Copyright strikes on Retro game Youtube vids - Paul Andrews?

[Bluejam]

They were being sold by her PA apparently 

[MajorRob]

14 hours ago, maryliddon said:

It’s worth caring about because there’s a pattern of behaviour of buying up rights to IP and then getting into conflict with the enthusiasts who’ve kept that IP alive over the last few decades.

 

 

Would the IP have "died"? I don't think so. 

[Clipper]

the original phrase was "point of contact" - that has morphed to "spokesperson" and now an even more official sounding "PA" lol

 

[ulala]

14 minutes ago, maryliddon said:

 

Everyone agress that the soft toys are out of line.

 

But they weren't being sold by Octav1us were they?

 

No they were not being sold by the youtuber, but were being used as a co-presenter (ish) in videos that were a quid-pro-quo for Patreon donations of $2k per month.

 

This is not in dispute, they are the facts.

 

As i see it, the problems were

 

1) permissions were assumed but not seeked by the youtuber

2) the IP owner did not have a rerasonable contact with the Youtuber before strikes were issued.

 

Then all hell broke loose.

[ulala]

3 minutes ago, MajorRob said:

 

Would the IP have "died"? I don't think so. 

 

Its almost as if the retro community have never heard of the horace games before the Youtuber!

 

I love those games, all of them. Whenever i play my spectrum HGS is never far away. Such great memories. Its perfect for a quick blast.

 

There IS value in the IP.

 

 

[Clipper]

8 minutes ago, ulala said:

 

 they are the facts.

 

 

but were being used as a co-presenter (ish) in videos

Not a fact - IP holder explicitly says he doesn't claim this.

 

that were a quid-pro-quo for Patreon donations of $2k per month.

if the implication is that the patreon donations were due to horace then not a fact as you don't know.

 

here are the only facts we need for this case now we have the joint statement :-

 

IP holder was not happy with "sexualising of Horace" in her vids

 

 

The end.

 

[ulala]

2 minutes ago, Clipper said:

 

 

 

Not a fact - IP holder explicitly says he doesn't claim this.

 

 

 

if the implication is that the patreon donations were due to horace then not a fact as you don't know.

 

here are the only facts we need for this case now we have the joint statement :-

 

IP holder was not happy with "sexualising of Horace" in her vids

 

 

The end.

 

 

Horace was a running theme, its not in doubt. 

 

The characters sexualisation in some videos is not in doubt.

 

Videos were being made because the patreon donations allowed the youtuber time in their life to make the videos. This was made explicit by the youtuber. No videos no patreon. no patreon no youtube videos.

 

Im glad the issues seems to have been resolved.

 

 

 

 

[Clipper]

here are the only facts we need for this case now we have the joint statement :-

 

IP holder was not happy with "sexualising of Horace" in her vids

 

The end.

 

 

If you want to argue the toss over whether she got patreon because horace was in the videos or if the character was a co-presenter then go ahead.

[Dudley]

32 minutes ago, Bluejam said:

They were being sold by her PA apparently 

 

"PA".

 

Retro Princess (aka Hannah) replies on Facebook because Octy finds that stressful because the internet is stinkhole. That's the extent of that.

[Dudley]

Just now, Clipper said:

here are the only facts we need for this case now we have the joint statement :-

 

IP holder was not happy with "sexualising of Horace" in her vids

 

The end.

 

 

If you want to argue the toss over whether she got patreon because horace was in the videos or if the character was a co-presenter then go ahead.

 

Well no, there's also the debate over whether it's any of the "ip holder"'s business.

 

And I'd say there's a range of views about that on this channel, all supportable.

[Clipper]

Just now, Dudley said:

 

Well no, there's also the debate over whether it's any of the "ip holder"'s business.

 

And I'd say there's a range of views about that on this channel, all supportable.

oh yes I concur but ulala wants to definitiviely post stuff and say "those are the FACTS" and they aren't facts.

[ulala]

13 minutes ago, Clipper said:

If you want to argue the toss over whether she got patreon because horace was in the videos or if the character was a co-presenter then go ahead.

 

Im not arguing that at all, you are twisting the narrative. She got patreon because she makes videos some people like. They happen to contain IP they have no rights to.

 

The videos were removed by the youtuber because they contained a character that they didnt own the IP to and did not want further strikes.

 

Without the videos, the youtuber would not collect patreon donations. Without patreon donations, the youtuber would have to leave social media and get a job as a copyrighter.

 

These are statements from the youtuber themselves.

 

This is why they were so geniunely distrought - or am i missing something?

