 Bad news, YouTube fans. Let's Plays aren't actually all that legal. Even after begrudgingly allowing Let's Play videos of their games, Nintendo will still periodically take down or demonetise a video they deem offensive with no warning whatsoever. While the company is increasingly relaxed and supportive about YouTube content, Nintendo's legal team are completely within their rights to take down any videos that are deemed inappropriate. Let's Play videos, and much of YouTube's gaming content in general, is actually a breach of copyright law. First, a quick explanation. Copyright exists, as the name suggests, to literally give a creator the rights to control copies of their work. Copyright is automatic, meaning you don't need to apply for it before it takes effect. Anybody who creates or publishes a copy of a copyrighted work without permission is breaking copyright law and will be held liable if prosecuted in a court of law. There are some exceptions to this, such as making a copy for education or critique purposes, but there's a big restriction on these copies. You can only copy a small portion of the work. So, for example, it would be illegal to copy and distribute an entire school textbook, even for education purposes, but it is legal for a teacher to copy a couple of pages and give them to the class. Alternatively, an excerpt from a novel can be included in a newspaper article reviewing the book, but the paper can't publish the entire novel without permission. The problem with this is that much of copyright law was written before computers existed. Around the world, different countries have struggled to revise their copyright to account for the internet. For example, debates have raged over commonplace practices like web page caching. To even load a web page, your computer or phone makes a copy of the page, and it's historically been very difficult to decide whether this copy counts as copyright infringement, even if the technology is working as intended. So, naturally, debates similarly rages over let's play videos. Some people like to claim that let's plays fall under fair use because they're transformative. Players are creating a performance in a digital space. So that should be legal, right? The problem is that a video game is more than just the sum of its parts. All art assets and audio assets are copyrighted, and any video posted online creates an illegal copy of the music, art, and sound effects within the game. Any time you post a let's play of a game, you're publishing a copy. And that can be a breach of copyright. What's more, let's plays don't fall under fair use because they reproduce large segments of a copyrighted work. A few seconds of gameplay is fine, but half an hour of uninterrupted content is more difficult to justify. According to Mona Ibrahim, a lawyer from the Interactive Entertainment Law Group, the amount of content used in a let's play, the fact that it goes to the heart of the game itself, is way in excess of what any court up until now has said is fair use. You use too much of the content for it to qualify for fair use. So if let's plays are illegal, why do games companies allow fans to post these videos online? Well, just because the law states that a certain behaviour is illegal, it doesn't mean that the legal victim actually wants to exert their rights. Many game studios actively encourage let's plays in spite of their legal position. Let's plays are very good for business. Games like Crypt of the Necromancer, Hello Neighbor, and of course Five Nights at Freddy's all got their start thanks to free advertising on YouTube. Other companies like Nintendo and Sega originally came down hard on copyright infringement, as was their legal right to do so. Eventually though, fighting these battles became too costly, not in terms of legal fees, but also in terms of public perception. Thus, Sega and Nintendo elected to stop pushing the issue and just let their fans infringe copyright through let's plays. That said, permission from game studios doesn't change the law, and developers are still in a position to prosecute let's players whenever they choose. The most famous case of this is Campo Santo, who in 2017 decided to retroactively ban one prominent and controversial YouTuber from publishing videos featuring footage from their game, the delightful Firewatch. Now, while Campo Santo still allows let's plays for most YouTubers, the company's website states, streaming and let's plays are implicit but revocable privileges, and if you happen to be among the very very very very few players who use your platform to spread hate or harassment, we would prefer that you not use our games in your content. Similarly, other companies will periodically use the YouTube Content ID system to take down let's play videos that they don't approve of, for whatever reason. In fairness, if they wanted to they could go one step further and take let's players to court, but doing so would be very costly, win a lot of negative press, and likely wouldn't have any lasting benefit to the companies. According to lawyer Bryce Blum, publishers can revoke the license for any reason in their soul and absolute discretion, and there is nothing in the DMCA that requires consistent enforcement on the part of the IP holder. Arguing against a takedown request by saying, other similar content isn't targeted is like telling a cop that you shouldn't be busted for speeding because lots of people speed without getting a ticket. For now, most games companies are willing to turn a blind eye to copyright infringement. It's just not worth the effort to actually fight this common form of piracy. So if you enjoy let's play videos or you make them yourself, you don't need to worry too much. For now.