<- 12345 ->
--
--
List results:
Search options:
Use \ before commas in usernames
Get over here!
https://www.youtube.com/user/gamesdonequick - should have all runs except that single one. If you have any issues with the videos please report them in the other topic.
Edit history:
kirbymastah: 2015-08-06 01:22:46 pm
kirbymastah: 2015-08-06 01:22:24 pm
<(^_^)>
The raw stream VODs - https://www.youtube.com/user/gamesdonequick/videos

the properly edited VODs will be up in ~ one month.

also i love how so many people are actually taking emptyhero seriously, considering he's evidently been one of THOSE trolls that spreads false information about mike uyama Wink (and if you aren't, you're not doing a good job of talking like a reasonable GDQ viewer)

EDIT: sniped Sad slow internet
Quote from z1mb0bw4y:
Quote from EmptyHero:
Quote from z1mb0bw4y:
Quote from EmptyHero:
I would love to hear your explanation as to why you think this should be the case, the video is not monetized.


Did you even watch that run? That video is very clearly not about archiving the run for the sake of public enjoyment, and the uploader's comment seems to suggest the video is only even available on his channel to essentially shame the runner (who got banned from the event for his comments during the run). IMO, that's the sort of thing that should be prioritized when removing GDQ content from youtube...

I find it sad that people are so quick to censor something on the internet nowadays just because it offends some when others find it funny or enjoyable in some way.

The video is not hurting anyone, the runner was already banned off the face of the Earth, get over it; no one is forcing you to watch the video.


That's a perfectly reasonable view to have on reddit or 4chan or another open public forum between users, but when you're running a charity event and one of the participants makes casual jokes about suicide and domestic violence that has to be taken more seriously. I feel like you're intentionally not understanding this, and seeing you make comments like "Mike "Deep Pockets" Uyama" makes me question what your motives actually are. If you actually care so deeply about this issue, I feel like there are better ways to get your point across without coming off as an immature troll from SRG. In the meantime, it really does seem like you made your account a week ago specifically to shit on the event, which is presumably not how you'd want to appear.

I'm not "shitting on the event" whatsoever, I'm shitting on an poor idea that does not seem to be necessary. I already pointed out in my first post that I created this account specifically to point out how dumb of an idea it is to remove non-monetized videos for the sake of forcing everyone to go to GDQ's channel. I'm all for the idea of removing douchebags who are trying to profit off these charity videos, however I do not like unnecessary censorship of anything, even if I do not care for the content myself.

Quote from ShadowDraft:
Quote from EmptyHero:
Quote from TAG:
hi, found a video of current SGDQ2015 run, www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_dAdD9z9KA this is the crash 2 run, i strongly believe it should be taken down.

sorry if i am posting in wrong part.

EDIT: sorry, i accidentally made it embed. i fixed it.

I would love to hear your explanation as to why you think this should be the case, the video is not monetized.


It is monetized for me.


I did not ever see an ad after loading it 5 times, my apologies if I was incorrect. If it is monetized, by all means flag it.
For Fun! For GLORY!!
Oh no wonder I didn't see them. I'm not even following GDQ's YouTube account. Better fix that. Tongue
Cheers Shadow and Kirby. Now to get out before I get caught by the drama llama
Crawlathon WR, get down on my level.
This is the official response to why we're taking down videos regardless of monetization, and we will not be making any further statements on this matter.

First, one of the initial reasons we decided this was the following:

We wish to protect runners' views and their brand on their channels. We're the only ones that can do this. By limiting it to our channel (with the ability to request removal), the runners interested can ensure they aren't buried under a dozen copycats. We were approached by a number of runners regarding this situation.

In addition, we also have several GDQ-related reasons:

1. Determining whether a video is monetized is extremely difficult (if not impossible). YouTube can enable ads on videos that are both monetized and not monetized.
2. By allowing other channels to upload our videos, it makes it more difficult for viewers to discern what the "official" channel is.
3. As an addition to #2, it weakens our brand, which includes a registered trademark, that we are legally required to protect. Individual runner videos are authorized separately by us, and do not represent the entire event.
4. Another addition to #2, by allowing others to upload our content, they can misrepresent our event, the charity, the runners, etc. Policing thousands of videos across several channels would be a full time job in its own right.
Jumping Turtle
The pros and cons of being professional, I suppose. Hope y'all do a better job than NoA.
Edit history:
penta: 2015-08-06 05:26:56 pm
If I may suggest 2 things that maybe can reduce the piracy considerably in future events:

1) Locally record the runs and disable past broadcasts on twitch (restreams should also disable past broadcasts); OR

2) Do the highlights and download/upload to youtube within 24 hours from the past broadcast and then delete it.
Not a walrus
Quote from OctoberDan:
Had to register to ask a question here. Just wanted to upload one of SGDQ videos to YouTube with another language subtitles, but I heard about policy of removing videos from unofficial channels and quickly found this thread. I am not chasing views and was not going to monetize videos, so maybe I could transfer subtitles file to someone and people from my country who can't speak english would have an option to choose subs while watching videos on official channel? This way may cause some difficulties when searching actual video with subs but it's better than nothing. Though I didn't notice any subtitles in other videos from events, maybe there are some issues with it too, I really don't know. Speedrunning community is large, I'm sure this had been discussed somewhere. Sorry for bad english.


