Summary
This post examines Activision's recent enforcement of copyright strikes on YouTube videos showing glitches in Call of Duty: Advance Warfare. It analyses the resulting backlash within the gaming community and details Activision's statement clarifying its focus on videos that promote cheating or unfair exploits. The conflict highlights the persistent tension between copyright holders and content creators, particularly regarding the boundaries of fair use and criticism in gameplay videos. The post further considers the lack of absolute legal clarity, which fuels disputes and alleged rights abuses on both sides. The analysis is structured to provide an objective view of the legal and practical implications for gamers and developers.
Activision’s Copyright Strikes Against Call of Duty Glitch Videos
Gameplay videos occupy a prominent space on YouTube, attracting large audiences of viewers who watch gamers play popular titles. Copyrights in such games vest in the developers, yet friction between game developers and the gaming community over video content has been a recurring feature of the platform’s history. YouTube’s response to this friction has been the “copyright strike” mechanism: when a content owner flags an account for alleged infringement, that account receives a copyright strike from YouTube, which restricts its access to features such as live streaming, uploading videos longer than fifteen minutes, and the YouTube video editor. A single strike expires after six months if no further strikes are received and the account holder completes YouTube’s Copyright School. Three strikes result in permanent account termination.
Activision’s Action and Community Reaction
This system attracted widespread attention when Activision Publishing, Inc., the developer of Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare, issued copyright strikes against YouTube accounts that had posted videos featuring glitches or bugs in the game. Popular multi-channel networks focused on gameplay content, including Machinima, issued warnings to their partners. Machinima’s statement advised: “Activision is being particularly vigilant about their Call of Duty videos lately; issuing strikes on videos showing glitches. If you post videos highlighting these glitches, your channel may be liable to receive a copyright strike so please be careful.”
The strikes prompted an outcry within the gaming community, expressed prominently across social media platforms. Activision, in a statement to Eurogamer, maintained that it targeted only videos that promoted cheating and unfair exploits, rather than gameplay content generally. The company stated: “We’re excited that so many fans are having fun playing the game and posting videos of their gameplay. We love watching the videos ourselves. Occasionally, some folks post videos that promote cheating and unfair exploits. As always, we keep an eye out for these videos — our level of video claims hasn’t changed.” The continued availability of a number of glitch-related videos on the platform following the strikes lent credence to Activision’s position.
Legal Dimensions
The legal issue underlying the controversy is whether gameplay videos, and particularly glitch or bug videos, qualify as fair use or a similar exception to copyright. Videos that consist primarily of commentary on a game’s shortcomings may be characterised as criticism, while videos that combine gameplay with narration may attract protection as transformative works. Both categories are recognised exceptions to copyright infringement, though the precise boundaries are contested and fact-specific.
The absence of clear legal guidance has historically been a source of tension between developers, who may seek to prevent exploitation of game bugs that undermine the online experience, and content creators, whose commentary and critical videos constitute a significant part of the gaming community’s discourse. This particular episode illustrates the competing interests at stake: the developer’s interest in protecting game integrity against the content creator’s interest in disseminating criticism and analysis without the threat of account suspension.
Disclaimer
This article is for general information and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult a qualified attorney before acting on any matter discussed here.