I think everyone's missing my point here... These two videos that have been unmonetized so far have been monetized for SEVERAL months now, and then it's just all of a sudden, NOPE. And here's the thing, monetizing them again isn't difficult, YouTube just wants to know three things and you're back in business:
1. The name of the game.
2. The name of the game's publisher.
3. A link to a webpage on the publisher's website that explicitly says video game footage can be monetized.
...it's that last one which is the crux because most game publishers don't explicitly state this anywhere because if they DID, it opens the door to the kinds of videos they DON'T want put out, like full play-throughs with zero commentary. Most game developers though WANT people to talk about their software and showcase bits and pieces in the process, because that's a part of how viral marketing works and it's free publicity for their products. Not to mention it doesn't help that a number of the game's I've covered don't exactly have websites that can be looked up anymore. :P
The thing is though, we're arguing a point that's taken us two steps backwards in our progress as a civilization.
The first point: Many of us use computer programs on a regular basis to create things like artwork, music, stories, webpages, even more computer programs. The program we use gives rise to something new. When we play a video game, the exact way the game is demonstrated is vastly different for every person and every session. The performance is, in and of itself, a creative work. For a long time, this was held true, but now thanks to those rare players in game production who hate video game footage being posted online, the notion is that this form of derivative work shouldn't be acceptable despite the time and effort it takes. It's actually similar to how the music industry works in that you can't legally perform someone else's music without paying the owner of that music to do so, and people have taken issue with that for the longest time even before YouTube existed. (This is a part of the reason why some blatantly obvious songs like "Happy Birthday" go unused in television shows and movies.)
The second point: Reviews of entertainment such as video games and movies have been around for ages in video form thanks to television programs. Now, one could argue that those programs would need to get permission before they could show anything, since in the music and television industry you need permission for EVERYTHING, (and you often need to cite the exact points in time when those elements will be in use), but then, who's going to say no? If a company DID say no, the television program would then be like, "We wanted to do a review of Death Laser Space Warriors, but the publishing studio has declined our request to review their movie, so instead, here's the movie Stellar Laser Wars from a different publishing studio." Denying a request from someone to review something is shooting yourself in the foot because they can turn right around and use your denial as ammunition to hurt your sales. A scathing review is actually BETTER, because people don't always agree with a reviewer and may be curious to try something themselves just to see for themselves how bad it is, whereas if the reviewer says they're not allowed to review something, that actually discourages people completely from giving it a try.
MY point: Unless there's some major changes in the future, we're heading down a dark path in terms of video game related content on video services and there could very well come a time when no one will ever review anything without explicit permission, which will hurt many game developers and publishers as they struggle to get their legal experts to agree to put these clauses in their websites. :/
--- Kris Asick (Gemini)
--- Pixelmusement Website: www.pixelships.com
--- Ancient DOS Games Webshow: www.pixelships.com/adg
