Makers Of Payday 2 Donating DLC Profits To Help 2 YouTubers Fight Copyright Lawsuit
from the good-guys dept
The landscape of YouTubers who do reviews or takes on video games, including Let's Plays, and their interactions with the game makers themselves is one that lacks any sort of norm or uniformity. Some game developers understand the value these YouTubers bring to their businesses, while some tend to go on the attack with copyright claims. Some developers appreciate an open and honest ecosystem of reviews, including snarky reviews, while others attempt to suppress any sort of negativity.
But, as far as I'm aware of, Overkill Software, makers of Payday 2, is the first studio to donate proceeds from its DLC content to defend YouTubers from copyright lawsuits.
Ethan [Klein] and Hila [Klein], who run the YouTube channel H3H3Productions, make sketch comedy and “reaction” videos in which they comment on internet and YouTube culture. Last year, the husband-wife team filmed a video mocking YouTuber Matt Hosseinzadeh, or “Bold Guy,” for his video about picking up girls using parkour. In response, Hosseinzadeh filed a complaint with the Southern District of New York District Court alleging copyright infringement. In the complaint, Hosseinzadeh accuses the Kleins of “purporting to discuss the Work in what they believe to be a humorous manner but in fact reproduces virtually all of the Work as nothing more than a prop.”
Now, we've discussed this lawsuit previously. It's a suit clearly designed to shut up two critics who engaged in what seems to be pretty straightforward Fair Use of Hosseinzadeh's content. Following along with the court proceedings, the last entry seems to indicate the court feels this whole thing, which has already gone on too long, will end with a summary judgement. I can't be certain the court feels that this is going to end up going in the Kleins' favor, but that would be my educated guess based on our previous analysis of the suit.
Regardless, Overkill Software has swooped in to try and help the Kleins by baking them into Payday 2 via DLC and using any money made by it to fund the Kleins' legal efforts.
On April Fools, Overkill Software introduced Ethan Klein into first-person shooter Payday 2. Yesterday, Overkill, who are fans of the Kleins, announced they’ll be making the joke a permanent, and charitable, reality. This Fall, the faces behind H3H3Productions will be playable characters in Payday 2, and Overkill studios will donate all of the DLC’s revenue to the Kleins as they continue to fight their legal battle that, they say, could financially ruin them even if they win.
While the Kleins were initially represented pro bono, a year later, after switching firms, the price of fighting the lawsuit has reportedly snowballed, with the first month allegedly costing over $50,000. And they will continue to fight it, the Kleins say, to protect fair use and prevent a bad precedent. (YouTube personality Philip DeFranco helped raise $170,000 for them in a GoFundMe, arguing that the lawsuit is “an attempt to step on freedom of speech via a broken copyright system and most people’s confusion over Fair Use.”)
This is, to some degree, connecting with fans. Fans, at least, of the Kleins. It's also refreshing to see a game studio take the stance that they are fans of YouTubers that do some videos based on video games and are actively looking to support them against a bogus copyright lawsuit. Can you imagine, say, Nintendo doing something like this? Given its hardline stance on intellectual property, it's a difficult thing to conjure in one's mind.
Overkill, by the way, is taking 0% from the sales of the Klein DLC. It's a great look for the company.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, ethan klein, fair use, hila klein, let's play, matt hosseinzadeh, payday 2
Companies: overkill software
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I'm going with Plaintiff: if all that's been done is add voice-over or insults to the whole (or near) of content, then it's infringement.
Defendants clearly have nothing without Plaintiff's content, therefore it's not parody or transformative, but some degree of theft. They didn't assemble their own work (apparently it's not a melange skewing several persons), just added insults. -- This is literally adding insult to injury, then.
By the way, egregious insults is exactly why Masnick has problems now. This is clearly a trend: I call it Gawkering. You should all take note that your notions about "free speech" law clearly aren't holding up, either.
Many "pundits" on the internet make nothing of their own, but it's easy to insult. Adds nothing to society that needs the protections due copyrighted content. It riles targets immensely. It's likely that Plaintiff here only tried to entertain other people, poured out what he/she has of soul, which may not be much, and that makes it sting all the more.
Don't insult people, kids. NO GOOD CAN COME OF IT. If that's all you've got, follow old advice and say nothing. There's no percentage in insults for you, and potential big down-side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm going with Plaintiff: if all that's been done is add voice-over or insults to the whole (or near) of content, then it's infringement.
Don't insult people, kids. NO GOOD CAN COME OF IT. If that's all you've got, follow old advice and say nothing.
Someone's a failure at taking his own advice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm going with Plaintiff: if all that's been done is add voice-over or insults to the whole (or near) of content, then it's infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm going with Plaintiff: if all that's been done is add voice-over or insults to the whole (or near) of content, then it's infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm going with Plaintiff: if all that's been done is add voice-over or insults to the whole (or near) of content, then it's infringement.
The answer is because they >did< add something. Commentary. Criticism. Information. Even just their reaction. They get traffic because they are adding to an existing work, and arguably driving traffic for it even if they do little but criticise. People who find the base work interesting for good or ill will want to see it without all the 'interruption'.
I personally enjoy reaction channels on youtube, as well as reviewers. This can range from enjoying the feeling of watching it with someone else without actually needing to pester my friends into watching something they don't care for to enjoying how a certain person reacts to things to just wanting to watch something over again, but wanting a little more.
If the studio behind a major game is willing to pony up a whole DLC to support this case, it also goes to show that this isn't just some random person stealing content, but someone of a considerable degree of popularity doing work in the community. They obviously are getting enough traffic to be worth both being fought over their derivation, and receiving support from outside forces to continue it. If they were adding literally >nothing< constructive or interesting, I really don't see them being having enough of a fan base to be worth going after and DEFINATELY not worth enough to get the proceeds from an entire DLC of a pretty popular game.
