There is theoretical harm in trying.
Until now copyright owners have not noticed or cared about tasvideos.org. By blatantly infringing their copyright for commercial purposes we might draw their attention not only to those videos, but to the entire website.
When the first "cease and desist" notice drops into some tasvideos.org admin email box from some overprotective copyright holder who has so far not noticed us, that's when the harm will have been done.
Well, TASVideos isn't a multimillion company... it's about making maybe a few hundred bucks to keep the server running...
Also, wouldn't at most the particular movie with the adds be removed from that particular youtube account?
Well, TASVideos isn't a multimillion company... it's about making maybe a few hundred bucks to keep the server running...
But there are tons of examples of copyright holders (including very especially gaming companies) sending cease&desist notices to hobbyists who aren't even making any money from it. How much likely it would be if they actually are making money out of it, no matter how little?
Also, wouldn't at most the particular movie with the adds be removed from that particular youtube account?
The problem I see is that it might draw attention to the tasvideos.org website. The game company who demanded the removal of the video from youtube might start looking at the originating website to see if there's more copyright being infringed there.
Well, TASVideos isn't a multimillion company... it's about making maybe a few hundred bucks to keep the server running...
But there are tons of examples of copyright holders (including very especially gaming companies) sending cease&desist notices to hobbyists who aren't even making any money from it. How much likely it would be if they actually are making money out of it, no matter how little?
What on earths name would their legal justifications be? Ads on a site are totally fine, then it would be illegal to have ads on this site as well as we provide videos showing game footage. Hell, SDA even puts several ads on their games pages, dont you think they checked the legal circumstances beforehand?
What on earths name would their legal justifications be?
I'm certainly not a lawyer, but the line between fair use and copyright infringement is quite fuzzy, and not really something you want to mess with.
Making a review, commentary or parody of a copyrighted work falls under fair use, but you nevertheless should only use relatively short segments of the original work. The more of the original work you use, the more it starts probing the borders of fair use.
I don't know if a video showing a complete playthrough falls under fair use or can be considered copyright infringement, but I wouldn't be surprised of the latter (especially if the video cannot be considered a review or commentary of the game).
And this has nothing to do with whether the infringer is making money out of it or not. That is inconsequential. (The only thing which it might affect is the willingness of the copyright holder to react.)
Ads on a site are totally fine, then it would be illegal to have ads on this site as well as we provide videos showing game footage. Hell, SDA even puts several ads on their games pages, dont you think they checked the legal circumstances beforehand?
I don't know if they have checked their legal status, but I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't. AFAIK tasvideos.org hasn't, so why should they have?
If SDA is pulling it out, then it can work as evidence that maybe game companies don't mind, but it would in no way be a defense for us.
Keep in mind that regardless of whether or not we'd legally be in the clear, a lawsuit would be disasterous for the TASVideos maintainers, who'd have to dedicate a lot of time and money to defending themselves. Thus I tend to err on the side of recommending caution whenever someone gets into one of these legal gray areas; even if you're actually in the clear (and again, you'd need a lawyer to tell you if you were), the cost of getting sued even if you win generally makes it not worthwhile.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Joined: 11/4/2007
Posts: 1772
Location: Australia, Victoria
The Spriters Resource uses ads to keep its website up.
They host ripped sprite imagery from video games.
We make up input to play video games.
No one has sued TSR.
I think we are safe.
Joined: 8/26/2006
Posts: 1139
Location: United Kingdom
For the record, in the real world I'm a year away from law school graduation and agree fully with what Warp has said. The video game industry is notorious for enforcing intellectual property rights (one that sticks out in my mind is the Chrono Trigger fan-remake).
Making money at the expense of the copyright holder is always a bad idea, and even using them at all can be grounds for C&D (despite fair use it can often come down to bargaining positions). This website is swarming with copyright infringement, and the main reason we have not already been litigated against is because we are under the radar and have not given ourselves reason not to be.
I personally find it unlikely that if we were to accept advertisement money that we would suddenly come under fire, but the risk involved is higher. The relevant question is whether the extra risk involved is worth the money gained. I'd say the risk is small, because it will likely become a youtube issue before it becomes a tasvideos issue. YouTube ads are on many videos and I'm sure many of them infringe copyright and few if any experience legal action. I'd argue that the main risk is in being made an example of (see Chrono Trigger example).
