Joined: 4/15/2013
Posts: 331
Location: In the attic
Link to video
(Skip to 5:59)
I'm not sure if I'm posting this in the right place, but here goes anyway.
In this video, INDIEACHIEVEMENT uses footage for Spyro: Attack of the Rhynocs which I can clearly recognise as being taken from my TAS of the game.
Because the uploader of the video does not credit any sources of the footage in the description, I believe that this constitutes plagiarism.
TASVideos site policy states that TASes hosted by the site should always be properly credited and referenced. I don't want people to be sharing my work without credit - I put three months of on-off work into the original run, and another month on the second iteration. It's a waste of the author's sweat and toil.
I don't have a Youtube account yet, but if I did, I'd be taking action right now.
Joined: 10/12/2011
Posts: 6442
Location: The land down under.
Like they'd give a shit about what's on the video on the first place.
https://youtu.be/ZnTnOLW3Gq4?t=4m
My video was on a different video without citation but I don't give a shit (& the fact I deleted it because I improved on it.).
Only reason why I knew it was mine at the time.
1) The PB Time
2) The movement introducing the level
WebNations/Sabih wrote:
+fsvgm777 never censoring anything.
Disables Comments and Ratings for the YouTube account.Something better for yourself and also others.
Joined: 4/15/2013
Posts: 331
Location: In the attic
But when you consider that IA openly encourages the viewer to like/share the video etc., this means that I'm potentially losing out on free advertising.
Let me check the view counts...
AotR 18:48: 1,882 views
AotR 16:40: 1,409 views
From what I can see, a decent viewcount on TVC is about 4~5000.
Plus, what if someone were to plagiarise one of my fanfics? I don't know about you, but I'd go apeshit.
Hey, it's absolutely fair to be annoyed when people take your work without crediting you. So why all the victim-blaming here? C'mon guys.
Unfortunately I don't have any good advice for you. It's very hard to stop people from engaging in plagiarism or copyright violation on the Internet (and yes, I'm aware of the irony of saying that here). I suggest you contact the creators of that video, say "Hey, you used my stuff without my permission, I want some credit." It's entirely possible you can resolve this peacefully, and you're more likely to get good results by being polite than by immediately opening fire. You can always step things up if they don't respond well to politeness, but you can't step things down, so to speak.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
First, plagiarism is an ethical violation only. Nobody, Youtube included, is under an onus to do anything about it. You probably mean copyright infringement, which is a legal matter.
Second, you have a very poor case for even copyright infringement under fair use clauses, of which is satisfies nearly all of them. Purpose is different. Different nature. Substantiality is less than 10% of your run. Effect on and competition with your 'market' is nigh nonexistent. The only one it violates is non-commercial, EXCEPT...
Third, 5,000 views is peanuts for YouTube. It's like... MAYBE $20-30, and that's assuming he/you get a fantastic CPM which is exclusively seen in the full-time video creators who get view counts in the millions.
Joined: 12/8/2012
Posts: 706
Location: Missouri, USA
Derakon had the right idea here. Try contacting INDIEACHIEVEMENT and, while being civil and respectful, politely let them know that you are the author of the specific footage used and that you would appreciate being credited.
This is no guarantee that they'll comply. I do understand where you're coming from on wanting to receive due credit for your labor, though. I pray for this situation to work out for the best.
"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." - 1 Corinthians 2:9
Second, you have a very poor case for even copyright infringement under fair use clauses, of which is satisfies nearly all of them.
The Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, which is what all TASes are published under on this site, clearly decrees:
"You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use."
Second, you have a very poor case for even copyright infringement under fair use clauses, of which is satisfies nearly all of them.
The Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, which is what all TASes are published under on this site, clearly decrees:
"You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use."
Creative commons licenses are based on the holding and enforcement of copyright. It doesn't exist above and beyond copyright. If copyright cannot be enforced or doesn't apply, because fair use/parody/public domain/etc, then by definition, neither can a creative commons license.
Joined: 7/17/2004
Posts: 985
Location: The FLOATING CASTLE
I've noticed my TASes used too and always got a pretty prompt response from a friendly message. To be honest I thought it was pretty cool that they used a cut of my TAS for the OC Remix trailer. It turns out that especially for older games our video clips are one of the easiest sources for high-quality video.
Hey, it's absolutely fair to be annoyed when people take your work without crediting you. So why all the victim-blaming here? C'mon guys.
Because someone is using his work, which likely used copyright infringing material to create, as part of a greater work. And he'll go apeshit if someone copies something he copied as part of a new derivative work.
I blame hypocrisy apeshit.
Because someone is using his work, which likely used copyright infringing material to create, as part of a greater work. And he'll go apeshit if someone copies something he copied as part of a new derivative work.
I blame hypocrisy apeshit.
