Stargate and Patreon

[Platschu]

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...sa7feBDtzX3L7W
There is this failwhale34 guy who makes nice Stargate reaction videos on YouTube and now more people have started to follow him. And it is cool to re-watch and re-discover some gems in early episodes with him. On the other hand, I don't agree that somebody can earn money via Patreon because it feels like you are doing something behind the back of the original crew and company. I wouldn't say "stealing" just when it doesn't feel right. I mean it is different when somebody talks about a subject and cuts extra joke scenes into it from different copyrighted materials and it makes the video feel like a "new" product, but when somebody adds just the YT channel logo and a shortened reaction, it is at the edge of legality for me. I am just interested what is your opinion about it.

[epg20]

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...sa7feBDtzX3L7W
There is this failwhale34 guy who makes nice Stargate reaction videos on YouTube and now more people have started to follow him. And it is cool to re-watch and re-discover some gems in early episodes with him. On the other hand, I don't agree that somebody can earn money via Patreon because it feels like you are doing something behind the back of the original crew and company. I wouldn't say "stealing" just when it doesn't feel right. I mean it is different when somebody talks about a subject and cuts extra joke scenes into it from different copyrighted materials and it makes the video feel like a "new" product, but when somebody adds just the YT channel logo and a shortened reaction, it is at the edge of legality for me. I am just interested what is your opinion about it.

it is easiest to just let them see it for them self, here is a link to one of his vids, i have seen his vids before and well yes i would say it is more reaction than projection of the show, he still does show HIS reaction to the ENTIRE episode with his patreon account, so yes it is a legal skirt, i would say that it is still a skirt, a THIN skirt, but, yes a skirt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpl9R_jbB2I

[tomaso88]

This will probably come off sounding rude even though I don't mean it to but you got way too much time on your hand.

The guy spends his day reacting to videos and puts in quite a bit of effort into his channel. He isn't showing the entire episode in an illegal way he is just sharing his love for different tv series. I don't see why that is something you would complain about if anything he would be earning MGM more money by advertising their tv series. The patreon is just to support him and join his community on discord and what not. Many people play games and have subscribers or a patreon because they are showing their reaction to the game which is what the entire point of twitch is. I find it incredibly weird there is even a thread on this.

[Falcon Horus]

If MGM should take issue with it, they will slap a cease and desist on him...

But otherwise, he can do as he pleases.

If you want to support a worthy Patreon cause, PH is on there. With her 3D artwork and props.

[Platschu]

No, no, I didn't want to complain at all. I am not familiar with Patreon at all. Maybe I haven't expressed myself correctly. I am happy to see his reaction videos as he was the first one who has started to discover the Stargate franchise. Nothing is wrong if somebody makes reaction videos as I used to watch reaction videos about Game of Thrones, LOST, game trailers etc. I have a problem when you earn money with it, but anyway it is not my business, not my franchise and not my intellectual property (if this is the right English phrase), so I was interested what do you think about it. Sorry, if I have sounded a bit odd.

[Falcon Horus]

I don't think he's going to earn much from Patreon.

You'd have to have a large amount of subscribers before that's a profitable endeavor.

As is displayed in an article about the company itself:

"Patreon takes 5 percent, and the remaining 5 percent covers transaction fees."

Here's an interesting opinion piece by a Patreon user: No One Makes A Living on Patreon

****

I think the money he's earning from it, isn't going to cover his "production" costs to make the videos so he wouldn't be a problem for MGM with regards to copyright infringement. These companies, with the exception of Disney, don't give a flying fig about something that'll earn you some pocketmoney.

[gatechick]

No, no, I didn't want to complain at all. I am not familiar with Patreon at all. Maybe I haven't expressed myself correctly. I am happy to see his reaction videos as he was the first one who has started to discover the Stargate franchise. Nothing is wrong if somebody makes reaction videos as I used to watch reaction videos about Game of Thrones, LOST, game trailers etc. I have a problem when you earn money with it, but anyway it is not my business, not my franchise and not my intellectual property (if this is the right English phrase), so I was interested what do you think about it. Sorry, if I have sounded a bit odd.

