Regarding Future Video Uploads

2015-08-09 02:12:22 pm

Crawlathon WR, get down on my level.

Quote from BayouBillyBones:

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.

This actually has happened already and is why I brought up the trademark issue.

JaggerG

2015-08-09 02:16:17 pm

Jumping Turtle

The question on everyone's mind: is JRDQ canon? :^P

Kimra

2015-08-09 06:34:28 pm

Let me get this right, your taking someone else’s copyrighted material e.g. a Computer Game, adding a recording off to the side with commentary, slapping your logo on the video, and then claiming copyright to it, and dictating who can distribute it.

So if I take your copyrighted material, add a recording off to the side, commentate it and slap my logo on it, I can claim copyright to that, right?!

TheMG2

2015-08-09 06:42:24 pm

Quote from Kimra:

Let me get this right, your taking someone else’s copyrighted material e.g. a Computer Game, adding a recording off to the side with commentary, slapping your logo on the video, and then claiming copyright to it, and dictating who can distribute it.

GDQ is far from the first to do this.

Cool Matty

Edit history:

Cool Matty: 2015-08-09 06:50:51 pm

2015-08-09 06:49:31 pm

Crawlathon WR, get down on my level.

Quote from Kimra:

Let me get this right, your taking someone else’s copyrighted material e.g. a Computer Game, adding a recording off to the side with commentary, slapping your logo on the video, and then claiming copyright to it, and dictating who can distribute it.

So if I take your copyrighted material, add a recording off to the side, commentate it and slap my logo on it, I can claim copyright to that, right?!

Twitch would literally not exist if gameplay wasn't something you could use. It's very much true that the game companies have copyright on their games, but they do not enforce said rights, at least not often, and not strictly.

JaggerG

2015-08-09 09:15:57 pm

Jumping Turtle

In Nintendo's case, after the big Let's Play controversy, Nintendo enforces ads on YouTube content matching their IPs, claiming revenue from it. And it took them quite some time to even let videos even stay online at all. Some companies still enforce audio removal on archived footage, regardless of gameplay or additional commentary.

I'm not sure if Nintendo's adjusted their stance, but last I heard, they'd offered shared ad revenue only under the condition that it's exclusively featuring Nintendo content? I'm not entirely clear on it, so hopefully someone else can confirm or deny.

Gildersneeze

2015-08-10 04:57:01 am

Quote from Kimra:

Let me get this right, your taking someone else’s copyrighted material e.g. a Computer Game, adding a recording off to the side with commentary, slapping your logo on the video, and then claiming copyright to it, and dictating who can distribute it.

So if I take your copyrighted material, add a recording off to the side, commentate it and slap my logo on it, I can claim copyright to that, right?!

You can claim copyright to your commentary and any original content you created. You cannot claim copyright to the content you did NOT create, which would be the GDQ video and the video games being played. Games Done Quick is not claiming copyright to the games, but to content they created. GDQ would be within their rights to ask you to remove content you used without permission. Game developers/companies would be within their rights to ask both to remove protected content used without permission.

Most game developers/companies realize that people having fun playing their video games for the internet is basically an hours-long commercial for their products which they didn't have to pay a cent to create, so they don't tend to care about it all that much. In GDQ's case there's the added bad look of telling a charity event "no, you can't show our games, sorry."

[quote="Kimra"]Let me get this right, your taking someone else’s copyrighted material e.g. a Computer Game, adding a recording off to the side with commentary, slapping your logo on the video, and then claiming copyright to it, and dictating who can distribute it.

So if I take your copyrighted material, add a recording off to the side, commentate it and slap my logo on it, I can claim copyright to that, right?!
[/quote]You can claim copyright to your commentary and any original content you created.  You cannot claim copyright to the content you did NOT create, which would be the GDQ video and the video games being played. Games Done Quick is not claiming copyright to the games, but to content they created.  GDQ would be within their rights to ask you to remove content you used without permission.  Game developers/companies would be within their rights to ask both to remove protected content used without permission.

