Vimeo inspires creativity by banning gaming videos
Jul
Vimeo, the darling of the current video upload crop, announced a few days ago that they will no longer host gaming videos.
The post on their blog which makes the annoucement cites several reasons for the decision, chief amongst them the stated aim of Vimeo to “inspire creativity”. The Vimeo staff have drawn a hard line in the sand here:
The Vimeo staff does not feel that videos which are direct captures of video game play truly constitute “creative expression”.
It’s a subjective decision (and one which Vimeo, or any other hosting site, is entirely at liberty to make), but is this really the core motivation here? Perhaps the main concern is actually, as the blog post admits, that
such videos may expose Vimeo to liability from the game creator(s), as we have already seen action from popular video game companies against videos such as these.
Either way, the sad facts appear to be that anything uploaded to Vimeo from now on that is deemed to be a “gaming video” will be summarily deleted. Currently-hosted videos that fall into this category will continue to be hosted by Vimeo until September 1st, at which point they too will be removed.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this decision from our point of view is that the blog post makes specific mention of machinima videos, and excludes them from the ruling.
We currently do not feel that Machinima films fall under the category of gaming videos described above and, therefore, assuming compliance with our site’s general terms & conditions, we will continue to accept such videos on Vimeo. We are not, at this time, banning films that fall into the Machinima genre.
The problem here (for us as machinima creators, not for Vimeo) is that the definition of machinima is a wide-ranging one. In fact, as we’ve discussed before, it seems that everyone’s definition of machinima is different (and, crucially, everyone is right). The list of videos that will no longer be accepted by Vimeo is given as
game walk-throughs, game strategy videos, depictions of player vs player battles, raids, fraps, or any other video gaming videos that simply depict individuals playing a video game.
I have to admit, this worries me. “PvP battles”? That would probably exclude Thresh vs. Billox made by Phil “Overman” Rice, arguably the greatest machinima director currently working. “Fraps”? Does that mean any footage captured using the FRAPS screen-capture software? Fraps is just a tool, and it’s a tool that’s been used to create many of the most firmly story-centric machinima pieces of the last few years.
Let me reiterate – Vimeo have the right to refuse to host any video they wish, without explanation. We must be careful, though, not to assume that their definition of “machinima” is a canonical one. I also strongly contest the implication that capturing, editing and uploading footage of online gameplay does not “inpire creativity”. It is, self-evidently, a form of creative expression. Just because the resultant video is probably not something that I, or Vimeo, or perhaps even you, would particularly be interested in watching does not invalidate that.
bllius describes the decision as reactionary and contradictory over at Shattered Keyboard
(Semi-off-topic)
I don’t actually think that Vimeo’s stance here is anything to worry about - there are other video hosting sites for more game-oriented content, and there’s no reason to get paranoid about their attitude to game content with artistic merit until we have some examples.
However.
“Vimeo have the right to refuse to host any video they wish, without explanation”
Yes, they do. And we have the right to complain, criticise, advocate that people use other sites, protest, monitarily support the competition, and in extreme cases lobby for a ban on such activity to be put into law. Not that I think we’ll be doing the last one in this case.
The “oh, well, it’s their site, so they can do what they want” line is, I think, one of the greater dangers to modern society. Think about it. The reason that Vimeo can’t refuse to allow black people to put up videos is because some years ago, a number of people didn’t say “oh, well, it’s their bus service so they can force us to sit at the back if they want”.
I don’t think that this case is anything like the cases I’m listing above. Indeed, I’m not too fussed by it. But I’ve made it a point to jump up and shout a lot any time someone advances the “well, it’s their site, so…” argument.
If you think Vimeo’s stance is unfair (and I’m not sure I do), do something about it. It’s either fair or it’s not.
Good post, Johnnie.
It’s worth noting that I deliberately did not post Thresh vs. Billox on Vimeo in the first place because I did not think it fit the site’s description of what they wanted there, even though I do feel the video has creative merit.
If there is ambiguity in their description of what constitutes game footage, I think we all know who the culprits are for that ambiguity. Not to beat a dead horse, but perhaps if the game companies were a bit more clear and consistent in what they permit vs. what they’ll come after, it would mitigate some of that feeling of risk that Vimeo and other sites grapple with. Of course, the game companies have their own legal-related challenges which make it difficult for them to clear things up too.