I thought you were smarter than that but your latest posts made me reconsider.
Joined: 4/15/2013
Posts: 331
Location: In the attic
Okay, okay. I'm going to reply to you guys one by one.
Derakon
Thank you for standing up for me.
Tangent
I don't like what you're saying here. I'm not doing anything for money, and I'm not trying to deal specifically with copyright here.
"[P]lagiarism is an ethical violation only."
Try telling that to the uni professors after they kick you out for submitting some pre-written essay you bought for a hundred quid.
ars4326, MUGG
Thank you both for your advice. @MUGG specifically, I don't really think flagging would be necessary. I'd rather politely request for him to edit in non-TASed footage (considering that Indie's other videos usually show 'normal' gameplay), and reupload a new version.
Warp
Thank you for clarifying about the licence.
TheAxeMan
The fact that you appreciated it when "[OCRemix] used a cut of [your] TAS" gives me a good reason to not be so darn butthurt about this whole situation.
TrueTrue wrote:
Because someone is using his work, which likely used copyright infringing material to create, as part of a greater work. And he'll go apeshit if someone copies something he copied as part of a new derivative work.
I blame hypocrisy apeshit.
Okay, you win on that front. I'll admit, it was a terrible idea to bring up fanfics. Remember, I'm a bloody idiot [See the "My WWTBAM TAS" thread].
EDIT: Message has been sent.
You can find me on YT at: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2d28gamcrE8vm8MUjty8Jw
Tangent
...
"[P]lagiarism is an ethical violation only."
Try telling that to the uni professors after they kick you out for submitting some pre-written essay you bought for a hundred quid.
"an ethical violation only" is not the same as "not subject to sanctions"; if this were a video submitted for a university course, that probably would be grounds for failing the course or expulsion from university
(a.k.a. "Plagiarism is not copyright infringement; just because it's one doesn't make it the other.")
I thought plagiarism is presenting someone else's work as your own, rather than using someone's work without crediting.
If I, for example, photograph a statue and put that photograph on my web page without saying who made the statue, that's not plagiarism. If I claimed "I made this statue", that would be.
I thought plagiarism is presenting someone else's work as your own, rather than using someone's work without crediting.
If I, for example, photograph a statue and put that photograph on my web page without saying who made the statue, that's not plagiarism. If I claimed "I made this statue", that would be.
That's not really anything other than lying or making a false claim. Maybe fraud if you tried to act on it or used it for your own gain, and the photo in that case is completely immaterial to the claim. What would be plagiarism is if someone else took the photo and you put it on your website without attribution. It'd also be copyright violation regardless of attribution or not.
Plagiarism isn't strictly defined, and some definitions include it being possible to plagiarize yourself, but it's pretty much always involved in the creation of some kind of intellectual property (writing, thoughts, images, etc) under the pretenses of being your original work when it is not. You can't really plagiarize a physical object, although you certainly can plagiarize designs.
In academic papers I understand plagiarism to be taking portions from other papers (such as relevant amounts of text, results, or other such things) and including them in yours in a manner that does not mention that the portion is taken from another paper nor clearly distinguishes that borrowed portion from the rest of the text, making it look like it's your own original work. This even if you express the idea of the other paper using your own words (the worst case of plagiarism being, of course, that you just copy text from the other paper verbatim, without specifying that it's coming from that other paper, making it look like it's your writing).
One of the most common ways to acknowledge the source of a claim or portion of text is to use wikipedia-style citation symbols. Another is, of course, to clearly quote the other paper in a very distinctive manner (such as eg. on its own paragraph, visibly indented more than the rest of the text, and mentioning in some manner where it's quoted from.)
Of course this is only talking about text. The concept of plagiarism needs to be applied differently when we are talking eg. about a visual medium.
Moderator, Senior Ambassador, Experienced player
(907)
Joined: 9/14/2008
Posts: 1014
I endeavor to ask permission from authors before even pitching games (I did a pathetic job at that for SGDQ 2015 because the games list was a bit chaotic at the last minute, though... :) On the official schedule at http://gamesdonequick.com each author's name is clearly listed as the Author with the game Name listed as TASBot plays <game>, and I'm merely listed as couch commentary. I've also sent PM's to each author/co-author asking them if they have preferences on how they would like their work to be highlighted, specifically if they would like any mentions of any social media destinations.
I'm probably going overboard, but I've had my work used without attribution a number of times and it doesn't feel good when it happens. My goal here is to highlight the art that each author has created, and I think I'll be able to reach that goal for this GDQ just fine.
More Mario 64 clips used.
Mario Kart 64 with HiRes Textures
NESguide.com The Legend of Zelda.
TASVideos: FractalFusion Mega Man X
TASVideos: Nahoc Bomberman 64
