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.
(Sent you this on Facebook as well…)
I think you make a strong case for your work in your reply to Vimeo. It may be that they will argue that the characteristic that separates your video from another unaltered recording of video game footage is not present in the video itself, if that makes sense. The video itself actually IS just gameplay, it is the context in which the gameplay was performed that is what gives it its artistic-ness. So while I personally understand that the recording of the performance, the context and purpose thereof, etc. are all unified in something bigger, I think it’s possible that Vimeo will look solely at the video, absent that context, and as such it’s possible they’ll just see it as a gameplay recording and uphold the ban.
If it’s really important to you to have this up on a quality site like Vimeo, then perhaps you could record a brief intro to the video, with you explaining what people are about to see, tack that right on the front. Do that, and you give a better taste of the context than the description / titles are going to do on their own, and I think there’s a good chance Vimeo wouldn’t nab that one. Just a thought to keep in mind if the first plea doesn’t work.
Good luck! Please keep us posted on the outcome.
I agree with Phil. If Vimeo has common sense and reads your response carefully, they’ll re-instate the video. I’m afraid the trend is to remove fair use entirely, so they might go with a “safe” decision to “protect” themselves (against what, I don’t have a clue). My sense was that their initial decision to remove game video was directed at all of the countless “fan boy” blow ups and stunts that were useless on a site like Vimeo. Your work seems to me to fit exactly the kind of machinima that would fit in at Vimeo.
Sorry to read about your troubles. Hope they have common sense and listen to your well-reasoned arguments. Good luck.
Would anyone believe that a video with legal driving in GTA would be a interesting walkthrough? Since your an artist, and have made a machinima. i.e an artpiece, and also made an artist´s statement, you should me on the safeside, it’s art, really interesting Game Art i think.
As an artist you always have the possibilliy to make a new art project about the censorship on Vimeo. It’s an interesting topic….
While I understand what Ricky and Phil are saying, I think this clearly is not just a walkthrough. Basically it comes down to whether or not they consider this a work of art, because if it is, then it is not any of the things that they disallow. If they are in the business of deciding what is art, and are “curating” what shows on Vimeo, then that’s fine. They obviously aren’t, and so should allow videogame art, regardless of how un-retouched the work is.