Jump to content
IGNORED

Copyright strikes on Retro game Youtube vids - Paul Andrews?

Clipper

By Clipper
in Retro & Arcade Gaming

 Share

Recommended Posts

Clipper

Clipper

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, gone fishin' said:

 

If Paul Andrews statement is true, then what we’re talking about is someone refusing to give a donation to charity in return for using a character - not just in their videos but also selling as soft toys. 

 

I guess then it’s Ok for Disney to sell Peter Pan toys without giving money to Great Ormond Street? 

 

Thats the real rub in this. He wasn’t asking for all the revenue. He wasn’t asking her to remove the videos, stop using the character or stop selling the soft toys. He asked for a charitable donation in return for using the character and (yes, according to Paul Andrews) she refused to do it. When her videos get removed and she was hit by copyright strikes, she has to make a tearful video saying her livelihood has been taken away which in turn caused a mob like response from people without even having heard the other side of the story (threats of physical violence, wtf?? )

 

 

 

The soft toys is a different issue and case. Those are produced by Retroprincess and not Octavius Kitten. All it says in his statement is that the two are connected. Well they are friends but not business associates! The Youtube strikes and the soft toys are totally different issues.

 

 

He is seemingly deliberately conflating the two things

 

3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clipper

Clipper

Posted
  • Author
Posted

god that video from "whoever that is" is deeply unpleasant. Personal attacks on a channel and content where he claimed to watch two videos and denigrating anyone who watches them. 45 mins to say almost nothing... main points (all subjective opinion I didn't hear a single fact in that diatribe)

 

He does not like her content - although he only watched two videos

Accuses her of monetising mental illness

He knows exactly how she uses Horace and sexualises the character in many videos despite only watching two videos.

Andrews is a nice man who he knows

Her use of Horace is not fair use or parody 

Says Youtube sided with Andrews (definitely not true - youtube dont judge upfront)

 

 

The rest was a disgraceful display of personal attacks. 

 

I am sure somebody will now point out that it is an act and some sort of ironic reason why he has to post such character assassinations.

5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clipper

Clipper

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 minutes ago, Lorfarius said:

He also said that he asked Youtube to make a single copyright strike claim. As an Youtuber for over 10 years now that's not how it works at all. Each of them was made individually, YT use an automated system. It's all on him.

he said this

 

"I made it very clear I had sent one email to YouTube, and yes had asked for removal of those handful of videos but did not ask for a copyright strike, nor was I aware why or how two strikes had been issued by youtube having never emailed them before and having no plans to again as things stand, as that was not requested by me."

 

How would youtube interpret that? an email asking for removal of 8 videos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
merman

merman

Posted
Posted

Was surprised when I read the Twitter thread about the videos being taken down. Fair use definitely seems to be at play here.

 

However... Not having watched the videos I won't pass judgement on any other issues regarding how the character is used.

 

As I said in the other thread, a boycott of THEC64 doesn't seem productive or get to the heart of the Horace issue.

Boycott the Horace games associated with Subvert instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anne Summers

Anne Summers

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, Clipper said:

god that video from "whoever that is" is deeply unpleasant. Personal attacks on a channel and content where he claimed to watch two videos and denigrating anyone who watches them. 45 mins to say almost nothing... main points (all subjective opinion I didn't hear a single fact in that diatribe)

 

He does not like her content - although he only watched two videos

Accuses her of monetising mental illness

He knows exactly how she uses Horace and sexualises the character in many videos despite only watching two videos.

Andrews is a nice man who he knows

Her use of Horace is not fair use or parody 

Says Youtube sided with Andrews (definitely not true - youtube dont judge upfront)

 

 

The rest was a disgraceful display of personal attacks. 

 

I am sure somebody will now point out that it is an act and some sort of ironic reason why he has to post such character assassinations.

That guy is a massive arsehole , I remember him making transphobic comments about Kim Justice and pointedly referring to her as "he".

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clipper

Clipper

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Just now, Anne Summers said:

That guy is a massive arsehole , I remember him making transphobic comments about Kim Justice and pointedly referring to her as "he".

Was he the one who used to make foul mouthed vids about the RCL situation? I thought I recognised the delivery.

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lorfarius

Lorfarius

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, Clipper said:

he said this

 

"I made it very clear I had sent one email to YouTube, and yes had asked for removal of those handful of videos but did not ask for a copyright strike, nor was I aware why or how two strikes had been issued by youtube having never emailed them before and having no plans to again as things stand, as that was not requested by me."

