Jump to content
rllmuk
Clipper

Copyright strikes on Retro game Youtube vids - Paul Andrews?

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, ulala said:

 

So if all of my youtube videos now feature Plock getting a bit "handsey" shall we say, that would be absolutely fine?

 

 

I can't speak for Ste, but I doubt if he did object he'd go straight to you getting a verbal and written warning on the same day at work without even attempting to speak to you about it at all, as has effectively happened here with Octav1us on Youtube.

 

I'd guess he'd probably try and talk to you first, like normal people do.

 

Also, as others have pointed out, the "I sent one email to Youtube" thing is horseshit. You don't email them, you fill out a form specifically for copyright strikes. So that fills me with HMMMMMMMMMMMMM

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ianinthefuture said:

I can't speak for Ste, but I doubt if he did object he'd go straight to you getting a verbal and written warning on the same day at work without even attempting to speak to you about it at all, as has effectively happened here with Octav1us on Youtube.

 

 

I thought we had established that there was contact before the strikes in that case, i cant keep up with it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ulala said:

 

I thought we had established that there was contact before the strikes in that case, i cant keep up with it. 

 

 

There doesn't seem to be. Andrews series of events has him emailing whoever was behind the plushies and then Octav1us got in touch with him after she got the (c) strikes.

 

https://pastebin.com/wwS8dhP6

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ulala said:

 

I thought we had established that there was contact before the strikes in that case, i cant keep up with it. 

 

No

 

Gone fishin claimed it was that way - but Andrews' own statement says he "sent 1 email to youtube" and the strikes magically happened then she contacted him!

 

EDIT - you quoted Andrews' statement so read that again. The important point that some seem to miss is the soft toy maker and the youtuber are NOT the same person. The softy toy maker had contacts with Andrews. Andrews seperately wrote 1 email to Youtube which they then used to do 2 copyright strikes, not following their own procedure apparently... THEN the youtuber concerned reached out to him and asked him what the problem was.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Clipper said:

No

 

Gone fishin claimed it was that way - but Andrews' own statement says he "sent 1 email to youtube" and the strikes magically happened then she contacted him!

 

ahh sorry, i see now. i must have misunderstood that from Andrews' statement

 

so the negotiations she had with him, and the suggested fair use (getting rid of the smut) and charity donation conversation happened after both strikes?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/10/2019 at 12:04, 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.

To make sure it is crystal clear to all - The bolded part above is about the youtuber. The non bolded part is an unrelated issue he has with a maker of soft toys. The mutual contact mentioned in the first part - is not the youtuber.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ulala said:

 

ahh sorry, i see now. i must have misunderstood that from Andrews' statement

 

so the negotiations she had with him, and the suggested fair use (getting rid of the smut) and charity donation conversation happened after both strikes?

 

 

 

correct she had no contact with him prior to the strikes - you will see he says that she reached out to him to discuss it and during that exchange he indicated he sent 1 email to youtube and no copyright strikes - Youtube did that of its own volition apparently (pretty much the opposite to what they normally do).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Clipper said:

correct she had no contact with him prior to the strikes - you will see he says that she reached out to him to discuss it and during that exchange he indicated he sent 1 email to youtube and no copyright strikes - Youtube did that of its own volition apparently (pretty much the opposite to what they normally do).

 

Exactly. Youtube does nothing of its own volition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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.

 

This bit is the doozy. The channel gets copyright struck because someone else fraudulently claimed on his behalf but he has no plans to correct that fraud.

 

If someone was causing trouble and claiming to be me I'd probably want to sort it out rather than not bothering to because the person claiming to be me wasn't me.

 

I asked him on FB if he'd be happy for others to forward his statement to YT to put this wrong right. No reply.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, maryliddon said:

 

This bit is the doozy. The channel gets copyright struck because someone else fraudulently claimed on his behalf but he has no plans to correct that fraud.

 

If someone was causing trouble and claiming to be me I'd probably want to sort it out rather than not bothering to because the person claiming to be me wasn't me.

 

I asked him on FB if he'd be happy for others to forward his statement to YT to put this wrong right. No reply.

 

 

Yeah the strikes are by Subvert - if I was the owner of that company and sole director I would be more worried about people using my company name to raise copyright strikes against a channel. Coincidentally a channel that I had sent an email to Youtube about.