Most game developers/companies realize that people having fun playing their video games for the internet is basically an hours-long commercial for their products which they didn't have to pay a cent to create, so they don't tend to care about it all that much.  In GDQ's case there's the added bad look of telling a charity event "no, you can't show our games, sorry."

presjpolk

Edit history:

presjpolk: 2015-08-10 07:08:44 am

presjpolk: 2015-08-10 07:08:20 am

2015-08-10 07:07:51 am

HELLO!

Quote from Kimra:

Let me get this right, your taking someone else’s copyrighted material e.g. a Computer Game, adding a recording off to the side with commentary, slapping your logo on the video, and then claiming copyright to it, and dictating who can distribute it.

So if I take your copyrighted material, add a recording off to the side, commentate it and slap my logo on it, I can claim copyright to that, right?!

Better not quit your job and start IP lawyering son. You have a lot to learn. Fair use actually does exist, even if it's not *nearly* as expansive as some think. Commentated video game speedrunning qualifies.

dwangoAC

2015-08-10 10:48:17 pm

Keeper of TASBot

Quote from Kimra:

Let me get this right, your taking someone else’s copyrighted material e.g. a Computer Game, adding a recording off to the side with commentary, slapping your logo on the video, and then claiming copyright to it, and dictating who can distribute it.

So if I take your copyrighted material, add a recording off to the side, commentate it and slap my logo on it, I can claim copyright to that, right?!

This has been discussed extensively at TASVideos - please read the following page: http://tasvideos.org/Nach/FairUse.html

This is definitely a complex issue with a lot of legal posturing that's worth discussing. I suppose if an "evil" content creator pulls a Let's Play or a speedrun they may get some attention as a result of the Streisand Effect but having more content out there about your game is probably a better choice in the long run...

reflect

2015-08-14 04:51:26 pm

I like this idea for the videos because it ensures the highest quality is available in one central location. thumbsup

JaggerG

2015-08-15 03:59:11 pm

Jumping Turtle

Uploading the highest quality videos in one central location ensures the highest quality is available in one central location. Removing videos on other channels does not help that.

joe40001

2015-09-10 06:17:24 pm

I have some concerns about this. Such as how it makes GDQ videos overall less available. I think the downsides of this new way can be seen in how difficult it is to even find these videos. When you google them instead of finding them you find the re-streams. I think that kinda goes to show how being open encourages and helps people find GDQ stuff more easily. Obviously it's ok to stop people trying to make a profit off it or something bad like that. But people just sharing these videos as a public service does truly help increase GDQ awareness and viewership.

I have noticed that comments are disabled on some if not all of the videos. If this is part of the new model this is IMO a very bad idea. GDQ is about openness and enthusiasm, making hard to find videos released months late and then disabling discussion really hurts the cause IMO. I understand some of the motivating factors but in the future you should consider doing it differently. When I hear things like "we must protect the GDQ brand" it doesn't to me sound like the same spirit of trust, kindness, and decency with which GDQs were founded.

If you maybe limit allowed uploaders to people who have always uploaded respectfully and well in the past, or maybe just PMed them and got them to help the GDQ channel I think this would be a good idea. As it is I think focusing more on "protecting brands" and "locking discussion" and less on community, openness, and accessibility are very much not in the right spirit, and I do hope this new approach is reconsidered.

I have some concerns about this. Such as how it makes GDQ videos overall less available. I think the downsides of this new way can be seen in how difficult it is to even find these videos. When you google them instead of finding them you find the re-streams. I think that kinda goes to show how being open encourages and helps people find GDQ stuff more easily. Obviously it's ok to stop people trying to make a profit off it or something bad like that. But people just sharing these videos as a public service does truly help increase GDQ awareness and viewership.

I have noticed that comments are disabled on some if not all of the videos. If this is part of the new model this is IMO a very bad idea. GDQ is about openness and enthusiasm, making hard to find videos released months late and then disabling discussion really hurts the cause IMO. I understand some of the motivating factors but in the future you should consider doing it differently. When I hear things like "we must protect the GDQ brand" it doesn't to me sound like the same spirit of trust, kindness, and decency with which GDQs were founded.