 

How would youtube interpret that? an email asking for removal of 8 videos.

 

Everythings automated so will just be standard responses if anything.  They wouldn't do much beyond send a page helpguide for him to use an account to register a claim/pulldow. Which is probably why he set up the subvert one to do it all. That's been shown to be his so he def had a hand in it.

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clipper

Clipper

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 minutes ago, Lorfarius said:

 

Everythings automated so will just be standard responses if anything.  They wouldn't do much beyond send a page helpguide for him to use an account to register a claim/pulldow. Which is probably why he set up the subvert one to do it all. That's been show to be his so he def had a hand in it.

so if he sent an email they wouldn't take them down or copyright strike them? - they would tell him to open an account and apply the copyright strikes himself using a youtube system?

 

I assume this must have happened to you - were they easy to defend against and get overturned?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lorfarius

Lorfarius

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Clipper said:

so if he sent an email they wouldn't take them down or copyright strike them? - they would tell him to open an account and apply the copyright strikes himself using a youtube system?

 

I assume this must have happened to you - were they easy to defend against and get overturned?

 

Nope, it's an absolute joke. What you can do is appeal the strike but only to the person making the claim from what I recall.

 

Good guide here which is probably what he read:

 

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2814000?hl=en-GB

 

Most of the time it's safer to just accept them and not risk the strike on your account. I've got over 1100 videos so its always a gamble to what could be pulled. At one point when I'd paid for my podcasts intro music even with the license I was getting them from different companies every week. Was a total nightmare until I paid a guy to come up with something new.

2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Riven

Riven

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, gone fishin' said:

 

If Paul Andrews statement is true, then what we’re talking about is someone refusing to give a donation to charity in return for using a character - not just in their videos but also selling as soft toys. 

 

I guess then it’s Ok for Disney to sell Peter Pan toys without giving money to Great Ormond Street? 

 

Thats the real rub in this. He wasn’t asking for all the revenue. He wasn’t asking her to remove the videos, stop using the character or stop selling the soft toys. He asked for a charitable donation in return for using the character and (yes, according to Paul Andrews) she refused to do it. When her videos get removed and she was hit by copyright strikes, she has to make a tearful video saying her livelihood has been taken away which in turn caused a mob like response from people without even having heard the other side of the story (threats of physical violence, wtf?? )

 

You seem to be one of the few voices of reasons here, who hasn't jumped the gun. I'm not a lawyer myself, but I did study law and have a rough understanding of how it work.

 

YouTube itself has to rely on the grey areas of the law, else otherwise no one could make video game videos, outside of the developers and publishers. The fair dealing laws are here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright

 

That said doing some research does raise some issues on both sides. Making and selling cuddly toys of any copyrighted character with out the copyright owners consent is against the law, it is not covered under fair dealing.

 

The first problem is people saying he doesn't own the copyright, well that needs research to confirm who is the legal copyright holder. It maybe the case subversive is now the owner. If they aren't then it becomes a matter of fraud.

 

Some of the trademarks he is requesting do raise some eye brows as well, he seems to be trying to trademark any 80s or 90s UK home computer.

https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmowner/page/search?id=1289048&domain=1&app=0&mark=UK00003341497

 

3 hours ago, Bluejam said:

 I made it very clear I had sent one email to YouTube, and yes had asked for removal of those handful of videos but did not ask for a copyright strike, nor was I aware why or how two strikes had been issued by youtube having never emailed them before and having no plans to again as things stand, as that was not requested by me. The youtuber declined these offers, and when I requested she make public the fact I was trying to resolve it and would she agree to our conversation being made public she also declined that request. 

I also told her I would be writing to youtube to ask why they had done two copyright strikes, when I did not request even one, and I have done this as I had already planned to. I have no wish to inflame this situation further but I also cannot stand back and be attacked over claims which are literally untrue, or distorted.

 

This is the odd part of the statement to make, the minute you request videos to be removed, then the channel owner gets a copyright strike. YouTube only issues strikes on his take down requests or that of his company. There are tons of Horace videos still up, so these are targeted take downs.

 

Parody is covered, so while having a video that includes a copyrighted character can be trick it is possible. Trust me when I say if you search Mickey Mouse Parody, you get some really dark content in places, that Disney might not like, but is protected under law.

