- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 4675
- 威望
- 0 点
- 积分
- 4635 点
- 种子
- 0 点
- 注册时间
- 2015-2-5
- 最后登录
- 2020-3-28
|
发表于 2015-4-5 17:38 · 美国
|
显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 奇迹的杨99 于 2015-4-5 17:42 编辑
syf19851 发表于 2015-4-5 17:24 
洗刷刷好辛苦。关于这个新闻还有那么多人来解释来诠释。人家做视频也是自己的版权。自己的努力。难道还要给 ...
任这方面控制欲确实很强 那些视频他也是真的在审核 之前已经发布的视频因为视频作者不当言论被要求整改的例子就不少 这种行为确实有点愚蠢 这姑且不论
但是就抽成来说任本身就有这个权利 利用别人的游戏做自己的视频是否合法呢？ 在美国版权法中对这种利用别人的版权生产新内容的行为被称为fair use 但是游戏的walkthrough目前为止一般都不被认为是fair use的范畴 具体你可以看下面这段 我懒得翻译了 总体而言 如果厂商明确制定了规矩 那些播主就必须遵从 你作的游戏流程视频的原创和游戏开发商作品的原创比起来是大巫见小巫 而如果是单纯的review因为并没有展现游戏的总体流程并且作者自己的原创内容占大头所以可以被认为是fair use
而且如果观众群体，影响范围越大 甚至用它来***法律就越不会支持你这是fair use
There are four criteria used when evaluating whether or not something can be considered fair use:
The nature of the original work. The use of fact-based works is more likely to be considered fair use than the use of creative works.
The amount of the original work, especially when compared to what you are bringing to the table. If the original work is only a small part of what you are doing (e.g., a 30-second film clip in a 5-minute review), there is a greater chance that the use would be considered fair use. Unfortunately, there are no set guidelines regarding how much of a work can be used. You would also need to look the how important the part you are using is.
The ability of your work to interfere with the market value of a work and the size of the potential audience. If you aren’t affecting the potential revenue or a work and only showing your new work to a limited number of people, there is a greater chance that the use would be considered fair use.
The purpose of the the new work and the the extent to which the new work transforms the existing work. If the new work is educational or critical in nature and if it is non-commercial, there is a greater chance that the use would fall within fair use. Similarly if you are able to transform the purpose of the original work, there is a greater chance the use would be considered fair use.
Do Let’s Play Videos meet these criteria?
1. The nature of the original work.
The original work is creative in nature (unless you are playing an educational game).
2. The amount of the original work
A ten-minute game review showing brief ten-second clips would be far more likely to be considered fair use than a ten minute Let’s Play video where you are just adding running commentary. If you are creating a Let’s Play series where you are going through the whole game, then you definitely won’t be meeting this criteria.
3. The ability of the new work to affect the market potential of the existing work
You can argue that Let’s Play videos wouldn’t really interfere with a game’s market potential unless the game developer is also selling game guides. The opposing point of view is that Let’s Play videos may dispel too much of the mystery of the game and may give away important plot points, thus ruining the experience for others. Here’s a film equivalent; a film review site may show clips from The Sixth Sense or Toy Story 3, but if the clip reveals the vital plot twist of the former or the entire climatic incinerator scene in the latter, that would weaken any fair use claim. Another problem with posting Let’s Play videos on YouTube is the enormous size of the potential audience.
4. The purpose of the new work
If your videos are monetized, that moves them into the commercial realm. A Let’s Play video, created primarily to entertain, doesn’t really transform the purpose of the game, which was also created primarily to entertain. With a game review, however, the use of original footage could be considered to be transformational because the purpose of the original work is entertainment while the purpose of the new work is criticism. |
|
楼主: 晓月孤狼
川公网安备 51019002005286号
