4 ms·

The general rule for derivative works is that you own the changes, but you still need the original copyright holder's permission to distribute the changed versi

The general rule for derivative works is that you own the changes, but you still need the original copyright holder's permission to distribute the changed version. Thus the reuploader owns the sequence of play(stream, start, end) instructions that make up the edited version, but the streamer still owns the stream itself. So the publishers own the game, the streamer owns the performance, and the reuploader owns the edit. In theory each requires permission from the previous (including transitive relationships, so the reuploader requires permission from the publisher since the edited version still contains content from the game).

eru 7y ago
And in most cases these days the games company gives (at least implicit) approval.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  It makes sense to do so, because games and streams do not compete with one another as much. Edits of someone's stream probably competes more with the stream itself.
  - eru 7y ago
    Yes, it makes sense for the game company. The stream is more of an advertisement than competition. I can see that if you organized game-streaming as an entertainment provided by a company, that company would most likely want to hire an editor to provide a best-of version. (That's essentially how all those reality TV shows like Big Brother worked. Plus some extra dramatization, of course.) There's economic value to consumers in getting the best-of version, so I am hoping that the participants will find a way to share the larger cake.
gpm 7y ago
> In theory each requires permission from the previous Up to fair use. There's a good argument that streaming a game is fair use. It's highly transformative, not a market substitute, contains criticism/critique/commentary on the original, and contains only a fraction of the game. That's hitting all four of the factors considered to at least some extent [0]. Reuploading someones stream exactly, no way in hell is that fair use. It's not substantially transformative, it is a market substitute, it is for profit (as is the original stream) and it doesn't contain any added commentary or criticism, it might be only a fraction of the stream, but that's one factor out of four at best. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors IANAL
- skrebbel 7y ago
  This was the insight I was looking for, thanks!
- wolfgke 7y ago
  > Up to fair use. There's a good argument that streaming a game is fair use. This is a very US-centric perspective. For example, in Germany's Urheberrecht, there exists no concept of fair use.

eru 7y ago

And in most cases these days the games company gives (at least implicit) approval.

Mirioron 7y ago
It makes sense to do so, because games and streams do not compete with one another as much. Edits of someone's stream probably competes more with the stream itself.
- eru 7y ago
  Yes, it makes sense for the game company. The stream is more of an advertisement than competition. I can see that if you organized game-streaming as an entertainment provided by a company, that company would most likely want to hire an editor to provide a best-of version. (That's essentially how all those reality TV shows like Big Brother worked. Plus some extra dramatization, of course.) There's economic value to consumers in getting the best-of version, so I am hoping that the participants will find a way to share the larger cake.

gpm 7y ago

> In theory each requires permission from the previous Up to fair use. There's a good argument that streaming a game is fair use. It's highly transformative, not a market substitute, contains criticism/critique/commentary on the original, and contains only a fraction of the game. That's hitting all four of the factors considered to at least some extent [0]. Reuploading someones stream exactly, no way in hell is that fair use. It's not substantially transformative, it is a market substitute, it is for profit (as is the original stream) and it doesn't contain any added commentary or criticism, it might be only a fraction of the stream, but that's one factor out of four at best. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors IANAL

skrebbel 7y ago
This was the insight I was looking for, thanks!
wolfgke 7y ago
> Up to fair use. There's a good argument that streaming a game is fair use. This is a very US-centric perspective. For example, in Germany's Urheberrecht, there exists no concept of fair use.