Now explanations aside, what do I think of their decision? I think it stinks. It IS theirs to make, but I think they miscalculated the impact this will have in the gaming press and blogosphere… perhaps solely because of the way they’ve characterized game videos as non-creative. That’s gonna leave a mark.
@Hugh - I’m totally with you on the right to complain, criticize, protest, etc. That is, in fact, the precise limit of our rights as users in this case.
But my opinion differs greatly regarding the evil of “it’s their site”. One of the greater dangers to modern society? Analogous to racism? Grossly overstated. Hosting videos costs somebody money; if you take on that expense yourself, you have a general freedom from another’s discretionary policy in what you post (with some exceptions, of course). But if you host your videos on someone else’s dollar, you are subject to their rules and whims, and a sense of public entitlement is out of place.
Voicing one’s opinion on the decision, in the variety of ways a “voice” can be manifest in this age, is wholly appropriate. It might not change Vimeo’s mind, but what it might do is demonstrate to the world that there’s a real demand for high quality hosting of gameplay videos, that there’s a real audience for them in that venue. If THAT message gets out in convincing strength and numbers, then it’s only a matter of time before someone else steps into the market and puts up their own dollars in a new site devoted to that audience, or until one of the existing game video sites ups the ante.
Well said @Overman.
I agree with you - this does stink. Although I can understand the stated rational behind it (and, even more, I can understand the actual rational behind it), I don’t think it’s the right decision. I don’t think it will solve any of Vimeo’s problems or sooth any of their concerns, and - as you say - they’ve grosly miscalculated the effect that this is going to have.
I, too, was a little surprised by Hugh’s post. We do indeed have the right - and perhaps even an obligation - to complain, but this is not analogous to racism. This is not a discrimatory breach of basic human rights, but a subjective decision by a private hosting company. Hugh’s key point, though - that we shouldn’t be afraid to protest loudly about this should we feel so inclined - is one I entirely support.
I think that Vimeo’s decision was wrong, and I think that Vimeo will be damaged by it. Overman is right, though - I think it’s only a matter of time before someone else steps up to the plate and reaps the crop that Vimeo is now neglecting.
Eric Rice has weighed in on the subject, a case in point for what we suspected might happen in the ‘sphere.
http://ericrice.com/spin/2008/07/23/vimeos-ban-on-game-videos-strikes-a-nerve/
WeGame makes the very smart play:
http://blog.wegame.com/2008/07/22/your-home-for-gaming-videos/
I’m sorry, I must have not written clearly.
I do NOT feel that this decision is analogous to institutionalised racism. Obviously.
However, the cry of “it’s their site/service/game/forum/network” isn’t just being raised here. It was raised when Blizzard decided to ban an LGBT (Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender) guild from their game. It was raised when BoingBoing silently “unpublished” content (BB, being ace, didn’t hide behind that argument, but they could have done). It has been raised every time any company has decided to reduce allowable free speech in their games and services. It would be raised if YouTube decided to ban all political speech, or political speech from one party, or advocacy on any issue of their choosing.
Increasingly, digital media are how we communicate, and within them services controlled by individual corporations. I’m very worried that the predominant attitude at the moment, at least within the gaming community, seems to be “sure, they can discriminate/censor/silence. It’s theirs.”
Eric Rice’s post, BTW, is superb.
Every video sharing site discriminates by virtue of their upload guidelines; it’s not censorship (suppression of ideas), it’s choice. They pay for the site, I think that entitles them to make those choices, just as you paying for the hosting of Machinima.com once entitled you to reject someone’s home videos of their baby eating a biscuit from being hosted there. Machinima.com chose to, yes, discriminate in what content it would host. You had that right, and you exercised it.
I don’t think this kind of basic discernment is anything akin to banning a group of people for their sexual orientation, purging all posts by a person for personal undisclosed reasons, or banning a particular kind of political speech. Two out of three of those are just plain bigotry, the third is purely personal. It’s just not the same flavor of choice, at all.