 

Ultimately fair dealing can only be decided in the courts. In this case I'm a bit open minded I think there is more going on than explained and one those involved need to sort out between them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clipper

Clipper

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, Riven said:

 

You seem to be one of the few voices of reasons here, who hasn't jumped the gun. I'm not a lawyer myself, but I did study law and have a rough understanding of how it work.

 

YouTube itself has to rely on the grey areas of the law, else otherwise no one could make video game videos, outside of the developers and publishers. The fair dealing laws are here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright

 

That said doing some research does raise some issues on both side. Making cuddly toys of any copyrighted character with out the copyright owners consent is against the law, it is not covered under fair dealing.

 

The first problem is people saying he doesn't own the copyright, well that needs research to confirm who is the legal copyright holder. It maybe the case subversive is now the owner.

 

Some of the trademarks he is requesting do raise some eyes brows as well, he seems to be trying to trademark any 80s or 90s UK home computer.

https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmowner/page/search?id=1289048&domain=1&app=0&mark=UK00003341497

 

 

This is the odd part of the statement to make, the minute you request videos to be removed, then the channel owner gets a copyright strike. YouTube only issues strikes on his take down requests or that of his company. There are tons of Horace videos still up, so these are targeted take downs.

 

Parody is covered, so while having a video that includes a copyrighted character can be trick it is possible. Trust me when I say if you search Mickey Mouse Parody, you get some really dark content in places, that Disney might not like, but is protected under law.

 

Ultimately fair dealing can only be decided in the courts. In this case I'm a bit open minded I think there is more going on than explained.

Just to crystal clear here on my position.

 

I did not comment on the soft toys or that case at all and never mentioned them in this thread - that is completely seperate to the instance I posted about. In that instance the soft toy maker is on very shaky legal ground. 

 

I never said he didn't own copyright, I am sure he does and it isn't relevant to what I was sayin g.

 

Whether it is fair use or not is a minefield, I agree. There seemingly is fair use here maybe but its doubtful anyone can afford to take it to court.

 

My contention is that whether or not there is fair use the retro youtuber community is a large and important resource that helps to keep retro "alive". By purporting to be a supportive member of that community on one hand and copyright striking a channel that produces excellent content on the other is not being supportive of the retro community. The fact that he is worried about sexualising his near 40 yr old dead IP is abject nonsense as the content is absurdist humour.

 

 

5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gone fishin

gone fishin

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Clipper said:

Just to crystal clear here on my position.

 

I did not comment on the soft toys or that case at all and never mentioned them in this thread - that is completely seperate to the instance I posted about. In that instance the soft toy maker is on very shaky legal ground. 

 

I never said he didn't own copyright, I am sure he does and it isn't relevant to what I was sayin g.

 

Whether it is fair use or not is a minefield, I agree. There seemingly is fair use here maybe but its doubtful anyone can afford to take it to court.

 

My contention is that whether or not there is fair use the retro youtuber community is a large and important resource that helps to keep retro "alive". By purporting to be a supportive member of that community on one hand and copyright striking a channel that produces excellent content on the other is not being supportive of the retro community. The fact that he is worried about sexualising his near 40 yr old dead IP is abject nonsense as the content is absurdist humour.

 

 

 

Except you jumped to conclusions that Paul Andrews actions were wrong and even when his statement was released, stating that his stipulation to continue using “Horace” was OK, as long as a charitable donation was made and the sexualisation of the character was dropped (which he has the complete rights to say) both of which were refused, you’ve continued to attack him? You’ve even mentioned this in The C64 thread, which if anything does a million times more for the retro gaming community than any YouTuber that’s generating nearly $2k a month through Patreon backers, but has the option of using the character of Horace but refuses to donate money to charity??? 

 

 

 

 

 

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clipper

Clipper

Posted
  • Author
Posted
23 minutes ago, gone fishin' said:

 

Except you jumped to conclusions that Paul Andrews actions were wrong and even when his statement was released, stating that his stipulation to continue using “Horace” was OK, as long as a charitable donation was made and the sexualisation of the character was dropped (which he has the complete rights to say) both of which were refused, you’ve continued to attack him? You’ve even mentioned this in The C64 thread, which if anything does a million times more for the retro gaming community than any YouTuber that’s generating nearly $2k a month through Patreon backers, but has the option of using the character of Horace but refuses to donate money to charity??? 

 

 

I did not jump to any conclusions thankyou... that post lays out exactly what I have said and what I feel regarding this situation.