If you want to provide the subtitles file I can most likely attach it to whatever video after I upload the finalized version. What run is it, out of curiosity?
Stay Swampy
I'm fine with letting others upload my runs. I don't want to be bothered to make a video with chat, and I don't want to take credit for someone else who took the time and effort to encode the video with chat.
Jumping Turtle
Hmm, does YouTube have the option for multiple sets of subtitles to choose from?

In regards to authorizing others to upload, may there be an option in future game submission forms for varying levels of distribution rights?
Edit history:
Cool Matty: 2015-08-06 09:45:44 pm
Crawlathon WR, get down on my level.
If you're not going to upload the video to your own channel only, we need specifics on what you're planning on doing with it and what channel it will be on. I refer to my previous list of reasons for this rule, but basically we also have to protect GDQ trademark and the charity. We can decide these things on a case-by-case basis. We're still discussing things with staff on the final terms, but it will probably end up that runners will be fully responsible for their runs that they authorize on other channels (and thus take the fall if said channels become malicious, etc).
Keeper of TASBot
In the spirit of the above restrictions, I want to publicly state that the individual authors of a given TAS that was demonstrated (such as Shinyruu), the individual presenters (such as myself and micro500), and TASVideos.org (via the official https://www.youtube.com/user/TASVideosChannel method and on archive.org) have authorization to post videos of the TASBot block.

Copying a post I made in TASVideos: I had a lot of trouble controlling what kinds of encodes people were putting up for the TASBot block at AGDQ [2015]. To clarify, I am the "runner" in the context of the TASBot block and I authorize TASVideos to create encodes and post them on YouTube and elsewhere on my behalf, but YouTube user BlazeIt42013yo who posts a low bitrate encode doesn't have my permission and the above declaration from GDQ staff helps me enforce that.
Quote from UraniumAnchor:
What run is it, out of curiosity?

Mega Man 4 race by almondcity and Chelney. Subtitles are russian. Initially I wanted to upload just run itself, without first minutes of preparations and reading donations, so I should rework timing a little.
Crawlathon WR, get down on my level.
Quote from AdamAK:
Implicit consent in order to run the marathon stream, sure. Nobody's asked for their consent to upload the stream VoDs with their runs, however. Puts the GDQ Youtube channel in pretty much the same position as the other ones.

I'm not against taking down videos where people try to cash in on others' runs (i.e., monetised uploads by third parties), but I'm not in favour of the currently proposed policy. You're assuming that runners are giving GDQ some kind of exclusive license for the runs, which is not necessarily the case at all.
Doesn't seem like this is your call to make. (Unless the sign-up got changed substantially compared to e.g. AGDQ this year)


I just wanted to clarify what runners have agreed to, by quoting the relevant portion of the waiver. I don't have the old versions in front of me, but I'm fairly sure this particular segment has been in the waiver untouched since 2014. It was definitely live before SGDQ2015 registration opened.

Quote:
I also grant Games Done Quick LLC and its affiliates irrevocable permission to make use of my likeness, image, voice or actions
                        captured during the marathon without further permission or compensation. I understand that this event is streamed live online and
                        that I may also be filmed or photographed for documentary or charitable purposes.


Meaning the following:

1. While we do not have exclusive rights, we do have the right to use the likeness and actions of runners and all attendees.
2. Because we don't have exclusive rights, you could upload your own runs without our permission, but you cannot use our production of your run to do so. Seeing as our production is the only version of the run available, this means that we must grant runners explicit permission to use their runs on their channels, which we do.

Personally I hate that waivers and legal nonsense are needed for all of this, but it's pretty obvious that if we didn't have these protections, someone would abuse it to hurt GDQ, the runners, or even the charity.

If anyone has other questions about their rights in regards to their runs and the content on GDQ, feel free to ask.
Totally rad
Thanks for the answer, CMatty. I wish I could check the sign up waivers of past years, but I have no way to access them, sadly. I'll take your word on those lines. Didn't really expect this topic to pop up, I suppose.