 

Now this has been resolved, a disclaimer attached to each prior removed video, where the youtuber states the IP holder does not approve of the sexualisation of the character, but has allowed the video to appear, means that they can be uploaded without future strikes.

 

The character can only in future appear on the channel in the intro as is now, but not in future content after the intro.

 

This will enable the youtuber not to leave youtube, to continue to make videos, to continue to receive patreon contributions, so they do not have to leave youtube and get a job as a copyrighter.

 

Its all good, im so glad its been resolved to the satisfaction of both parties.

 

I hope the youtuber stays and keeps making videos people like, i hope the ip holder continues their business and the threats of physical attacks on them stop, and threats to other people in the chain of information

 

 

 

[Dudley]

1 hour ago, ulala said:

 

Sega? 

Whats it got to do with them what my name is?

 

 

 

 

It's a Sega character.

 

Presumably the person in the avatar isn't you either.

 

And don't even think about posting "I chose this nickname for non Space Channel reasons".

[Bluejam]

1 hour ago, Dudley said:

 

"PA".

 

Retro Princess (aka Hannah) replies on Facebook because Octy finds that stressful because the internet is stinkhole. That's the extent of that.

No she has confirmed previously that Retro Princess is her PA as well. I’ll try and find the tweet later if I can be arsed  

[Dudley]

Yeah but using that phrasing implies a full time job and some sort of business.

 

Rather than just a friend helping out someone with fragile mental health.

[maryliddon]

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCz5Kx6dP6rHRf9yLY1tnelw/videos

 

It's pretty funny, all of her videos are still private EXCEPT the ones Andrews complained about.

 

I think she's still offline and the strike removal meams they're the only ones you can see.

 

Having actually watched a couple (not my cup of tea) I must admit I'm surprised that, given the fuss, how little Horace there is and how un baudy it is at that.

 

The disclaimers Andrews wants will take up more video time than Horace does.

 

I'm really not sure he would be able to bring a succesful case on the basis of the skim viewing I just did.

 

[The Evener]

3 hours ago, ulala said:

 

Im not arguing that at all, you are twisting the narrative. She got patreon because she makes videos some people like. They happen to contain IP they have no rights to.

 

The videos were removed by the youtuber because they contained a character that they didnt own the IP to and did not want further strikes.

 

Without the videos, the youtuber would not collect patreon donations. Without patreon donations, the youtuber would have to leave social media and get a job as a copyrighter.

 

These are statements from the youtuber themselves.

 

This is why they were so geniunely distrought - or am i missing something?

 

Now this has been resolved, a disclaimer attached to each prior removed video, where the youtuber states the IP holder does not approve of the sexualisation of the character, but has allowed the video to appear, means that they can be uploaded without future strikes.

 

The character can only in future appear on the channel in the intro as is now, but not in future content after the intro.

 

This will enable the youtuber not to leave youtube, to continue to make videos, to continue to receive patreon contributions, so they do not have to leave youtube and get a job as a copyrighter.

 

Its all good, im so glad its been resolved to the satisfaction of both parties.

 

I hope the youtuber stays and keeps making videos people like, i hope the ip holder continues their business and the threats of physical attacks on them stop, and threats to other people in the chain of information

 

 

 

 

I fail to understand how an IP holder using a patent troll-type business model and choking off creative community use of a nearly 40 year old character known to a small subcommunity of the retro scene is "all good." The only reason we're at this place is because the YouTuber in question lacks the resources to fight it, which is precisely how this plays out every time creative people have to stare down thinly veiled legal threats from entities looking to monetize the cultural value that these fans sustained and made relevant to a new generation in the first place. This is all shameful so let's not pretend that anything flowing from this event is good in any way for the community and let's not enable this kind of business model by giving it a free pass.

[ulala]

53 minutes ago, The Evener said:

 

I fail to understand how an IP holder using a patent troll-type business model and choking off creative community use of a nearly 40 year old character known to a small subcommunity of the retro scene is "all good." The only reason we're at this place is because the YouTuber in question lacks the resources to fight it, which is precisely how this plays out every time creative people have to stare down thinly veiled legal threats from entities looking to monetize the cultural value that these fans sustained and made relevant to a new generation in the first place. This is all shameful so let's not pretend that anything flowing from this event is good in any way for the community and let's not enable this kind of business model by giving it a free pass.

all good as in it’s been resolved by both parties to a reasonable decision.

 

I’m sorry but I don’t agree that the youtuber in question has suddenly made an iconic gaming character somehow relevant. It’s quite insulting actually.

