Posted May 21, 2013
That absolutely is not true. The concept/idea to make the code they programmed is the IP, and perhaps the code itself if it were specifically copyrighted, but a derivative of an after-effect of that code re-transmitted on another device that someone else made is NOT the IP at all or even close. The footage might be OF an example of the IP in use and spun off into a commentary, but the footage most definitely does not belong to the IP's owners, or require permission to exist, any more than the images of memories in your mind of watching a movie belong to the movie-makers and you'd require their permission to remember it and have to pay for that. Companies might fight specific examples of IP abuse when they encounter it, but that doesn't give them ownership of what people do or publish in relation to it, and most examples I've seen of companies fighting it they're clearly in the wrong and are just abusing their clout. What you're suggesting would have horrendous consequences if it were true, we'd be in a defacto worldwide police state of mind control if it were so. Someone who comes up with any idea would own everything anyone decided to do related to it, including talking and thinking about it, not just the making commentary footage example you use here.
Luisfius: The revenue does not belong to the LPer unless the original content creator allows it. It is different than a movie review OR content review since the focus of a LP is to show off as much of the content as possible, not to provide a critical look with snippets of footage of the thing. The footage is the game creator's intellectual property.
(Yes I used a grandiose example of memory/mind control that would never likely come up, but your idea here of how things worked really offended me as potentially exceedingly dangerous. Copyright issues are already screwed up enough that someone might actually try to do something like that when the technology for it comes into being).