If something that would normally be copyrightable is leaked, then the only people who have legal rights to that work are still the original owners. Anyone taking/sharing it is breaching copyright.
It’s like you’re trying really hard to contort the discussion to make it seem like Nintendo has solid a case here. All the protections you’re talking about apply to works regardless of when or how they’re released. From the point of view of copyright law, a “leaked” recording of a game is no different from a regular recording of a game. Afaik, the guy in the OP isn’t being accused of sharing leaked game files.
If you’re trying to say that a recording of a video game is not considered fair use under copyright law, then I give you the existence of Youtube and Twitch as counter evidence.
I know some people have a misguided view…
Maybe, but I don’t see how that’s relevant here, unless you’re implying I have that misconception. If that’s the case, please point out which part of my comment lead you to this conclusion.
If you’re trying to say that a recording of a video game is not considered fair use under copyright law, then I give you the existence of Youtube and Twitch as counter evidence.
So, funny you should say that…
This happened to Persona 5. Atlus felt that they had a legal basis to make copyright claims on the game - in their case, circumstantially around spoilers (I guess because they wanted people to pay $50 to experience the late-game story)
And they walked back, not because lawyers were dismantling their case, but because of public outcry. That basis of public preference is what has encouraged game studios to be friendly with Twitch / YouTube, not because judges would rubber-stamp any fair use “transformative work” argument. That is also why many games have given explicit notices to say “Content notice: Please feel free to share videos of this game wherever you’d like!” etc - as it is a non-default judgment.
So, as strange as it is to say, most uploaded videos of a game is in some murky legal territory. Obviously, most studios don’t care and even prefer them to be shared for visibility - or took the time to include those notices to make it 100% legal. But when the recording came from an internal build, the game itself is “stolen”, in that the person playing it breached either terms of viewing or terms of employment, and then the person re-uploading it is breaching copyright as they had no permission.
If you want to work it through the other way, permission to upload a work is non-default. You need to provide a basis it’s legal, not a basis it’s illegal. In many cases, it’s “I made this”. For 99.9% of video game content, it’s “the developer is okay with it”.
We’re both armchair lawyering, so I don’t feel like continuing this discussion. I’ll just quote a part of your comment that I think is silly, both in the claim that is being made, and the confidence with which it is being made:
So, as strange as it is to say, most uploaded videos of a game is in some murky legal territory.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
It’s like you’re trying really hard to contort the discussion to make it seem like Nintendo has solid a case here. All the protections you’re talking about apply to works regardless of when or how they’re released. From the point of view of copyright law, a “leaked” recording of a game is no different from a regular recording of a game. Afaik, the guy in the OP isn’t being accused of sharing leaked game files.
If you’re trying to say that a recording of a video game is not considered fair use under copyright law, then I give you the existence of Youtube and Twitch as counter evidence.
Maybe, but I don’t see how that’s relevant here, unless you’re implying I have that misconception. If that’s the case, please point out which part of my comment lead you to this conclusion.
So, funny you should say that…
This happened to Persona 5. Atlus felt that they had a legal basis to make copyright claims on the game - in their case, circumstantially around spoilers (I guess because they wanted people to pay $50 to experience the late-game story)
And they walked back, not because lawyers were dismantling their case, but because of public outcry. That basis of public preference is what has encouraged game studios to be friendly with Twitch / YouTube, not because judges would rubber-stamp any fair use “transformative work” argument. That is also why many games have given explicit notices to say “Content notice: Please feel free to share videos of this game wherever you’d like!” etc - as it is a non-default judgment.
So, as strange as it is to say, most uploaded videos of a game is in some murky legal territory. Obviously, most studios don’t care and even prefer them to be shared for visibility - or took the time to include those notices to make it 100% legal. But when the recording came from an internal build, the game itself is “stolen”, in that the person playing it breached either terms of viewing or terms of employment, and then the person re-uploading it is breaching copyright as they had no permission.
If you want to work it through the other way, permission to upload a work is non-default. You need to provide a basis it’s legal, not a basis it’s illegal. In many cases, it’s “I made this”. For 99.9% of video game content, it’s “the developer is okay with it”.
We’re both armchair lawyering, so I don’t feel like continuing this discussion. I’ll just quote a part of your comment that I think is silly, both in the claim that is being made, and the confidence with which it is being made:
Sure, a subjective 4-part test to determine whether the content is fair use or not. Totally not murky.