If you created a work and then other people profited from using your work without your permission...would you feel slimy if you asked them for a portion of what is rightly yours?

Why is it that the same people who whine and complain about their "consumer rights" being infringed on are the same people who will willing…

Again, they use too much of the infringing work to be considered Fair Use. It's not just labeling something as a "review" and calling it a day - there's a number of factors that must be taken into account.

PeanutButterGamer makes what he does because of the GAMES that he's broadcasting. Without the copyrighted works he's infringing on, he doesn't get any money. Take away the games and he's got nothing.

If he was creating original content and monetizing it, there's no issue. But since he's infringing on copyrights, the…

I definitely agree: what the YouTubers are doing is definitely slimy.

Honestly, the leeches making these videos should be happy they're getting anything - legally they deserve to receive cease and desist orders, not advertising money.

The difference is the amount of the copyrighted work used - by playing through a long section of the game it's more likely to be an infringement than the short sections used in a review. The amount of the work used is a factor in the Fair Use analysis. Additionally, there's an exclusive right of public performance…

A trademark or trade dress is quite different from a copyright.

A layperson telling a licensed attorney that he's wrong about a legal matter...

Just because they tolerate it doesn't mean it's not an infringement.

And when did you pass the bar exam?

Argumentum ad populum. Just because a lot of people subscribe doesn't mean that the YouTube personalities have talent. Justin Bieber is popular too, and no one would argue that he is very talented musically. :D

No. The only reviews I've ever done were on TV, Radio, and in text form online. When I did do a video review on TV I contacted the publisher ahead of time anyway and they invariably gave a green light.

I'd say that it's a smart business decision to stop allowing talentless hacks from riding their coattails and profiting from someone else's work like a digital leech.

Why should he be able to profit off of other people's work at all? He should be happy that he gets any money whatsoever, because without the work of the actual content creators he's just an unemployed schlub playing a game. People like Pewdiepie don't deserve any of the revenue, so they should be happy to be…

Reviews don't need to be addressed specifically. It's pretty easy to not enter the agreement regarding a review and then continue on with business as usual. Nintendo can try to have a review video taken down, but the affirmative defense of Fair Use has a long and storied history of applying to reviews that borrow…

I'm a licensed attorney who works for a software company...I'm pretty up to date on the law. Criticizing isn't included - a review is fair use so long as it doesn't use too much of the original work. It's a good idea, however, to regain control over Let's Play and Walkthrough videos, however...the latter have…

Just because, as an attorney, I understand copyright law better than you do doesn't make me "evil"...and it certainly doesn't make me "stupid". Lawyers haven't "destroyed Fair Use", the test has remained the same since it was codified into US law under 17 USC 107.

The general public does not have the right to create…

It's far from Fair Use. It's using a substantial portion of the original work. Like the sculptures in Rogers v. Koons, these videos are infringing works and only continue to be available because the publishers suffer their existence.

Before you claim Fair Use, learn a bit about copyright law.

No, it's not Fair Use. While Fair Use is determined on a case-by-case basis, Let's Play and walkthrough videos likely wouldn't pass the test. A "Let's Play" or Walkthrough video would fall under the same category of work as the sculptures in Rogers v. Koons, 960 F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 1992), and those were found to be…

"YouTubers" don't have the right to create derivative content and post it online, let alone make money off of it. Nintendo is being very generous, as they don't have to allow the existence of the videos, let alone allow people to profit from Nintendo's work.

Reviews are different, as a review (which would use less of…