The creative manager of Google Stadium would pay royalties to the streamers.
In addition to the people of Twitter, his own employer also confronted Alex Hutchinson, who said streamers should purchase a separate license for streamed games.
The legal side of Twitch broadcasts has recently become a much-discussed topic in the Hungarian social media due to the banning of TheVR, but similarly, there has been a heated discourse on the topic among English-speaking Twitterers. Alex Hutchinson threw the stone into the stagnant water, certifying to Google as the creative director of Assassin’s Creed III and Far Cry 4 last year as a member of the Stadia Games & Entertainment team.
Hutchinson launched a tweet tsunami on Thursday with the view that live streaming of a game should be tied to a license similar to playing a copyrighted song during broadcasts.
“Streamers who worry that their content will be taken down because they used music they didn’t pay for should rather be excited about streaming games they didn’t pay for either. They could all disappear if publishers choose to comply. . “
The real truth is the streamers should be paying the developers and publishers of the games they stream. They should be buying a license like any real business and paying for the content they use.
– Alex Hutchinson (@BangBangClick) October 22, 2020
“The truth is, they should pay the developers and publishers whose games are streamed. They should buy a license like any real business and pay for the content they use.”
After expressing his position, he even responded to the opinions of the paprika counter-camp.
“It’s fascinating that people are outraged when someone says content creators should also share in the fact that others use their content for profit.”
The thoughts of the former EA and ubisoft director have found little support among the average stream viewer and within the ranks of the gaming industry, and it really seems that even for Google, which employs him, the defining direction is different. A spokesman for the company told 9to5google that what was described did not reflect Google’s position (let’s say a capitalized reminder also draws attention to this on Hutchinson’s Twitter account). Ryan Wyatt, head of the company’s YouTube gaming division, also voiced his disagreement in a tweet.
We believe that Publishers and Creators have a wonderful symbiotic relationship that has allowed a thriving ecosystem to be created. One that has mutually benefited everyone! YT is focused on creating value for Creators, Publishers, & Users. All ships rise when we work together.
– Ryan Wyatt (@Fwiz) October 22, 2020
“We believe in publishers and creators they are in a wonderful symbiotic relationship that has allowed the emergence of a proliferating ecosystem. An ecosystem that has been mutually beneficial to all. YouTube is focused on creating value for creators, publishers, and users alike. Everyone is doing well to work together. “
Hutchinson, of course, has no say in what policies Google sets for streaming games, he only joined the company as a game maker when his studio, Typhoon Games, was acquired in December. Thus, the fuss around his opinion seems somewhat superfluous, and in principle, of course, it may be interesting to re-run the debate a few years ago as to whether game makers are entitled to a share of the streamers ’revenue.
There is still no serious legal precedent in the US (which would clearly decide whether a livestream or a let’s play video is a stand-alone work or a simple retransmission of royalty content), but a possible lawsuit seems more likely to end in victory for game makers. For the time being, however, neither videographers nor publishers have taken such a case to court, so the current status quo will certainly remain in the near future.
What do you think is legitimate Hutchinson’s position, or does it matter at all, what would be the legally more likely outcome of a let’s play lawsuit?