Some concerns about the community

[AGreatWeight]

 

-snip-

 

Reread what my post actually says, where exactly did I state that "failing one makes something instantly not fair use"?

[Graybark]

 

 

-snip-

 

Reread what my post actually says, where exactly did I state that "failing one makes something instantly not fair use"?

 

Read your post again. That is exactly, literally what you are saying.

[hishutup]

Would you agree that any game review, commentary or critic is fair use?

I believe it is becoming well established that any sort of review or critic is well within fair use as far as youtube is concerned.

 

Is a game review and a mod review any different?

 

Should they be treated differently, if so why?

 

For my copyright interests, I like Leonard French because he is everyone's favorite copyright attorney.

[Deleted82156User]

Would you agree that any game review, commentary or critic is fair use?

 

No.

[TheVampireDante]

@matortheeternal

 

RE: Post deletion.

 

It was stated earlier that any posts by yourself in this topic would be removed. Which they have been.

 

Quote for reference:

I hid Mator's post, Qwertzy. He's just trying to pathetically get a rise out of me and I'm not going to stoop to his level. Any further posts he makes in this thread will be removed as well. Can't be bothered to deal with his silliness anymore.

[Arthmoor]

Would you agree that any game review, commentary or critic is fair use?

No, I wouldn't. Why?

 

I believe it is becoming well established that any sort of review or critic is well within fair use as far as youtube is concerned.

Because the opposite of this is what I see actually happening - stuff being removed after the Youtuber tried to hide behind Fair Use and was called out and the content taken down.

[DoctaSax]

The Terms of Use stated on any software is NOT 'silly' and people who have that attitude find themselves facing situations like Mxr just did and loosing (by backing out), just like Mxr did. While the case did not go to court Mxr found himself facing a very real legal threat and had a wake up call. Mods are legally owned by the modders as is legally stated by Bethesda and modders have every right to set Terms of Use and downloaders ARE obligated legally to follow those regardless of what they might think and consider themselves entitled too.

 

There is nothing 'newfangled' about it, this community has always expected users and other mod authors to adhere to the written permissions on mods and that has been the case for the last 12 years that I have been here.

 

'Fair Use' is something that must be defined by the court in each case, it is NOT a legitimate legal defense for taking and using copyrighted material. You cannot shout 'Fair Use' and expect the copyright holder to back off, you have to go to court and prove that your usage constitutes 'Fair Use' and good luck because there is no absolute legal definition of 'Fair Use'.

I know modders own their work, so I don't need to be told. But if a mod's permissions section stipulates that use which would arguably fall under fair use is not allowed, then I question if you're legally obligated to follow it no matter what. You obviously don't do so at your own risk, but how this played out doesn't say anything about the legality of either side's actions.

 

'Newfangled': let's not pretend people disallow YT reviews of their mods all the time. Look, everything I publish is either public domain or copyleft, and I'd rather drink sulphuric acid than call myself a mod author instead of a modder. So from my point of view threatening legal action over somebody showing your mod on youtube really is quite silly. It's also telling that I can't say that without getting the sermon about how mod authors absolutely, most definitely own their stuff and seeing the word 'entitled' thrown about.

 

To be deemed fair use requires fulfilling four requirements when a case is being considered.

• the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
• the nature of the copyrighted work;
• the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
• the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

With MXR's video being monetized, he'd have blatantly failed at the first requirement.

 

Commercial use doesn't automatically invalidate the first item on the balance test. Commercial use makes it to an extent less likely that it passes the first item, but it has happened. For the most part, as far as I can tell, the first test primarily checks to see if the use is of a 'transformative' nature, and reviews are exactly that.

[Deleted82156User]

 

 

 

'Newfangled': let's not pretend people disallow YT reviews of their mods all the time.

 

 

Except that I was and am talking about this community's adherence to mod permissions, that is NOT 'newfangled', not the filing of DCMAs. Youtubers are mod users and they are NOT exempt from adhering to mod permissions. As yet you have provided no actual argument to support your points otherwise other then you don't think it should be. But it is...from a legal and moral point.

 

Look, everything I publish is either public domain or copyleft, and I'd rather drink sulphuric acid than call myself a mod author instead of a modder.

 

 

You are entitled to your stance on your permissions regarding your work. It would be nice if you allowed other people to have their own views on what they want to do with their own work without referring to them as 'silly'..

 

You obviously don't do so at your own risk, but how this played out doesn't say anything about the legality of either side's actions.

 

 

On the contrary it has revealed a lot. For one that Youtube will respect a DMCA from a modder (after being shown proof of ownership). Read the threads in the mod author forum for detailed information on all of this, all your assumptions are already answered and where relevant disproven there.

Edited April 8, 2017 by Guest

[RGMage2]

He may not have access to the mod author forum, and that's the problem here. Some of us are privy to information that is not widely available to others who would partake in this conversation. So we keep seeing this erroneous assumption that it was all about "fair use".

[TechAngel85]

Just to place the information so you can all make up your own minds...
US: https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/ / https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html
UK: https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p09_fair_use

Special attention should be given to the final paragraph of one of those links:
"In addition to the above, other factors may also be considered by a court in weighing a fair use question, depending upon the circumstances. Courts evaluate fair use claims on a case-by-case basis, and the outcome of any given case depends on a fact-specific inquiry. This means that there is no formula to ensure that a predetermined percentage or amount of a work—or specific number of words, lines, pages, copies—may be used without permission."

 

There. That's all I'll post on this subject.