If I could make a little money doing something I love, even if it's just pocket money, I would do it. Nothing wrong with that. If they are doing it legally, then I don't understand the issue.

[Platschu]

Thanks for explaining it. Maybe I have overreacted it. Sorry.

Anyway it is worth of following his videos as they have made me feel the need to rewatch SG-1 again.

[NickEast]

Patreon is basically donations (i.e. "patron" support which is where the name comes from). People don't pay him specifically for the videos, people support him because they like his work and they want him to keep doing it. It might be a fine line, but he's not actually selling anything or forcing people to pay (e.g. requiring a payment to be able to see the videos for example), which is what would clearly be illegal. This unlike other people that sell custom-made Stargate memorabilia, such as fan-made props, clothing, etc. which is technically illegal without permission and paying a cut to MGM. I didn't see his videos, but from the description it seems they are essentially commentary videos, for which it is completely legal to show clips of the episodes to provide context to his commentary.

At this point, I've seen barely any response from MGM on these matters. Heck, people were even promoting their memorabilia on the SGC feed way back when, without MGM batting an eye. So it's only a legal problem when MGM makes it a problem.

I'll be writing my own TTRPG for the Stargate universe as a whole, and I have a Patreon where people can support me if they want. But I make (or will be making) a lot of things, the majority of which would be original content, so people would support me based on my total work and not Stargate alone.

[Falcon Horus]

The only company I actively know to take issue with replica props and costumes being sold for profit is Disney.

If you appear on their radar, no matter how small, you can expect that cease and desist letter faster than you can say "But I...". They even have a policy about replica costumes, which is of course ridiculous considering the whole of the legions of Star Wars fans wanting to be as screen accurate as possible (most who want to join the 501st & Rebel Legion anyway).

Fact: they have a guide for costume makers and official appearances from Legion members at official Disney events. They actually mandate that you're not too short for a Storm Trooper & Jedi don't wear glasses (among other things).

[Platschu]

Disney has joined the Dark Side long time ago.

[chipnanna]

I agree with you. Even if someone has no understanding of copyright law, there is no logical reason for them to have an "issue" with this; their "issue" has absolutely NOTHING to do with what this man is doing, but with THEM; which is a major theme in our society these days, where people are out to put others down, to point fingers, and accuse others of wrongdoing without logic, common sense, or when even obvious facts prove otherwise.

For someone who uses the internet, who knows the basics of using a forum such as this one to start a discussion about this, is proof that they are being dramatic and their "issue" has more to do with them than it does the person they accuse. They definitely know enough to KNOW BETTER. And, it's not like the information about fair use is hard to find, it's everywhere. It's really no different than someone coming to this forum, or one like it, and saying that someone is wrong for using an image of an actor as their avatar. - 'nuf said.

[Platschu]

Thank you.

If you have read the opening post, my tone was neutral. First, I really enjoy his videos and I wanted to advertise it here if it was not obvious.

Second, I still believe it is beyond the fair use if you put up complete, unedited episode reactions for money. I don't agree with it. It is not just about him, I was talking in general about the whole Patreon. It is different when somebody ask financial support for his/her own creative work (like art, props, fan montagues, essays etc.), but it feels like crossing a borderline. Then they have explained MGM is not interested anyway as this little income is just enough to cover his costs. So I have apologised not even once here, but I do it again as maybe I have overreacted it. Sorry.

P.S.: Watch his videos as they are really funny how he is getting into the SG lore step by step.

[Falcon Horus]

I agree with you.

I have a feeling there's a quote missing. With whom are you agreeing, if I may be so curious to ask?

While your posts are still moderated as you are newbie -- hello and welcome by the way -- you should still be able to quote.
It's one of those nifty little buttons below someone's post. Multi-quote (sometimes a bit iffy) or reply-with-quote, either is fine.

Even if someone has no understanding of copyright law, there is no logical reason for them to have an "issue" with this; their "issue" has absolutely NOTHING to do with what this man is doing, but with THEM; which is a major theme in our society these days, where people are out to put others down, to point fingers, and accuse others of wrongdoing without logic, common sense, or when even obvious facts prove otherwise.

Not with Platschu's point then.