For people who don't understand the appeal, I hate to mention this to you, but the original work still exists in it's 'untainted' form, sitting there waiting for you to enjoy it. Nothing's been stolen. It's still there! Arguably, with stuff like this going around, they could probably use your business so why not support them? At the end of the day it isn't like anything has been taken away or ruined, because it still exists there for your enjoyment. The only way its really ruined is if you take the message being delivered to heart and are affected by it, at which point I'd DEFINATELY argue they added to the experience overall.
The only argument really left to be made is 'Well I don't like it and think it's trash, so it must be'. Which is fine. The wonderful thing about opinions is they are like assholes. Everybody has their own, and life would suck if everyone was expected to share the same one.
And before anyone accuses me of theft, I will happily admit that last line is paraphrased from the Nostalgia Critic's Les Mis musical review. Attribution :D But... I can't imagine you'd like it to much. It's just a bunch of people talking over clips of the film, and 'not making anything of their own'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm going with Plaintiff: if all that's been done is add voice-over or insults to the whole (or near) of content, then it's infringement.
IT’S ALL ABOUT THE GAME, AND HOW YOU PLA—wait will anybody here even get that reference?
Technically, it would be “copyright infringement”, and copying—even illicit copying—is not theft.
Late night talk show hosts do this all the time; nobody sues them for copyright infringement over it.
Technically, it would be adding insult to copyright infringement—the plaintiff still has to prove any actual injury that comes from the infringement, after all.
Nah, he has problems because some half-assed half-ass thinks he can use the legal system to shake down yet another journalistic outlet that called him out on his whole-assed lies.
Better outlets than Gawker have been pissing off dumb rich motherfuckers for decades before that site was ever even an idea. This is not some new idea, no matter how much you think you came up with it before anyone else and think you deserve all the credit for it.
Several courts have ruled that the usage of an entire work within another work can, under certain circumstances, be considered Fair Use. The law is generally unclear on this (as a good chunk of Fair Use law often is), but do not act as if there is no precedent for the idea.
Note to self: Coming up with unique insults for individual situations is not creative, stick to the old “public domain” standbys such as “imbecile”, “half-wit”, and “the orange-skinned toupeé-wearing hobgoblin that hides underneath a child’s bed”.
I am pretty sure that those late night talk show hosts I mentioned would disagree with you.
Yes, and? A person’s emotional response to something does not determine whether something deserves the protection of copyright. One of those awful Trump children wrote a book full of quotes and mishmashed axioms about generic “you go girl” nonsense aimed at rich white women, and she still gets the benefit of copyright.
Hal P. Warren poured his soul into “Manos: The Hands of Fate”, and look how that film turned out.
“Unless you are really fuckin’ good at it, in which case you can probably become a somewhat successful stand-up comedian or some shit. But you gotta be really, really fuckin’ good at that shit, or else you’re gonna end up face-first in a toilet at a dive bar wondering what the hell happened to your life, your bank account, and your two front teeth that you vomited up ten minutes ago.”
Second note to self: Never say anything if it could possibly hurt the feelings of anyone else in the world.
…shit, too late.
Well, Techdirt took the piss out of the Prenda jackasses for years, and that does not seem to have brought the site down. So, uh…maybe rethink that notion.
Oh, and I just repurposed your entire comment for the purposes of foul-mouthed commentary with a few insults thrown in for good measure, so I expect to be sued by you for copyright infringement any day now. I cannot wait to hear from your highly ethical and fair-minded atto—I mean, whatever dumbass lawyer you can dredge up to file the lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm going with Plaintiff: if all that's been done is add voice-over or insults to the whole (or near) of content, then it's infringement.
IT’S ALL ABOUT THE GAME, AND HOW YOU PLA—wait will anybody here even get that reference?
All about control and if you can take it. ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm going with Plaintiff: if all that's been done is add voice-over or insults to the whole (or near) of content, then it's infringement.
What is far worse: Insults are not something you can seek relief for through copyright infringement determination. That is a completely different area of the law.
Again, you are purporting a ridiculous myth, that copyright makes you able to sue anyone who use your work if you are thin skinned. But, Erdogan, that is not a copyright question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm going with Plaintiff: if all that's been done is add voice-over or insults to the whole (or near) of content, then it's infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm going with Plaintiff: if all that's been done is add voice-over or insults to the whole (or near) of content, then it's infringement.
I was just talking about how I kinda would rather just watch the movie than their disjointed and random commentary with someone XD
Tho to be fair, I only watched the first one and pledged to give it a fair chance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm going with Plaintiff: if all that's been done is add voice-over or insults to the whole (or near) of content, then it's infringement.
Are you bored since you go trolling here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm going with Plaintiff: if all that's been done is add voice-over or insults to the whole (or near) of content, then it's infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm going with Plaintiff: if all that's been done is add voice-over or insults to the whole (or near) of content, then it's infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm going with Plaintiff: if all that's been done is add voice-over or insults to the whole (or near) of content, then it's infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm going with Plaintiff: if all that's been done is add voice-over or insults to the whole (or near) of content, then it's infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm going with Plaintiff: if all that's been done is add voice-over or insults to the whole (or near) of content, then it's infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm going with Plaintiff: if all that's been done is add voice-over or insults to the whole (or near) of content, then it's infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm going with Plaintiff: if all that's been done is add voice-over or insults to the whole (or near) of content, then it's infringement.
Also, you seem to think the truth about ethically questionable people who make outrageous statements is an insult. Strange you seem to have no issue with the garbage they spew, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]