Mediasapien recieved this brief email earlier today from a rep at vimeo.com, a video sharing site:
Dear Media Sapien:
Your video ‘Grand Theft Auto 4 Law Abider – A GTA 4 Performance Art Project (1455312)’ has been removed from Vimeo because it violates our Terms of Service.
Vimeo does not allow game walk-throughs, game strategy videos, depictions of player vs player battles, raids, or any other video gaming video that simply depicts individuals playing a video game.
If you believe this was an error, please send a civil response to this email and we will work with you, assuming you are correct.
It was regarding this video:
Mediasapien promptly emailed them back with this reply:
To Whom It May Concern at rights@vimeo.com
Hi. Thanks for the email informing me that a video clip of my artwork, ”Grand Theft Auto 4 Law Abider – A GTA Performance Art Project” was removed from vimeo.com. I would like to discuss the validity of this decision.
If it was removed at the request of the copyright holder or the source material, then please let me know and that will be sufficient for me. However, if no complaint was issued, then I would like to defend the use of this source material in my video. By the standards you reference, many other clips on vimeo.com are actively violating your Terms of Service ( a quick search for “videogames” or “machinima” or “gta” pulls up hundreds of questionable clips). However I do not consider my artwork created with videogames to be within your definition, however vague. Quoted:Vimeo does not allow game walk-throughs, game strategy videos, depictions of player vs player battles, raids, or any other video gaming video that simply depicts individuals playing a video game.
My video does not show a game walk-through, strategy guide, depiction of battles, raids or other video that “simply depicts individuals playing a video game.” My video shows a documentation of a long-form performance art project, produced and documented within a game world.
The conceptual work I produce relies on unaltered video-game engines as the basic tool for creating interactive performance art. These performances occur in realtime, in a wide range of single-player and multiplayer environments. Almost all of these performances get recorded for later exhibition in real-life and online galleries and museums. Having worked in this field for years and written extensively on the subject, it is my opinion that my use of these various game engines constitutes fair use. It is within these games that the activity of crafting identity has become a personally compelling conceptual activity. Almost like a treasure hunt, one can explore these games searching for inconsistencies or “holes” in the game world, looking for ways to exploit and subvert the game designer’s intent and make social commentary or cultural critiques without relying on programming, hacking or modifying the game. By working within the limitations provided by each game design and style -by restricting oneself to the rules of the game as opposed to working in a 3d development environment that allows unlimited modification – one is faced with severe restrictions and limitations of expression that have become highly representative of the challenges faced when one begins to create online identities and have digitally-mediated relationships.
Based on the 4-part criteria established by the US Copyright office for determining fair use, my artwork does not significantly suggest copyright violation. My artwork uses a small portion of GTA 4 compared to the source material. It is safe to say that my artwork will not significantly affect the retail market for GTA 4. And my use of the game is significantly altered from the original source material. In fact, the goal of my artwork is to specifically “break” the player’s and programmer’s expectations of the game experience by intentionally behaving in a way that forces the game to do something it wasn’t meant to do. In this artwork, by refusing to fight, kill or break any rules at all, I effectively subvert the original source material’s meaning and change the game’s context on a fundamental level. The game subsequently behaves in “broken” and unexpected ways, creating a new experience, one that was entirely unplanned by the game developers, and is conceptually unique.
To me, these qualities clearly define this artwork as fair use. Thank you for your consideration.
I haven’t heard a reply back just yet, but what do you think? Does this artwork go to far? Is it an example of infringement or should this kind of digital work be permitted, or even encouraged? Let me know your thoughts in the comments.