:sherlock:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the reason the joint statement has not been released yet is because octavius predicated the statement release on the copyright strikes being removed. How on earth will he remove them if he didn't raise them

 

:sherlock:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest I wouldn't put my channel back up until the strikes were removed or agree to the joint statement being released! Andrews seems to have a loose grasp on how to remove the strikes (as he didnt raise them) so not safe to do otherwise :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, maryliddon said:

 

 

FWIW I used to work at Beam Software, with both Fred and William, and knowing how shambolicly run the company was it would not surprise me if the rights ownership of the games they created was badly documented and unclear :D

 

 

 

Can you tell me if Studio B is connected to Beam Software then? Just something I was trying to work out at work the other day!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not during my employment. It was Beam Software Pty. That was way before the Infogrammes buyout.

 

While I was there we were working on mainly NES and early SNES titles.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funnily enough that may be acceptable usage of Horace.

 

George's video's, for example,  are fine according to Andrew because:

 

Quote

Sorry Gary missed this post amongst the hundreds/thousands of abusive tweets, posts and even people trying to call me, oh and posts about our offices burning down. I had actually never seen this before till watched it a few moments ago. The issue with the other channel was the use of Horace as a character/co-presenter if you will on the channel, and the way that was portrayed. The channel owner described to me as this as her ‘third person’ persona she has for YouTube, as Horace being in a sort of relationship with her online persona. So while George’s videos are not to everyone’s taste, this was a game review (of sorts) as opposed to using the character as above. So I could think of 12000 reasons why these two scenarios are different.

 

Clear as day.

 

I'm taking lack of response to this as confirmation it's not just okay for George, but alright for everyone do similar

 

Quote

Hey, if you're saying the above is fine then that's grand. It set's a clear standard for what's AUH (Acceptable Usage of Horace)

Given the current atmosphere, I'm sure a bunch of YTers would be keen to make videos portraying Horace as a priapic sexual assault enthusiast knowing there's no chance of reprisal from the rights holders.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As explained in this video, Fair Use would be having commentary with footage of the video game, which is considering transforming the original game content, which is what George had done. Using just the character in your video would come under copyright infringement.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, gone fishin' said:

 

As explained in this video, Fair Use would be having commentary on a video game, which is considering transforming the original game content, which is what george had done. Using just character in your video would come under copyright infringement. 

Does it? That video doesn't say that at all - can you point to the timestamp where it does? He gives a few examples of fair use and parody fair use by transformation is a broad subject. 

 

You have already said you don't watch the videos so I can tell you that the character is transformed by being a lifesize 8 bit sprite that communicates with the youtuber using 8 bit spectrum loading sounds and her translating his "speech" accordingly. If that isn't transforming the character for use of parody I am not sure what is!

 

 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Clipper said:

Does it? That video doesn't say that at all - can you point to the timestamp where it does? He gives a few examples of fair use and parody fair use by transformation is a broad subject. 

 

You have already said you don't watch the videos so I can tell you that the character is transformed by being a lifesize 8 bit sprite that communicates with the youtuber using 8 bit spectrum loading sounds and her translating his "speech" accordingly. If that isn't transforming the character for use of parody I am not sure what is!

 

 

 

The video explains how Fair Use is in video games, which I included as a reply to @maryliddon when he asked if George, or anyone else could use Horace games in their videos. The answer is yes, as long as it’s “transformed” enough, eg by adding commentary.

 

Using a copyrighted character in your video isn’t covered in that video, but simply taking a character that’s copyrighted can be subject to copyright infringement. If you were to take the Mario sprite, for example, and turn him into a sex pest co-presenter, I’m sure Nintendo would ask YouTube to remove it. It’s not the same as taking game footage and adding commentary, which is considered Fair Use.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are three separate strands here, I feel.

 

1: Does Andrews really have all the rights to Horace? Possibly!

 

2: Did Andrews have the right to make a copyright strike considering parody/satire exceptions in US/UK law? Again, quite possibly!

 

3: Even given 1 and 2, is making a copyright strike against a harmless set of videos for a character that is never going to be a household name and piss off the retro community, one of your main audiences, a good idea?

 

I would humbly suggest that 1 and 2 are blind alleys, and 3 is where most of us are.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Peter St John said:

There are three separate strands here, I feel.

 

1: Does Andrews really have all the rights to Horace? Possibly!

 

2: Did Andrews have the right to make a copyright strike considering parody/satire exceptions in US/UK law? Again, quite possibly!

