old dead IP? come on!

[Clipper]

5 minutes ago, Camel said:

Who is Paul Andrews?

part of Vega team - acrimonius split and he went and did TheC64 and the MiniC64. He returned to try and defend the backers from the remaining Vega team as well.

 

Now has seemingly bought a bunch of IP and wants to piss away any goodwill he had in the retro community.

[Anne Summers]

2 hours ago, gone fishin' said:

I've not seen any of her videos, so I can't really comment on what the original Horace videos in question where, but I can sort of see Paul Andrew's point. If he's planning on doing something with the Horace IP like a new game, then if there are videos where Horace has, I dunno, a knob drawn on him that are being actively promoted by YouTube's recommended algorithm (because they're monetised), then I can see why he'd want those videos taken down. From watching that video it sounds like he had a conversation with her asking her to remove them and she only de-monetised them, which I'm presuming then caused him to contact YouTube directly for a takedown. It does seem a bit harsh going straight to that, but I don't know what the conversation was leading up to it from his side.

 

Disney would do the same thing with someone doing video featuring Micky Mouse with a knob drawn on it, yet the guy who invented him died years ago.

 

Like I said, I've never watched any of her videos before, what exactly was the sexualised nature of Horace? Had the Horace image been changed?

 

 

 

She just has Horace as a character who lives in her house with her, in her videos - and occasionally pops up to act in a slightly pervy/harassing way. 

 

It seems to me that a big part of the problem is that Youtube's algorithms for giving out "strikes" are entirely automated - you simply make a complain against someone and they are given a copyright strike. That's the opinion I've got after seeing several of these sort of situations developing over recent years. Presumably there is a manual intervention process available, or an appeal process. 

[Lorfarius]

3 minutes ago, Anne Summers said:

She just has Horace as a character who lives in her house with her, in her videos - and occasionally pops up to act in a slightly pervy/harassing way. 

 

It seems to me that a big part of the problem is that Youtube's algorithms for giving out "strikes" are entirely automated - you simply make a complain against someone and they are given a copyright strike. That's the opinion I've got after seeing several of these sort of situations developing over recent years. Presumably there is a manual intervention process available, or an appeal process. 

 

This isn't automated. It's Paul Andrews from the company actively going after her content. She's tried talking to him about it but been told its because shes sexualised Horace

[Bluejam]

A statement has appeared... 
 

 

I would  like to make a simple statement of facts, and will not comment further on this post or issue. 

Several months ago a mutual contact introduced myself to the person who runs sew8bit/retro princess as they were making soft toy versions of the game character we purchased ‘Horace’ (as referenced on Wikipedia etc. these games among others  was purchased through the historical chain of owners which is fully documented) this is not in dispute. I said how much I liked her work and was happy for her to continue and said we could discuss a small donation from the sale price of £35 a toy to our chosen charity (which is normally the MS society) we agreed to pick up the conversation in future emails. I sent several more emails over several months even going so far as to offer the potential use of other characters again with a small donation to the charity. I received no answers to these emails. I asked the original mutual contact to ask her to reply to my emails as they were both attending an event. They did and told me her reply was she would answer when she had time. I privately messaged her asking her to respond to my emails. What followed was a brief but polite on my part exchange in which she disputed our ownership of the games and promptly blocked me allowing no further means of communication. This person also acts as a point of contact for her friend a youtuber.  They went on to make public statements they wished to find replacement retro characters to produce toys with but did not wish to make charity donations to others which might also request them. 

I also have to be clear in recent weeks alone we have worked with multiple game makers to allow various Horace games be made, some are being given away for free, others being sold on cassettes the makers are voluntary giving ‘our share’ to charity on our behalf. 

To also make it very clear at no point have I demanded or asked or even mentioned money to the youtuber this issue is about, I have no interest in their income, this has solely been about the use of our character in a manner we were not comfortable with. 

There is no point re-treading the story of the past 18 hours or so, other than to be very clear as soon as the youtuber reached out to me via twitter we had a dialogue in which I made it clear I had no axe to grind but was unhappy with the way the character had been used as a sort of co-presenter of the videos but in a sexualised way. I also over the course of the dialogue tried to compromise with them, again even going so far as to offer to resolve the situation with mutually agreed guidelines for its continued use, and even other characters we also own if they wished to. I made it very clear I had sent one email to YouTube, and yes had asked for removal of those handful of videos but did not ask for a copyright strike, nor was I aware why or how two strikes had been issued by youtube having never emailed them before and having no plans to again as things stand, as that was not requested by me. The youtuber declined these offers, and when I requested she make public the fact I was trying to resolve it and would she agree to our conversation being made public she also declined that request. 

