Because the design of the game, the design of the hippos etc are copyrighted and the Hungry Hippos game is protected IP of MB.
You posting a video and making money from that video is exploiting the protected IP of someone else without permission from that owner.
The same reason you can't have any music track you like as backing music in an advert for example.
This is why they are entitled to the money.
Whether or not it is the right/sensible thing to do is separate issue from entitlement.
You are allowed to critique a piece of work. If for example Watchdog found a flaw with hippos they would be allowed to use footage of themselves playing the game while highlighting the flaw. You can also review a piece of work, a show like the gadget show (or any show) can use footage of themselves playing the game while reviewing it. Game magazines have for years reviewed games as have gaming shows, the latter using actual footage. None break any copyright laws. None owe royalties to the makers of said product. If I did either with the latest Nintendo game or console, they would make money from my work.
You are allowed to critique a piece of work. If for example Watchdog found a flaw with hippos they would be allowed to use footage of themselves playing the game while highlighting the flaw. You can also review a piece of work, a show like the gadget show (or any show) can use footage of themselves playing the game while reviewing it. Game magazines have for years reviewed games as have gaming shows, the latter using actual footage. None break any copyright laws. None owe royalties to the makers of said product. If I did either with the latest Nintendo game or console, they would make money from my work.
OK lets see if I can re-write what I wrote before only to be presented with an error page as the thread was moved... (and renamed!) I guess DS didn't like the sensationalist slant I put on it, which is quite ironic...
Watchdog is a special case - that falls under public interest. Which is a messy kettle of fish. But yeah - copyright law does have some exceptions for reviews and critiques - however there are still things that you are prevented from doing with copyrighted works.
So like you couldn't review a new Coca Cola logo by printing it on a t-shirt and going yeah so this new logo is very nice, nice font and great red colours and comes out great on a blank white tee! Just like you couldn't upload a full film and just slap a review with it and use the excuse 'well I was reviewing the film'. Doesn't work like that unfortunately.
But in terms of gaming, don't forget that game magazines are sent the game by PR companies on behalf of publishers. They are explicitly invited to review the game.
They are also given promotional assets for the game to use on their website, in their magazines etc, and there is an agreement between the two that they may use that material without clause. They cannot though, use other material without explicit permission and this allows the publishers to retain control over what information is out there.
Of course, it is easy to think that it is promo for the artist/publisher/label/etc but here is a first hand experience.
I used to work for an online music publication. We'd get sent music videos to post and we'd put them online. We never paid any royalties. We never sought a licence from MCPS-PRS. We didn't do so because we felt that what we were doing was providing a platform for exposure of their works.
However one day we were contacted by them and they demanded we paid up. The terms presented to us was 10% or 10p per view, whichever was greater.
We ceased posting videos as a result and the thing was, it wasn't because the labels were annoyed - it was solely the royalty collection agencies who follow the law even if the labels turn a blind eye.
Kind of similar to how news websites nick stories and quotes from other news outlets freely, a blind eye is turned because it is quite likely that one day they'll want to nick something back from them.
I'm reminded of an episode of Screenwipe where Charlie Brooker mentioned how he can show footage because it was a review show and how the BBC has a special licence such that he could play a particular bit of music and not have to seek permission first, but that he couldn't show the cover for it.
Also don't forget that YouTube is American so UK law does not apply - which is what all the above is based on, I have no idea about US IP law, however YouTube is actively seeking out publishers and trying to draw deals up with them.
They will have good lawyers who know what they're doing and if they weren't entitled to it, they wouldn't be doing it.
YouTube recently tried to get a deal with the Minecraft guy. He posted on Twitter that he was very tempted and was very close to signing the deal but decided not to at the last moment. Clearly he feels that he is better off with the videos and not the revenue.
Interestingly he was talking about a share of the revenue and not the entire pot.
I'd have no issue with them saying OK 50% is yours, 50% is ours. You're exploiting our IP for profit but we like the effort you put in, we get your love for our products, you're getting our message out there so we'll split the proceeds with you.
After paying for the game Nintendo is still trying to screw people over. The company now seems like a ship that's sprung a leak and the captain isn't taking any notice.
Comments
You posting a video and making money from that video is exploiting the protected IP of someone else without permission from that owner.
The same reason you can't have any music track you like as backing music in an advert for example.
This is why they are entitled to the money.
Whether or not it is the right/sensible thing to do is separate issue from entitlement.
You are allowed to critique a piece of work. If for example Watchdog found a flaw with hippos they would be allowed to use footage of themselves playing the game while highlighting the flaw. You can also review a piece of work, a show like the gadget show (or any show) can use footage of themselves playing the game while reviewing it. Game magazines have for years reviewed games as have gaming shows, the latter using actual footage. None break any copyright laws. None owe royalties to the makers of said product. If I did either with the latest Nintendo game or console, they would make money from my work.
Watchdog is a special case - that falls under public interest. Which is a messy kettle of fish. But yeah - copyright law does have some exceptions for reviews and critiques - however there are still things that you are prevented from doing with copyrighted works.
So like you couldn't review a new Coca Cola logo by printing it on a t-shirt and going yeah so this new logo is very nice, nice font and great red colours and comes out great on a blank white tee! Just like you couldn't upload a full film and just slap a review with it and use the excuse 'well I was reviewing the film'. Doesn't work like that unfortunately.
But in terms of gaming, don't forget that game magazines are sent the game by PR companies on behalf of publishers. They are explicitly invited to review the game.
They are also given promotional assets for the game to use on their website, in their magazines etc, and there is an agreement between the two that they may use that material without clause. They cannot though, use other material without explicit permission and this allows the publishers to retain control over what information is out there.
Of course, it is easy to think that it is promo for the artist/publisher/label/etc but here is a first hand experience.
I used to work for an online music publication. We'd get sent music videos to post and we'd put them online. We never paid any royalties. We never sought a licence from MCPS-PRS. We didn't do so because we felt that what we were doing was providing a platform for exposure of their works.
However one day we were contacted by them and they demanded we paid up. The terms presented to us was 10% or 10p per view, whichever was greater.
We ceased posting videos as a result and the thing was, it wasn't because the labels were annoyed - it was solely the royalty collection agencies who follow the law even if the labels turn a blind eye.
Kind of similar to how news websites nick stories and quotes from other news outlets freely, a blind eye is turned because it is quite likely that one day they'll want to nick something back from them.
I'm reminded of an episode of Screenwipe where Charlie Brooker mentioned how he can show footage because it was a review show and how the BBC has a special licence such that he could play a particular bit of music and not have to seek permission first, but that he couldn't show the cover for it.
Also don't forget that YouTube is American so UK law does not apply - which is what all the above is based on, I have no idea about US IP law, however YouTube is actively seeking out publishers and trying to draw deals up with them.
They will have good lawyers who know what they're doing and if they weren't entitled to it, they wouldn't be doing it.
YouTube recently tried to get a deal with the Minecraft guy. He posted on Twitter that he was very tempted and was very close to signing the deal but decided not to at the last moment. Clearly he feels that he is better off with the videos and not the revenue.
Interestingly he was talking about a share of the revenue and not the entire pot.
I'd have no issue with them saying OK 50% is yours, 50% is ours. You're exploiting our IP for profit but we like the effort you put in, we get your love for our products, you're getting our message out there so we'll split the proceeds with you.