Ask a lawyer.
This said, on your notice of acceptance, I would refuse to view videos on and block any access to your account from my machines. Youtube ads are very intrusive and annoying and I don't think the amount of income it could provide is worth the nuisance.
What on earths name would their legal justifications be? Ads on a site are totally fine, then it would be illegal to have ads on this site as well as we provide videos showing game footage. Hell, SDA even puts several ads on their games pages, dont you think they checked the legal circumstances beforehand?
shh, logic makes heads explode
--
also difference: the chrono trigger remake was a remake that you would download and play through
whereas a TAS is not a game that you download, it is a movie you watch.
given that fan/gitch videos have been up for years and years and years and some have reached partner status I think all of this FUD is completely fucking unwarranted
What on earths name would their legal justifications be? Ads on a site are totally fine, then it would be illegal to have ads on this site as well as we provide videos showing game footage. Hell, SDA even puts several ads on their games pages, dont you think they checked the legal circumstances beforehand?
shh, logic makes heads explode
--
also difference: the chrono trigger remake was a remake that you would download and play through
whereas a TAS is not a game that you download, it is a movie you watch.
given that fan/gitch videos have been up for years and years and years and some have reached partner status I think all of this FUD is completely fucking unwarranted
I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Let's just block Flash. Okay.
I rarely use Youtube, but perhaps you don't understand what the Youtube ads are? The least annoying ones are shit that pops up in the middle of the video. The more annoying ones are ads that play for 15 seconds before the video starts. This isn't an AdBlock-solvable issue, although the latter case may have workarounds.
Re: CTR, that was simply a C&D that was taken too seriously. Either the project was never really getting anywhere, or the authors were too scared (their intention was to release for free, using original content).
Why are you all still crying over this? Just forget about it and move on.
or the authors were too scared (their intention was to release for free, using original content).
When will people get rid of the misconception that copyright infringement must entail commercial usage? Copyright infringement has nothing to do with whether you are making money out of it or not. It doesn't matter if you are distributing it for free. It doesn't even matter if you were paying money to people to take it. That doesn't affect the question of whether it's copyright infringement or not.
Under US law, whether or not you make money off it makes a world of difference, in terms of damages, and determining whether or not the circumstance qualifies as "fair use".
If you make money off it, it becomes commercial usage, and inelligible for the "fair use" exceptions to copyright infringement.
How fleeting are all human passions compared with the massive continuity of ducks.
Under US law, whether or not you make money off it makes a world of difference, in terms of damages, and determining whether or not the circumstance qualifies as "fair use".
If you make money off it, it becomes commercial usage, and inelligible for the "fair use" exceptions to copyright infringement.
I honestly don't understand how that can be. If that were so, then it would make it illegal, for example, for a gaming magazine to publish reviews of games with screenshots of the game in them. Publishing screenshots of games in a review definitely falls into fair use and thus is not copyright infringement, and most gaming magazines do it for commercial purposes.
Don't the major publications get special permission to use those or something?
Every single gaming magazine in the world asks permission from every single game company and distributor? I don't think so.
It falls under fair use (and for a good reason too).
Every single gaming magazine in the world asks permission from every single game company and distributor? I don't think so.
It falls under fair use (and for a good reason too).
I honnestly think, back in the days where magazines was ruling the info on gaming, they did ask permission yes, rather i would say, to get the screenshoot... you need to ask them coz you probably cant produce it yourself
Same for preview (instead reviews), there wasnt internet back then, or not like whe know it nowaday, without asking the company, it was probably near impossible to get something to display in the magazine
I dont claim they always asked for everything, thats pretty obviously not the case, most reviews you just get the cartdrige by buying it... but preview and such, without internet, mean a direct communication between magazine and the game editor
Getting the game before it hit the store surely mean they asked for it
or the authors were too scared (their intention was to release for free, using original content).
When will people get rid of the misconception that copyright infringement must entail commercial usage? Copyright infringement has nothing to do with whether you are making money out of it or not. It doesn't matter if you are distributing it for free. It doesn't even matter if you were paying money to people to take it. That doesn't affect the question of whether it's copyright infringement or not.