For someone who uses the internet, who knows the basics of using a forum such as this one to start a discussion about this, is proof that they are being dramatic and their "issue" has more to do with them than it does the person they accuse.

Sounds like you may want to read this statement again and see where that leaves you in relation to commenting to the issue or non-issue.

They definitely know enough to KNOW BETTER. And, it's not like the information about fair use is hard to find, it's everywhere. It's really no different than someone coming to this forum, or one like it, and saying that someone is wrong for using an image of an actor as their avatar. - 'nuf said.

There's a difference between "fair use" and "copyright infringement" however...

Fair use is a legal doctrine that promotes freedom of expression by permitting the unlicensed use of copyright-protected works in certain circumstances. Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides the statutory framework for determining whether something is a fair use and identifies certain types of uses—such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research—as examples of activities that may qualify as fair use. Section 107 calls for consideration of the following four factors in evaluating a question of fair use:

Purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes: Courts look at how the party claiming fair use is using the copyrighted work, and are more likely to find that nonprofit educational and noncommercial uses are fair.

Nature of the copyrighted work: This factor analyzes the degree to which the work that was used relates to copyright’s purpose of encouraging creative expression.

Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: Under this factor, courts look at both the quantity and quality of the copyrighted material that was used. If the use includes a large portion of the copyrighted work, fair use is less likely to be found; if the use employs only a small amount of copyrighted material, fair use is more likely.

Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Here, courts review whether, and to what extent, the unlicensed use harms the existing or future market for the copyright owner’s original work.

***

And this is directly from MGM's Media Licensing FAQ in relation to their copyright policies:

When do I need to purchase a license for MGM clips or stills?
If you plan to use clips or stills from any property owned by MGM in a project broadcast to the general public or used for commercial gain, you must purchase a license for that material. Failure to do so is a violation of copyright law and could have serious repercussions. If you are not sure whether or not you need a license for your project, contact an MGM representative at (310) 449-3572 or e-mail us directly.

***

So that answers that question: if there's commercial gain, you need a license.

[NickEast]

Except, there is no commercial gain with this. Or at least, it's not obvious enough to clearly say it's infringing, as this deals with donations instead of paying for access to the videos.

Of course, at that point, we don't know whether or not he contacted MGM and has gotten permission or not (chances are slim, but we don't know). And we can contact them all we want, the chances they're actually going to respond are even slimmer. And so far MGM doesn't care enough to act on someone like him or us infringing on their copyright.

A video game mod for Homeworld turned standalone game actually got permission to use clips and music from the show in their mod/game, as long as they included the MGM logo with a proper copyright disclaimer, and are not selling it.

----

Also, something that may not be entirely clear from the copied text above about Fair Use is that, as a "legal doctrine", it's not law. It's not an exception to copyright law either, it's merely a legal defense that has been used successfully on numerous occasions to defend what was perceived to be infringement. It has been "recorded" in some way, making it the legal doctrine as it's described, but that also only happened in the US. I'm aware one or two other countries have similar "exceptions", but those are rare. In general, no one is allowed to use anything that someone else made without permission. That means recording let's play videos for video games, the RPG shows like Critical Role, video game mods (like the aforementioned Homeworld mod), song covers, even showing real cars, weapons, and other "products" in games, movies, etc. It's all infringement by the letter of the law. But most companies/rights-holders accept it, tolerate it, to a certain point, since 99% of it happens entirely on a good-name basis. Plenty of people actually make money from those let's play videos and RPG shows. The difference is that they're not actually sharing the whole package, nor are they selling anything (i.e. block their content behind a purchase). We can't play the video game or RPG just by watching the videos. And we can't watch the shows by just watching these commentary videos.

----

But of course at this point it's like, if you don't want to support the guy on Patreon because you don't think it's "right", that's more than fair. That's the whole point; you don't have to. You can watch the videos regardless.

Heck, I'm working to develop stuff for a virtual tabletop application for tabletop RPGs, for which I set up a Patreon for those wanting to support me. I was working on adding support for the Fate RPG, the game is officially Creative Commons so I don't need formal permission, and the guy who created it is a patron of mine. He still is even after I stopped working on it since someone else made a better version.