[Mortis]

Iconic  he was never iconic even when I owned a speccy as a kid - Horace was that blue blob in the series of games that ripped off other games but just not enough to get into trouble. 

[Clipper]

10 minutes ago, Mortis said:

Iconic  he was never iconic even when I owned a speccy as a kid - Horace was that blue blob in the series of games that ripped off other games but just not enough to get into trouble. 

how dare you - I wept for my childhood when I saw how this iconic character had been sexualised - it was like my innocence had been taken. I am so glad this upstanding citizen is protecting our treasured IP from mildly smutty youtube mentions.

 

 

[peteprodge]

7 hours ago, ulala said:

 

Sega? 

Whats it got to do with them what my name is?

 

 

 

[peteprodge]

7 hours ago, ulala said:

 

Im not arguing that at all, you are twisting the narrative. She got patreon because she makes videos some people like. They happen to contain IP they have no rights to.

 

You can include IP in things, without having 'rights', as long as it's Fair Use.

 

Hence why Family Guy can sexualise the most famous retrogaming icon ever known, and they still didn't get permission from Namco or whoever owns the IP...

 

 

This is one example of many that I could use. Taking the mick out of past pop culture is quite common in comedy TV shows, magazines and often you don't need permission to do it, it requires, what law would say, is artistic transformation.

 

7 hours ago, ulala said:

 

Its all good, im so glad its been resolved to the satisfaction of both parties.

 

I don't think "satisfaction" is the correct word to use.

 

[wev]

 

[Dudley]

3 hours ago, ulala said:

all good as in it’s been resolved by both parties to a reasonable decision.

 

Giving the school bully your lunch money to stop punching you is "resolved by both parties" yes.

 

[peteprodge]

Wow - another video from Tipster has been put out today, and all of a sudden, it seems Paul Andrews has done a few things wrong in this situation.

 

It's worth watching in full, because, it doesn't seem as though the rights of Horace are as clear cut as Andrews has been making out. There's some claims of fibbing when it comes to what was actually agreed between Octavius and Andrews.

Then there's the questionable behaviour of a very pro-Andrews Wikipedia user - which leads to more questions about the true ownership of the Horace character.

 

I think things are unravelling. We've had Edge's Tim Langdell getting caught out a while back with his ridiculous copyright claims, Elite's Steve Wilcox had his legal threats called out early this year.... After watching this, I wouldn't be surprised if Paul Andrews fits into such a list...

 

 

 

[SeanR]

So much wrong with that tipster video, aside from recommending that people watch the OK hotel room video, the agreement says she “can’t use it without permission”, that’s not the same as “can’t use the character going forward”, is it?

 

[Unofficial Who]

I suspect that she’ll probably drop making / sharing her videos which is a pity.

 

This would have sucked the joy out of it all.

[peteprodge]

4 hours ago, Unofficial Who said:

I suspect that she’ll probably drop making / sharing her videos which is a pity.

 

This would have sucked the joy out of it all.

 

Well, as of yesterday evening, she's begun to restore her YouTube channel. This includes her first two videos [1] [2] about the ZX Spectrum Horace games, which include the first depictions of Horace in her presenter links. Good to see them again, I hadn't seen them for over a year, and a rewatch shows Horace having to attend a Job Centre meeting. Wow. That's sooooo sexual!

 

You can see why Paul Andrews objected to such jaw-dropping hardcore material, he's a fine upstanding moral guardian, what with history having him as co-director of Erotic Chatbots Ltd and being the executive producer of 18-rated British Celebrity Babes 1, 2 and 3, which promises the viewer tantalising glimpses of the girls from Nuts and Zoo magazine.

 

This weekend Paul Andrews was asked by a journalist if he condoned George Cropper's review of Hungry Horace, and he confirmed he did. Um, the video has George describing one of the characters in the game as being a rampant sex pest, performing sexual assaults on people. George REALLY goes into detail on that.

[maryliddon]

6 hours ago, SeanR said:

So much wrong with that tipster video, aside from recommending that people watch the OK hotel room video, the agreement says she “can’t use it without permission”, that’s not the same as “can’t use the character going forward”, is it?

 

 

That aside, do you think there’s anything of interest there?

 

The appearance / disappearance of Horace on Andrews Redbubble site or the just in time wikipedia editing to assert Andrew’s ownership?

[maryliddon]

7 minutes ago, peteprodge said:

 

Well, as of yesterday evening, she's begun to restore her YouTube channel.

 

I don’t think she has. Google unstruck the videos Andrews disputed and they re-appeared because they were never made private.

 

It looks like she’s not been back to YT yet