You win the misinterpretation prize. Have a code block.
Gaming magazines do not need permission. Fair use is defined as "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research." Parody falls under criticism. Now this doesn't give them free reign. How much they reproduce and how they use it determines if they are in violation of the law. Screenshots and quotes to illustrate their points is okay. Simply showing all the best parts of a book or movie to show the best parts is not okay.
Joined: 5/13/2009
Posts: 700
Location: suffern, ny
Its easy, you write a book and copyright it. Someone else wants to print your book from another company, they need to pay you to do so. On the other hand, a popular magazine wants to have an article published with a quote form your book, they can do so as long as they give your credit.
Now when the copyright expires and something goes into the public domain, it is free to use. I could hand publish my own versions of Shakespeare if I wanted to, and I would have to pay a nickel to any estate. Its free to use.
I personally dont know the laws of video game copyrighting, it would be helpful to look up. But most companies who made these games are not making ANY money off of these game( and if they are, From the Wii virtual console, then very little). Why should they care how there used? IF we were doing this for games that were out today, and downloading them illegally, then it would be wrong.and they would have a case.
As long as the Name of the game and the system it came out for are listed, we should be fine. Also i think listing the name of the person who made the run should also help.
[19:16] <scrimpy> silly portuguese
[19:16] <scrimpy> it's like spanish, only less cool
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3599)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
funnyhair wrote:
But most companies who made these games are not making ANY money off of these game( and if they are, From the Wii virtual console, then very little). Why should they care how there used? IF we were doing this for games that were out today, and downloading them illegally, then it would be wrong.and they would have a case.
What about our DS TASes? Game boy Advance?
We are also on the verge of having Gamecube & Wii TASes and possibly even PS2.
There is a grey area in regards to DMCA and similar laws of digital copyright management that is shifted between infringement and fair use by the intent of the "author". Naturally it allows paradoxical situations when content is coped via illegitimate means yet, of the acquirement of said means goes unnoticed, further usage cannot be claimed illegal unless/until it breaks other laws.
It doesn't pertain to digital media. For instance, distribution and storage of illegal drugs is prohibited and is a criminal offense — being under their influence, per se, is not. Same with certain weaponry.
In regards to TASing, the companies have no real ways to establish the ways the players are using to get access to ROMs, and thus cannot prosecute them for that (a situation similar to hypothetical SDA player using a pirated game to make a speedrun, something that cannot be traced). But creating TASes using the ROMs, by itself, is not illegal and cannot be prosecuted or claimed as copyright infringement since the act of TASing or releasing a video of a TAS is not an infringement in any way I know, and, largely because of that, the companies just don't bother with the likes of us: there are no solid legal reasons to close such a site, and even if one site is closed, another two will pop up in its stead.
Getting ad revenue falls into this grey area as well, but there is no doubt it does shift the author's intent away from fair use. It shouldn't still be a solid ground for C&D'ing the site, but it can drag the administration into a legal debate that will ultimately cost more than what might be covered with well-placed ads.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
But creating TASes using the ROMs, by itself, is not illegal and cannot be prosecuted or claimed as copyright infringement
That's certainly true, but it's not the problem being discussed. The problem is not creating TASes, or even publishing movie (ie. emulator keystroke recording) files. The problem is publishing videos containing significant portions of the game's music sountrack (sometimes even full songs). That, all by itself, is copyright infringement and cannot be claimed to be under fair use. It's redistribution of music without permission.
(Also publishing a video with significant amounts of the game's graphics, ie. artwork, might also be copyright infringement, although I must confess I am not equally certain as with the music. A safe bet would be to assume it is copyright infringement.)
since the act of TASing or releasing a video of a TAS is not an infringement in any way I know
Unfortunately the soundtrack of the published video will be copyright infringement all by itself, so technically speaking there's no way we are in the clear. Most of the copyright holders might not care, and some of them might even deliberately allow it, but it cannot be assumed from all of them.
That's why I'm of the opinion that it would be a wise move to keep a low profile and not draw attention with advertisement stunts.
