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.<\/p>\n
This system attracted widespread attention when Activision Publishing, Inc., the developer of Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare<\/em>, 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.”<\/em><\/p>\n 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 \u2014 our level of video claims hasn’t changed.”<\/em> The continued availability of a number of glitch-related videos on the platform following the strikes lent credence to Activision’s position.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Activision’s copyright strikes on Call of Duty glitch videos have triggered debate within the gaming community. This post analyses the legal complexities and responses from both Activision and gamers regarding YouTube’s copyright enforcement.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":54,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,6],"tags":[4768,7113,31,7112,540,7114,7115,546],"class_list":["post-17108","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-copyrights","category-intellectual-property","tag-activision","tag-call-of-duty","tag-copyright-infringement","tag-copyright-strikes","tag-fair-use","tag-gaming-community","tag-video-game-law","tag-youtube"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17108","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17108"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17108\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":149775,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17108\/revisions\/149775"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17108"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17108"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17108"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Legal Dimensions<\/h2>\n
Disclaimer<\/h2>\n