I only have a few questions left:
1) The thread title refers to future uploads, but I'm still wondering what the plan is for existing uploads of e.g. AGDQ2014 VoDs? There's the SpeedDemosArchiveSDA Youtube channel with pretty much all the runs upload, but it gives full credit to *GDQ and the runners. Seems to be inactive since AGDQ14 in terms of uploading new VoDs, however. Are these videos planned to be taken down as well, or does the new policy only really concern VoDs from SGDQ15 and onward? Didn't see a clear answer to this earlier in the thread. (Addendum: I think it would be a shame to remove those videos)

2) Could modifications of the VoDs be uploaded without being taken down? By modifications, I mean anything ranging from just having a commentary voice-over in another language to cropping out most of the layout, leaving just the game feed (and optionally providing new commentary) and uploading that? What's considered a derivative work rather than a "GDQ production"? For simplicity, assume there's no monetisation and that the runner gave his/her permission to do whatever the uploader wants with the run.

3) As a somewhat related follow up question, why was the Crash 2 compilation taken down? I thought it was a shitty video (very likely for other reasons than you guys), but would surely fall under fair use (as critique, albeit a crappy one)? Are any kinds of compilation videos (positive, neutral or negative ones) or critiques impossible to make from now on?
Crawlathon WR, get down on my level.
Quote from AdamAK:

I only have a few questions left:
1) The thread title refers to future uploads, but I'm still wondering what the plan is for existing uploads of e.g. AGDQ2014 VoDs? There's the SpeedDemosArchiveSDA Youtube channel with pretty much all the runs upload, but it gives full credit to *GDQ and the runners. Seems to be inactive since AGDQ14 in terms of uploading new VoDs, however. Are these videos planned to be taken down as well, or does the new policy only really concern VoDs from SGDQ15 and onward? Didn't see a clear answer to this earlier in the thread. (Addendum: I think it would be a shame to remove those videos)


Pretty sure it says in the first post, but w/e.

New rules applies to SGDQ2015 onward. SDA's uploads of our event are practically our own doing, so it would be especially dumb for us to take that down.

Quote:
2) Could modifications of the VoDs be uploaded without being taken down? By modifications, I mean anything ranging from just having a commentary voice-over in another language to cropping out most of the layout, leaving just the game feed (and optionally providing new commentary) and uploading that? What's considered a derivative work rather than a "GDQ production"? For simplicity, assume there's no monetisation and that the runner gave his/her permission to do whatever the uploader wants with the run.


The whole video is considered our production, although it'd be a complete waste for us to go after videos that aren't using our audio and cropping out the layout entirely. I don't think there's going to be anyone willing to upload a video like that though, it just sounds awful. If the runner gave his permission to someone else to do it, we'd apply the previous rules anyway, so any modification wouldn't make a difference, as long as it's not malicious. The runner would still be responsible for said content as well.

Quote:
3) As a somewhat related follow up question, why was the Crash 2 compilation taken down? I thought it was a shitty video (very likely for other reasons than you guys), but would surely fall under fair use (as critique, albeit a crappy one)? Are any kinds of compilation videos (positive, neutral or negative ones) or critiques impossible to make from now on?


Judgment for whether something is fair use is up to a court to decide, really. I don't know the specific video, as I'm not issuing the takedowns, but if it features large chunks of our event, that's still not fair use, even for critiquing or press or otherwise. In addition, there are also trademarks in play, which have a very different set of rules than copyright (generally far more stringent, far less fair use).
(user is banned)
So you're keeping the money secretlly for your selves and you dont want more attentuon hgot u m8s .
(user is banned)
also you cant stop someone with a 1GBPS upload and VPN>
Borderlands 2 Glitch Hunter/ router.
Quote from SanyaZ:
So you're keeping the money secretlly for your selves and you dont want more attentuon hgot u m8s .


You do realise that the videos hosted on the official YT page (https://www.youtube.com/user/gamesdonequick/videos) are NOT monetized ? 

Quote from SanyaZ:
also you cant stop someone with a 1GBPS upload and VPN>


Also 1Gbps (because its Mega-bits not Mega-bytes) is actually 250MBps as an upload/download speed, at which point using a VPN slows that down to like nothing unless you happen to be on your own private VPN host who ALSO has a 1Gbps connection their end you bottleneck. 
Life's short. Get a dog.
Quote from Cool Matty:
3. As an addition to #2, it weakens our brand, which includes a registered trademark, that we are legally required to protect.

Quote from Cool Matty:
In addition, there are also trademarks in play, which have a very different set of rules than copyright (generally far more stringent, far less fair use).