I also told her I would be writing to youtube to ask why they had done two copyright strikes, when I did not request even one, and I have done this as I had already planned to. I have no wish to inflame this situation further but I also cannot stand back and be attacked over claims which are literally untrue, or distorted. 

I am doing my best to resolve this unfortunate situation, but feel I have to make this statement of the facts, as opposed to wild speculation and untruths being told, let alone threats of physical violence also being made on social media.

[Anne Summers]

10 minutes ago, Lorfarius said:

 

This isn't automated. It's Paul Andrews from the company actively going after her content. She's tried talking to him about it but been told its because shes sexualised Horace

I mean, I think the process of giving a copyright strike is automated once they receive a complaint. There doesn't seem to be a manual review, judging by the amount of times I've heard that people have used spurious reasons to get things striked or removed. 

[ulala]

57 minutes ago, Bluejam said:

A statement has appeared... 
 

 

I would  like to make a simple statement of facts, and will not comment further on this post or issue. 

Several months ago a mutual contact introduced myself to the person who runs sew8bit/retro princess as they were making soft toy versions of the game character we purchased ‘Horace’ (as referenced on Wikipedia etc. these games among others  was purchased through the historical chain of owners which is fully documented) this is not in dispute. I said how much I liked her work and was happy for her to continue and said we could discuss a small donation from the sale price of £35 a toy to our chosen charity (which is normally the MS society) we agreed to pick up the conversation in future emails. I sent several more emails over several months even going so far as to offer the potential use of other characters again with a small donation to the charity. I received no answers to these emails. I asked the original mutual contact to ask her to reply to my emails as they were both attending an event. They did and told me her reply was she would answer when she had time. I privately messaged her asking her to respond to my emails. What followed was a brief but polite on my part exchange in which she disputed our ownership of the games and promptly blocked me allowing no further means of communication. This person also acts as a point of contact for her friend a youtuber.  They went on to make public statements they wished to find replacement retro characters to produce toys with but did not wish to make charity donations to others which might also request them. 

I also have to be clear in recent weeks alone we have worked with multiple game makers to allow various Horace games be made, some are being given away for free, others being sold on cassettes the makers are voluntary giving ‘our share’ to charity on our behalf. 

To also make it very clear at no point have I demanded or asked or even mentioned money to the youtuber this issue is about, I have no interest in their income, this has solely been about the use of our character in a manner we were not comfortable with. 

There is no point re-treading the story of the past 18 hours or so, other than to be very clear as soon as the youtuber reached out to me via twitter we had a dialogue in which I made it clear I had no axe to grind but was unhappy with the way the character had been used as a sort of co-presenter of the videos but in a sexualised way. I also over the course of the dialogue tried to compromise with them, again even going so far as to offer to resolve the situation with mutually agreed guidelines for its continued use, and even other characters we also own if they wished to. I made it very clear I had sent one email to YouTube, and yes had asked for removal of those handful of videos but did not ask for a copyright strike, nor was I aware why or how two strikes had been issued by youtube having never emailed them before and having no plans to again as things stand, as that was not requested by me. The youtuber declined these offers, and when I requested she make public the fact I was trying to resolve it and would she agree to our conversation being made public she also declined that request. 

I also told her I would be writing to youtube to ask why they had done two copyright strikes, when I did not request even one, and I have done this as I had already planned to. I have no wish to inflame this situation further but I also cannot stand back and be attacked over claims which are literally untrue, or distorted. 

I am doing my best to resolve this unfortunate situation, but feel I have to make this statement of the facts, as opposed to wild speculation and untruths being told, let alone threats of physical violence also being made on social media.

 

This statement changes things somewhat!

 

 

[gone fishin]

The statement from Paul Andrews seems fair and, judging by his background against RCL, legitimate. 

 

He’s also saying they’re allowing the license to be used with new Horace games, in return for a percentage being donated to charity. It it sounds like the issue specifically has come the soft toys and not willing to donate a share to charity. Again, fair enough. If you’re making money from old game characters and the license holder asks for their license percentage to be donated to charity then if that person refuses, then I totally understand having an issue with that. It’s certainly a lot better than some of the gaming IP trolls out there (is this the Head Over Heels thread???) Maybe he’s actually going to pay Jon Ritman for Match Day...

