Nintendo grabs money, control from fans promoting its games on Youtube

It's a stupid move by Nintendo.<p>Some people view Let's Plays before buying a game. People aren't going to go to the trouble of recording Let's Plays without getting any kind of ad revenue from it. So people aren't going to bother recording Nintendo games anymore.<p>And they can just delete all the Nintendo videos they already have up. So now Nintendo doesn't have anyone promoting their games (for free to Nintendo) and isn't getting any of the very small amounts of ad revenue and is competing against a bunch of other games that do have Let's Plays up online.

How can Nintendo claim ownership of the videos? I can see how they might claim ownership of the images and in-game sounds, but the commentary and actions made by the player is the ownership of the player.<p>Taking control of content which they only have partial legal right to is still very much illegal and copyright infringement. They are basically knowingly committing commercial piracy, including sending knowingly false take down notices (if they claim complete ownership). In times like that, the authors of said videos has a good chance to sue for damages.

Presumably Youtube asked the same question to Nintendo that Youtube did to Mojang, do you want to monetize your trademarks? Mojang declined earning off Minecraft's massive youtube impact[1], Nintendo wanted the cash.<p>And so we can clearly see Nintendo has lost its way and Minecraft is the the new Nintendo.<p>[1] <a href="https://twitter.com/notch/status/335045859156819969" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/notch/status/335045859156819969</a>

On one side there is huge incentive to be social on the web, which paramounts to sharing stuff with others.<p>On the other side, no one will let you share their content.<p>If the world were a person, he would be right on track for schizophrenia.

A good analogy is buying a car. If I buy a car and make a video at the beach that happens to include the car, what right does the car manufacturer have to say, "The video incorporates my IP, so therefore we're going to force you to show ads for our car"?<p>You could argue that videogames are somehow different. But they're not. If someone makes a video about having fun with their friends, then the game they're doing it in is almost incidental. For example: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD5J5LEBVCk" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD5J5LEBVCk</a><p>Videos such as that one take a lot of work to make. It takes many hours to record the content, many hours to edit it, and a way to promote it once it's made. The game maker probably doesn't deserve any slice of revenue generated from that. The game is incidental.

Christ, how deep in trouble is Nintendo if they are going after youtubers' - i.e. their marketing partners - money? I mean, what kind of revenue are we talking here, a couple of millions?

All these articles are assuming Nintendo will get the whole profits from the videos, but I'm not seeing that in any sources. Does any one have more info on that? As far as I understand it, Nintendo will only get a cut from the profits, YouTube another cut, and the rest will go to the creator of the video. Not that it makes the move much better, but I think it's important to note if people can still make money from Nintendo Let's Plays.<p>The other thing I would like to know if anyone has more info, is if this in fact, affects Let's Plays. Maybe they were only going after machinima, or videos that show trailers or cutscenes. Is there any source where I can read more of that? I think this could be the crux of the issue: if they aren't trying to get money from Let's Plays, the move isn't so bad. EDIT: NVM, read the original source and they are claiming LP videos... that's sad, really.<p>What I find weird about this whole thing is that neither Nintendo or YouTube have issued an explanation of how things are going to work, and why they think the move is a good one. With all the backslash that this has created in the last week, I would think those companies would like to offer their side of the argument.

Quick question for the legally-knowledgeable here (I am not an LPer and won't act on the knowledge, just want to know if what I know about the law is right).<p>As far as I know when you use any recorded human product (voice, movement, etc.) you need a signed "release form" from the people involved in that - else you stand to be sued for damages (due to rights violation, nothing to do with copyright, although I guess the LPers could have a case there as well). Music artists, for example, need to sign one of these release forms to give their publisher the rights to their voice.<p>Considering that the LPs are 50/50 Nintendo/LPer couldn't the LPer's [in theory] lash back and demand royalties because Nintendo illegally become their publisher without acquiring release forms (the YouTube EULA is between the LPer and YT, not the LPer and Nintendo)? Or indeed demand damages that far exceed any form of profit they have lost from the adverts in the first place (rights violation)? Or am I completely wrong?

You're killing free advertising, Nintendo. Good move.

I understand that some people view this as a bad thing, but if you want Nintendo to keep making games and consoles, some revenue would do them good.

Nintendo taking after Sony.