 

3: Even given 1 and 2, is making a copyright strike against a harmless set of videos for a character that is never going to be a household name and piss off the retro community, one of your main audiences, a good idea?

 

I would humbly suggest that 1 and 2 are blind alleys, and 3 is where most of us are.

I completely agree but this spouting of US law and youtube videos that don't even cover "use of a copyright character in a video as fair use" is just white noise. I mean Family Guy had a mickey mouse parody about mickey hating jews in one of their episodes!

 

But yes the 3rd point is key here. Even if you were technically in the right it's a bit of a bellend move to attack videos produced by the retro community that you are trying to sell to. AND against videos made before you even bought the rights to the character!

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all seem to agree that making plushie dolls and selling them for profit is not acceptable

 

And yet using that same character in a video to make money IS acceptable, because  it’s fair use.

 

im struggling to see the difference, I’m glad I’m not a lawyer

  • Downvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ulala said:

We all seem to agree that making plushie dolls and selling them for profit is not acceptable

 

And yet using that same character in a video to make money IS acceptable, because  it’s fair use.

 

im struggling to see the difference, I’m glad I’m not a lawyer

 

Plushie dolls would fall under trademark laws and I'm not aware of any fair use provisions there. Broadcasts fall under copyright and there are fair use provisions. However even with fair use you can be squashed by the mere threat of legal action in which you might win eventually but would be bankrupted before the end of the process.

 

For a similar case see Penny Arcade / American Greetings.

 

https://strawberryshortcake.fandom.com/wiki/Penny_Arcade_Controversy

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm holding out on the statement but add me to the list of people who'll be cancelling a C64 order if it's not basically "I was wrong, I'm sorry".

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Unofficial Who said:

 

Plushie dolls would fall under trademark laws and I'm not aware of any fair use provisions there. Broadcasts fall under copyright and there are fair use provisions. However even with fair use you can be squashed by the mere threat of legal action in which you might win eventually but would be bankrupted before the end of the process.

 

For a similar case see Penny Arcade / American Greetings.

 

https://strawberryshortcake.fandom.com/wiki/Penny_Arcade_Controversy

 

Yes, if you’re looking at the two separate issues here it’s person a selling plushie dolls (copyright infringement, no fair use allowed) and person b using the character in YouTube videos (potential copyright infringement, which could come under Fair Use if “transformed” enough).

 

I think one of the problems has come from Andrews thinking they’re connected. He said that the person making the plushie dolls was acting as a spokesperson for the person making the YouTube videos.

 

Quote

This person also acts as a point of contact for her friend a youtuber.

 

I guess when the communication went nowhere, with the person making the plushie dolls refuted his IP ownership, he presumed that it was also the case for the person making the YouTube videos and started the takedown process.

 

People have also also jumped to conclusion that he must have lied about sending one email to YouTube, because there’s strikes against multiple videos. Yet, you can just send an email to YouTube, the details are here: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6005908?hl=en-GB 

 

Maybe he did send one email to YouTube, but referenced multiple videos in that email, maybe he didn’t know that YouTube would just issue copyright strikes based on that process. After all, YouTube won’t care about a channel that generates almost zero advertising revenue for them (she even admitted she earned about £30 from the videos in question).

 

If anything, it shows how fragile having YouTube as your sole source of income is, especially when it’s “indirect” income that’s not from advertising but from Patreon backers. 

 

I also think this whole issue shows just what a minefield “licensed British retro IP” is. If this is the reaction to a handful of niche videos being taken down, then I can’t see how companies that are hoovering up retro IP could restrict the content to only be available via commercially licensed platforms likes of Antstream. 

 

I’ll say this again, the overreaction to this whole “incident” is what really puts me off the British retro gaming “community” now, or certainly a very vocal and aggressive minority. Somebody gets a couple of copyright strikes agains their videos (yes, it sounds like there could have been better dialog beforehand) and there’s some kind of witch hunt against the guy. And let me be clear, if it were the case where Andrews had been removing game files from websites or commercialising the IP he’s bought through the likes of exclusive  merchandise, then yes I would be absolutely against it. But he hasn’t, he said he wanted a charitable donation to be made in return for the IP being used in a commercial way (plushies) and that was refused. He had complained to YouTube about a handful of videos (maybe hamfisted or maybe unaware of how swift and severe YouTube acts on it) because he didn’t like the way the character was portrayed. I don’t think that deserves the kind of reaction we’ve seen. Again, threats of physical violence???? 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.