If you maybe limit allowed uploaders to people who have always uploaded respectfully and well in the past, or maybe just PMed them and got them to help the GDQ channel I think this would be a good idea. As it is I think focusing more on "protecting brands" and "locking discussion" and less on community, openness, and accessibility are very much not in the right spirit, and I do hope this new approach is reconsidered.

Cool Matty

2015-09-10 07:48:50 pm

Crawlathon WR, get down on my level.

Quote from joe40001:

I have some concerns about this. Such as how it makes GDQ videos overall less available. I think the downsides of this new way can be seen in how difficult it is to even find these videos. When you google them instead of finding them you find the re-streams. I think that kinda goes to show how being open encourages and helps people find GDQ stuff more easily. Obviously it's ok to stop people trying to make a profit off it or something bad like that. But people just sharing these videos as a public service does truly help increase GDQ awareness and viewership.

I have noticed that comments are disabled on some if not all of the videos. If this is part of the new model this is IMO a very bad idea. GDQ is about openness and enthusiasm, making hard to find videos released months late and then disabling discussion really hurts the cause IMO. I understand some of the motivating factors but in the future you should consider doing it differently. When I hear things like "we must protect the GDQ brand" it doesn't to me sound like the same spirit of trust, kindness, and decency with which GDQs were founded.

If you maybe limit allowed uploaders to people who have always uploaded respectfully and well in the past, or maybe just PMed them and got them to help the GDQ channel I think this would be a good idea. As it is I think focusing more on "protecting brands" and "locking discussion" and less on community, openness, and accessibility are very much not in the right spirit, and I do hope this new approach is reconsidered.

I'm not aware of any of our public videos having comments disabled. Make sure the video you're watching isn't still unlisted.

Also, we've already gone over most of what you mentioned in this post, and branding was only one of many concerns.

[quote="joe40001"]I have some concerns about this. Such as how it makes GDQ videos overall less available. I think the downsides of this new way can be seen in how difficult it is to even find these videos. When you google them instead of finding them you find the re-streams. I think that kinda goes to show how being open encourages and helps people find GDQ stuff more easily. Obviously it's ok to stop people trying to make a profit off it or something bad like that. But people just sharing these videos as a public service does truly help increase GDQ awareness and viewership.

I have noticed that comments are disabled on some if not all of the videos. If this is part of the new model this is IMO a very bad idea. GDQ is about openness and enthusiasm, making hard to find videos released months late and then disabling discussion really hurts the cause IMO. I understand some of the motivating factors but in the future you should consider doing it differently. When I hear things like "we must protect the GDQ brand" it doesn't to me sound like the same spirit of trust, kindness, and decency with which GDQs were founded.

If you maybe limit allowed uploaders to people who have always uploaded respectfully and well in the past, or maybe just PMed them and got them to help the GDQ channel I think this would be a good idea. As it is I think focusing more on "protecting brands" and "locking discussion" and less on community, openness, and accessibility are very much not in the right spirit, and I do hope this new approach is reconsidered.[/quote]

I'm not aware of any of our public videos having comments disabled. Make sure the video you're watching isn't still unlisted.

Also, we've already gone over most of what you mentioned in this post, and branding was only one of many concerns.

UraniumAnchor

Edit history:

UraniumAnchor: 2015-09-10 08:42:15 pm

2015-09-10 08:42:04 pm

Not a walrus

As I replaced the initial uploads with cleaned up ones I unlisted the old videos, as well as disabling comments and ratings on them. It was meant to encourage people to watch the cleaned up versions, but unfortunately there are public playlists (not from us) that still link to the old ones. I'm not sure if there's an easy way to fix that.

TheMG2

2015-09-10 08:48:00 pm

I don't know, but you could probably change the title of the videos and have annotations to link to the cleaned up versions, but this would probably have to be done manually.

UraniumAnchor

2015-09-10 09:00:16 pm

Not a walrus

At this point, yes, since there's no link between the runs and the old existing videos. Somebody would have to link all the old IDs manually, at the very least, and I'd have to write a script that fixed them all up.