Incidentally, and not to stray off topic, but Boing Boing did indeed make the argument, citing their previously stated right to unpublish anything as they see fit. (And I fully respect their right to do so, even if I scratched my head at the “we’re not telling” approach).
I’ll make a separate post somewhere about this. I’m clearly not expressing myself well.
But: I’m not objecting to Vimeo at all. I’m objecting to the phrase “Vimeo have the right to refuse to host any video they wish, without explanation”.
Yeah, see, I don’t see the phrase you object to as even arguable; I think they absolutely have that right as a host.
I look forward to your post in order to better understand where you’re coming from.
I disagree with you there Hugh. They do have the right. What phil is pointing out, is that censorship vs freespeech, that’s a government thing. Corporation does have the right, and yeah, people have the right to tell them if they’re not happy about it.
I think what you’re saying is that as a community, we shouldn’t sit back and just say it’s okay “because they have the right to do it.” I hear you and it’s clearly not the case, people are saying something.
This issue is also brings up the role of content editor as well. We watch certain channels, read certain magazines and blogs, because we know there’s an editorial process going on. Someone is weeding out and letting through what fits the perspective we’re looking for.
If overman blogged too much about non machinima topics, it would turn people off. Question is where is the line and that is what vimeo and the community is running into. I think this is a great discussion to be had right now as online content and content hosting sites grow.
Frank Dellario illclan
Frank - again very briefly, one issue here is that the channels through which speech runs are increasingly corporate-controlled. If legally you can say something but there is no carrier which will allow you to, then…
I think this is an excellent step forward to anyone making machinima.
There is a clear editorial recognition being made, that machinima is not game play footage.
This may seem a no brainer to most of us, but I have often found myself in the company of folks who don’t/can’t make that distinction. I think its a possitive step forward.
I agree that it is important not to allow any video distribution hub to provide a canonical definition of “machinima,” but I do think it is important that the definition is arrived at through evolution and is parsed by non-initiates.
Now that titles, such as Spore, are shipping with an ingame feature to allow direct youtube uploads the haystack for finding non-gameplay work is going to become are more arduous task. I think this sort of filtering is natural and beneficial for those seeking an audience.
Todd - interesting point, yes. It’s true, this is another major public acknowledgement that Machinima != game videos.
Yeah, it’s their site, so it’s their call to make. That’s totally logical. to say they don’t have that right is like telling someone they cannot paint their car a certain color, or they cannot wear blue shirts. It’s just silly, to say that they should not be allowed to control their own webspace.
@Todd - Great angle and great point. From that perspective, it is indeed a positive event.
business is business, let’s all grow up now, ready, 1, 2, 3 …
thank you
Everybody know mbt barabara black for Masai Barefoot Technology.The company that makes mbt maliza brown is Swiss Masai.This mbt chapa navy creates a natural, uneven walking surface and forces the body to use all the major and stabilsing muscle groups, thus training the whole body to move correctly.
mbt barabara shoes suit for the person who like running over walking, so covering the distances required in crowds is frustrating and uncomfortable, and standing for long periods is absolutely painful. Whether the mbt maliza black, for health, I think the mbt shoes may be overlooked mbt shadow shoes still despite what I’d consider to be tangible benefits.
Ugg classic tall has retail outlets in Wollongong and Canberra. As well as producing a range of ugg classic mini boots , they also make ugg sundance 2.
A lot of people prefer to buy a Christian Dior handbags primarily due to its workmanship and quality materials.Nearly all women understand the value of a replica christian dior handbags. The right Dior handbag is as much a fashion statement as any other part of the outfit, and a great christian dior bags online says much about the sophistication and taste of the wearer.
mbt sport sneaker
mbt anti shoe
mbt chapa gtx rock
[url=http://www.mbtroom.com/mbt-women-shoes-mbt-shose-sport-c-238242.html]mbt sport sneaker[/url][url=http://www.mbtroom.com/mbt-women-shoes-mbt-shoes-voi-c-238246.html]mbt anti shoe[/url][url=http://www.mbtroom.com/mbt-men-shoes-mbt-shoes-sports-c-237_241.html]mbt chapa gtx rock[/url]