 

On the other hand you have jumped to conclusions -  you have misrepresented what was said in her video -

 

"From watching that video it sounds like he had a conversation with her asking her to remove them and she only de-monetised them, which I'm presuming then caused him to contact YouTube directly for a takedown."

 

He did not speak to her or contact her before issuing the strikes - if he had then maybe it might have been a different story. That is stated very clearly in the video.

 

 and you conflated soft toy making and the youtuber in question in another post.

 

"If Paul Andrews statement is true, then what we’re talking about is someone refusing to give a donation to charity in return for using a character - not just in their videos but also selling as soft toys. "

 

The emphasis is mine but you are indicating there that the person doing the toys and videos is one and the same person.

 

So before you jump to conclusions about my posts can you please ensure you are being factually accurate.

 

 

5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DonRumsfeld

DonRumsfeld

Posted
Posted

"Sexualisation of the character"?!?  A few of the Horace videos popped up on the "You may like" bit in Youtube, they were very entertaining, a bit of craic and mild innuendo at the worst.  This is ridiculous, does the dude think he's really going to make his fortune out of a character that's 37+ years old and no one gives a crap about.  It's a blue blob, I can't see a CBBC series in the future for Horace 'sexualisation' or not.

6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ulala

ulala

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, gone fishin' said:

 

Except you jumped to conclusions that Paul Andrews actions were wrong and even when his statement was released, stating that his stipulation to continue using “Horace” was OK, as long as a charitable donation was made and the sexualisation of the character was dropped (which he has the complete rights to say) both of which were refused, you’ve continued to attack him? You’ve even mentioned this in The C64 thread, which if anything does a million times more for the retro gaming community than any YouTuber that’s generating nearly $2k a month through Patreon backers, but has the option of using the character of Horace but refuses to donate money to charity??? 

 

 

 

 

 

 2 k a month?

 

do you get taxed on this? (Asking for a friend)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dumpster

dumpster

Posted
Posted

I did a thread a few days ago about this and  got one reply that was one word long and 2 people negged the topic.

 

 

But this is exactly the issue.  This guy is complaining because he bought the rights to the Horace character, but he hasn't provided any evidence of that.  But Horace was created by Billy Tang for the game Hungry Horace. When that game was sold to the publisher, did the contract state that the publisher now owned the rights to the character? It's legally hugely important, and seeing as how these games were often written by schoolkids, there may not even have been a contract.  Even if there was, does it still exist?

 

The crux of the matter is that someone, somewhere, owns the rights to the Horace character and therefore you are not allowed to make soft toys or use the character in your videos (fair use is one thing, but having Horace as a regular character living with Octavius is different).  But the copyright holder needs to demonstrate that he owns the character - that is to say, He didn't just buy the rights to the Spectrum game Hungry Horace, but actually owns the likeness rights to the character.  I'm not sure how he can prove that beyond doubt.

 

If Octavius did these videos with Mario, Bugs Bunny or Captain Underpants, there would be no question of ownership.  But because it's Hungry Bloody Horace For Crying Out Loud it's assumed that no-one really gives a shit.  But if someone did buy the rights to the character then they can exercise their right to protect that character.  But again, who do you buy Horace from, and can they prove the owned it in the first place? 

 

Hungry Horace was published by Sinclair Research and written by Billy Tang. If the rights of the character are sold with the game this would mean Billy would need to buy back the rights to Horace in order to create Horace Goes Ski-ing which was published by Melbourne House. But this was 1982 and I'd wager that no-one really cared about the character, so Billy just knocked out games with the character he'd designed and sold them to whichever publisher wanted them.  I'll wager that a contract from that era was to surface it would be a straightforward "I exchange the publishing rights to Hungry Horace for this bag of cash" , meaning the character would still be owned by Billy Tang.

7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lorfarius

Lorfarius

Posted
Posted

 

54 minutes ago, dumpster said:

I did a thread a few days ago about this and  got one reply that was one word long and 2 people negged the topic.

 

 

 

Not sure why you posted a retro thread in Discussion when we have a Retro section? That might explain the negs and the reason it got so few responses. I've moved it into the correct place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bluejam

Bluejam

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Kryptonian said:


To save me watching that video, should I remove the link to it? @Clipper

 

@Bluejam - you just posted it without any comment, what’s the story?

Happy to remove. Just thought it was worth posting for a different view.

 

appreciate that his videos are marmite.

 

sorry if anyone was offended :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.

  I accept