Apologies, but the only trademark I could find is the Games Done Quick mark, which is just a standard service mark covering class 36 charitable fundraising services, so I do not see why someone would think that would be at issue for non-monetized VODs.  Even if we allow that part of your business is monetized entertainment under class 41 and also protected, there is no confusion as to source. Your mark is very clearly displayed in any footage that they use since it is your footage and has all your layouts.  In short, what they are presenting IS your product so there isn't a trademark issue, it is solely a copyright issue.

You do have valid copyright claims, since most of these videos are 100% your footage.  But, copyright does not have the same requirements of policing that trademarks do.  So, you do not have an obligation to flag, though you do certainly have the right to.

Bearing that in mind, another option you might consider, if there is backlash for the new policy being too restrictive (since youtube can be quite harsh with how it handles take-downs,) would be to white-list any video that is anyway transformative (adding commentary, super cut, chat, etc.) so long as they link to your channel, and are not monetized.  Then, let your service flag all of the videos that are just straight copies (which are easier to find anyway.)
Quote from BayouBillyBones:
Quote from Cool Matty:
3. As an addition to #2, it weakens our brand, which includes a registered trademark, that we are legally required to protect.

Quote from Cool Matty:
In addition, there are also trademarks in play, which have a very different set of rules than copyright (generally far more stringent, far less fair use).

Apologies, but the only trademark I could find is the Games Done Quick mark, which is just a standard service mark covering class 36 charitable fundraising services, so I do not see why someone would think that would be at issue for non-monetized VODs.  Even if we allow that part of your business is monetized entertainment under class 41 and also protected, there is no confusion as to source. Your mark is very clearly displayed in any footage that they use since it is your footage and has all your layouts.  In short, what they are presenting IS your product so there isn't a trademark issue, it is solely a copyright issue.

You do have valid copyright claims, since most of these videos are 100% your footage.  But, copyright does not have the same requirements of policing that trademarks do.  So, you do not have an obligation to flag, though you do certainly have the right to.

Bearing that in mind, another option you might consider, if there is backlash for the new policy being too restrictive (since youtube can be quite harsh with how it handles take-downs,) would be to white-list any video that is anyway transformative (adding commentary, super cut, chat, etc.) so long as they link to your channel, and are not monetized.  Then, let your service flag all of the videos that are just straight copies (which are easier to find anyway.)


Two quick corrections as for Trademarks.

One, trademarks need not be registered, so even if they've just registered it under a certain category, it doesn't mean their mark is less than that or doesn't cover other marks used by GDQ. 

Second:  Another party using your trademark, which they are, by uploading the footage with the same product, is in fact diluting the trademark.  It doesn't matter that the mark is in the same footage - in fact that's what makes it a problem in that they're using the mark on their channel, which gives the impression the mark is connected with the channel.  It is not.  This is textbook infringement. 
<(^_^)>
Not a walrus
Also worth noting in regards to the GDQ trademark is that we've already had notable confusion about an unofficial channel being an official channel because of the name and branding on it. Said channel eventually changed upon our request. So it has already been an issue, it's not something we're just thinking might be a problem.
Life's short. Get a dog.
Quote from garik16:
Two quick corrections as for Trademarks.

One, trademarks need not be registered, so even if they've just registered it under a certain category, it doesn't mean their mark is less than that or doesn't cover other marks used by GDQ. 

Second:  Another party using your trademark, which they are, by uploading the footage with the same product, is in fact diluting the trademark.  It doesn't matter that the mark is in the same footage - in fact that's what makes it a problem in that they're using the mark on their channel, which gives the impression the mark is connected with the channel.  It is not.  This is textbook infringement. 

Not quite.
1. Rather than turning to common law protection, the better argument to make would be that the categories are for administrative purposes only and so only business use should limit, and after all, aren't all service marks related anyway.  But then, you would want to see GDQ monetize their videos.

2. Textbook copyright infringement, sure, but not trademark infringement.  You are getting a little sidelined with dilution which deals more with non competing goods, let's circle back.  Textbook trademark infringement is my (infringer's) goods with your (mark holder's) mark (or confusingly similar mark.)  Your video with my mark is copyright infringement.  Your video with your mark on my page is copyright infringement.  But, it is only trademark infringement once the goods or services are different.  So, my marathon using your mark is trademark infringement.

Now, GDQ has every right to enforce their copyright for whatever reason they deem fit, so if they want to file DMCAs to get the views onto their official instead, that is their prerogative.  But, they do not risk getting their trademark cancelled by their videos showing up on unrelated channels.

You might be thinking of another issue that comes up in the same space, cyber-squatting.  So, if someone made a youtube channel using the phrase "games done quick" or some variant you would have clear trademark infringement, but this time because it is your name used for their stuff and not your stuff used for their name.

In any event, in the interest of not derailing the thread any further. I will keep all other responses to PM, where I can give you some more info and cases if you are interested.