 

Also the thing of getting WoS to takedown Automata games likely comes from the guy who is now running WoS being allegedly part of the smear campaign against Andrews during the whole Vega+ saga.

 

 

[Clipper]

15 minutes ago, ulala said:

 

This statement changes things somewhat!

 

 

not really - he still complained and raised the claims with youtube before any contact. She had to reach out to him. We only have his word that youtube took 1 complaint and split it into two copyright strikes. And his concerns are a fucking nonsense. Nothing he wrote there shows he has any respect for the retro community.

 

People are giving him benefit of the doubt based on the RCL debacle which is a might generous in my view.

[redballoon]

Follow-up from that statement saying that things didn’t quite happen like that. So here we go again. As I said in the other thread, Paul Andrews vs RCL was like choosing between getting a punch in the face or getting kicked in the groin. I think you’ll be able to establish that I’m no fan of Andrews either. 

 

[Anne Summers]

1 minute ago, redballoon said:

Follow-up from that statement saying that things didn’t quite happen like that. So here we go again. As I said in the other thread, Paul Andrews vs RCL was like choosing between getting a punch in the face or getting kicked in the groin. I think you’ll be able to establish that I’m no fan of Andrews either. 

 

Where's the follow-up?

[ulala]

Just now, Clipper said:

not really - he still complained and raised the claims with youtube before any contact. She had to reach out to him. We only have his word that youtube took 1 complaint and split it into two copyright strikes. And his concerns are a fucking nonsense. 

 

People are giving him benefit of the doubt based on RCL which is a might generous in my view.

People seem to have taken a side And weaponised themselves. Those defending either view have turned into a bullying mob. And all over a YouTube complaint.

 

doesn’t everyone have jobs, or a real life to worry about. It’s completely ridiculous 

 

 

[Clipper]

1 minute ago, ulala said:

People seem to have taken a side And weaponised themselves. Those defending either view have turned into a bullying mob. And all over a YouTube complaint.

 

doesn’t everyone have jobs, or a real life to worry about. It’s completely ridiculous 

 

 

and you are above all that? 

 

Because it looks to me like you are trying use the old "there's bad on both sides" nonsense. Your reply indicated that the statement changed things - I maintain it doesn't. Trying to belittle the whole situation or accuse others of bullying just makes it look like you don't want to be challenged on your statement and instead deflect with this sort of post.

 

As for it being "all over a youtube complaint" we are talking about someone's livelihood being threatened in the retro community, something people in this folder care about.

[Lorfarius]

There's more to this too. When he approached to say he owned the copyright, he was asked to provide proof which he didn't.  This keeps being asked for but beyond the odd comment he owns it there' s no actual legal proof. Keeps claiming he does but can't show it.  Something very fishy about all this on his part.

[gone fishin]

3 minutes ago, Clipper said:

and you are above all that? 

 

Because it looks to me like you are trying use the old "there's bad on both sides" nonsense. Your reply indicated that the statement changed things - I maintain it doesn't. Trying to belittle the whole situation or accuse others of bullying just makes it look like you don't want to be challenged on your statement and instead deflect with this sort of post.

 

As for it being "all over a youtube complaint" we are talking about someone's livelihood being threatened in the retro community, something people in this folder care about.

 

If Paul Andrews statement is true, then what we’re talking about is someone refusing to give a donation to charity in return for using a character - not just in their videos but also selling as soft toys. 

 

I guess then it’s Ok for Disney to sell Peter Pan toys without giving money to Great Ormond Street? 

 

Thats the real rub in this. He wasn’t asking for all the revenue. He wasn’t asking her to remove the videos, stop using the character or stop selling the soft toys. He asked for a charitable donation in return for using the character and (yes, according to Paul Andrews) she refused to do it. When her videos get removed and she was hit by copyright strikes, she has to make a tearful video saying her livelihood has been taken away which in turn caused a mob like response from people without even having heard the other side of the story (threats of physical violence, wtf?? )

 

 

 

[Lorfarius]

15 minutes ago, ulala said:

doesn’t everyone have jobs, or a real life to worry about. It’s completely ridiculous 

 

 

 

Nope.I browse the forum at work, on the loo, in the attic, when I'm playing my Quest, eating tea, showering on occasion. I can't stop. Ever. Why is a part timer like you even here? You should leave if you can't commit 20 hours a day to browsing Rllmuk.