If anybody wants to tackle such a task (getting me a list of all 159 runs and their respective video IDs) let me know and I'll see what I can do, but now that everything's uploaded and an official playlist has been created I'm not sure it's important.

joe40001

2015-09-13 06:47:42 am

Ok, well fair enough. Don't get me wrong, I am extremely grateful for all you guys do and think the GDQs are super awesome. I just want to encourage people to remember the spirit of the GDQs even as it gets bigger and more *sigh* corporate.

My bad about the video comments though. Anyway, keep up the good work and just do your best, you guys all do have your heart in the right place, and the GDQs have done so much good.

Kinne

2016-01-09 03:53:25 pm

Then how are we supposed to watch past streams, huh? Twitch VOD is TERRIBLE (Their streaming is good, but playback is utterly unwatchable), and the videos YOU upload on the OFFICIAL youtube channel have echo that never goes away. Not to mention you people add 10-20 minutes of NOTHING at the beginning of every video. Sometimes there's more footage of people sitting in silence than of an actual run. Let's face it, you people are incompetent when it comes to uploading to youtube; putting up echoing videos twice the length of the run itself. And because twitch past broadcasts run like shit, the ONLY way to watch are on reupload channels made by intelligent people who start the video when the run starts and don't put echo on their videos. Fuck the fans, right? Nobody is allowed to watch past GDQs. Anyone who didn't watch it live just isn't allowed to watch it. Great attitude, assholes. Get your head out of your money grubbing asses and think of someone other than yourselves. NOBODY can watch GDQ now because twitch playback is terrible and the official youtube channel has echo on every video.

Mystery

Edit history:

Mystery: 2016-01-09 03:58:20 pm

2016-01-09 03:57:36 pm

While the criticms is fair, I'll just add a note that high-quality runs are encoded through local recordings and uploaded at a later date, both to youtube and archive, I believe. Usually these videos tend to fix some things like low audio, and maybe the echo too. As for the extra intro time, well... you could always just fast forward on locally downloaded videos. Not optimal maybe, but it's a workaround at least.

Oh, and I'm not affilitiated with GDQ is any way or form.

Worn_Traveler

2016-01-09 04:35:40 pm

Formerly known as Skullboy

I haven't watched the newer videos but the venues tend to have an echo to them due to room size and the extra time has been included in the vidoes since CGDQ since it keeps the flow of the marathon.

Mystery

2016-01-09 05:26:30 pm

This AGDQ has suffered from a different type of echo that's not related to the room size. It seems like a glitch in the audio feedback causing the audio to be muxed twice with the second instance of the audio being a little delayed. Like you're playing the same video in two windows at once, but started the second one after a short delay.

Emptyeye

2016-01-09 08:40:29 pm

Talk to the Hand

Yeah, what Mystery said. This isn't just atmospheric echo, it's pretty obviously double-input echo of some kind. Hopefully it gets fixed quickly and was just an artifact of "Get the videos up as quickly as possible for now, we'll work on the truly high-quality uploads soon after*".

*I say "soon after" and not just "sometime" because I think there was a sentiment on the part of the staff that was basically "We're going to do a much better job of quickly getting up the high-quality uploads in return for seizing control of them", though I may be misremembering.

Linkums

2016-01-10 11:40:00 am

So I'm assuming this channel is not an authorized re-uploader? https://www.youtube.com/user/VGCWclem

kirbymastah

2016-01-11 11:49:26 am

<(^_^)>

This one too - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCF_cst7X2J8xIgItnk1djoQ

Wyrm

Edit history:

Wyrm: 2016-01-11 01:01:41 pm

2016-01-11 01:01:14 pm

I can answer to the echo issue as I'm the one who caused it. The double echo exists on the youtube recordings due to OBS not behaving the way that I expected it to behave. It continued to output speaker audio even after it was muted, and it only exists for a few runs on the first day. We have backup recordings for these runs which do not have this issue which we will be uploading, but that will take some time as our backups are not easily chopped up (this was rectified once the echo issue was identified).

tl;dr - We're aware of the echoing issue and will be uploading videos without it to youtube.