Boards›Announcements

SpectateFaker - what we learned and what we’ll do

Riot·2/27/2015, 5:46:05 AM·0 votes·86,364 views

Over the last week, we’ve been wrestling with some complex and layered issues around how players create and share gameplay content online, as brought up by the SpectateFaker streaming case. It’s come with a lot of learnings, some unclear communication on our part and a lot of debate, both within Riot and externally, on the best way to balance access to gameplay footage that players want to see with protection for individual players who do not consent to having a third party stream all of their games.

Here’s the TL;DR: We believe the in-game spectator experience for ranked games is a critical part of the LoL gameplay experience, and we have no interest in seeing it crippled. Where things become problematic is when a spectator mode for a player (pro or otherwise) is consistently streamed against their wish, and in a way that is harmful. Having looked into the SpectateFaker case we’ve established two major things. 1) That the DMCA issued by Azubu did not have a legal standing as we, not Azubu, own the gameplay content, and 2) that Faker believes (and we agree) that this stream is harmful to him and to his brand. We’ll be honoring Faker’s request and pursuing a takedown of the stream.

Personally, it’s pretty clear that I should have handled communications around this better. My intent was to jump to the defense of a player (Faker) who was being singled out and streamed against his will. I’m very sensitive to the topic of bullying. It’s a sobering lesson to me that in discussing concerns about it, I may have came across as the bully myself.

This individual case has brought up a lot of issues that go beyond Faker - or even beyond pro players. It has the power to affect all of us who create and spectate LoL gameplay through the client. We feel the weight of that responsibility, which is why we took some time to really debate this and doublecheck our assumptions before coming back with a thought out response.

I wanted to take some time to talk a little about our core philosophies around how we’ve approached this issue, what we got wrong in our first steps and what approach we’ll be taking moving forward.


What happened?

With such a complex set of variables and players, there's no easy way to summarize the issues - but below is a topline account of what happened.

Early last week, streaming platform Azubu sent a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown notice to a stream named SpectateFaker. This stream auto checked for solo queue games of SK Telecom T1 player Lee “Faker” Sang-hyeok, and streamed them on Twitch using LoL’s spectator mode.

Along with several other Korean esports pros, including SK Telecom teammates, Faker signed a contract in September 2014 to stream exclusively on the Azubu platform - and Azubu felt that the independent stream of Faker’s games over on Twitch challenged that exclusivity. As the SpectateFaker streamer StarLordLucian pointed out, however, according to the LoL terms of use, players sign away rights of ownership to the gameplay content they create within the game. Legally, Azubu doesn’t own the streaming content that Faker was producing. As many have pointed out - and as we’ve given feedback to Azubu directly - their DMCA action wasn’t based on a valid legal claim of ownership.

Earlier in the week, SKT and KeSPA had reached out to Riot to express the fact that Faker did not wish his content to be streamed in this way and hoped we would take action to have it shut down. SKT themselves issued a statement via their Facebook page confirming that Faker was uncomfortable about his name and gameplay being streamed without his consent, and that they believed it had a negative impact to the value and stability of his streaming offering .


What's our approach?

Let’s dig a little further into our core philosophies and how we plan to tackle this complicated issue moving forward:

With any issue like this, our guiding philosophy is to protect the interests of players; in this case, things aren’t so simple. There are two distinct player interests that are in conflict: the interests of the individual player (in this case Faker) with the interests of the thousands of players who enjoyed watching the Twitch streams of him playing via SpectateFaker. When we looked at this case, we had to weigh these two interests and make a balanced decision as to what we thought offered the most harm - or the most benefit - to the groups involved.

What StarLordLucian did with the SpectateFaker stream provided a service for thousands of players who were able to watch Faker solo queue games on the platform they prefer and using the tools they’re accustomed to. It was an innovative use of our API which identified a unique edge case, and we believe that the stream was born out of positive intentions to provide esports content to fans worldwide. I regret insinuations otherwise that I made on Reddit in the heat of the moment.

My alarm was driven by the fact that Faker and SKT view this as harmful to his career and brand, and asked for our help in helping to shut down the stream. Having looked into this issue we understand why it would be viewed as harmful. Streaming contracts like this are an important cornerstone in creating a stable financial esports ecosystem in Korea. Systematically streaming spectator mode of each of Faker’s games (rather than a few sporadically) on a rival platform understandably lessens the value of his partnership with Azubu and even more importantly, the potential of pros to gain equally lucrative streaming partnerships in the future. In a very real and material sense, the SpectateFaker stream causes Faker harm in his own judgment - and we believe he should have the right to see it discontinued.

This is a precedent that doesn’t just apply to pro players - or to monetary or brand loss. Imagine a scenario in which a bronze player was targeted by an unwanted stream that meant all of his ranked games were broadcast to a crowd who made fun of him and his gameplay - all against his will. ‘Harm’ could come in several forms - emotional, material, or otherwise. We think that having your gameplay systematically streamed in a way that has the potential to harm or distress you isn’t just something you should put up with as a consequence of playing ranked games. Or imagine a stream targeting a female player, where a narrator or automated system harasses her and comments on every move she makes in every game she plays online. Riot has always taken our responsibility towards nurturing a sportsmanlike and positive community very seriously and we view this precedent-setting situation through a similar lens.

There are examples of this kind of spectator mode streaming that don’t carry the same bite. To give just one, SaltyTeemo is a stream that often targets low elo players and streams their gameplay from spectator mode, but the intent here feels completely different. The stream removes usernames and doesn’t specifically target individual players over and over. This isn’t a calculated harassment of one specific player, it’s a compilation of gameplay that’s entertaining and non-malicious towards individuals.

We will intervene and shut down streams where we perceive that it’s causing harm to individual players. This will usually result from the individual player requesting the takedown (although it isn’t always dependent on it), so we’ll also make it easy for streamers to contact us with those kind of requests and look into them on a case by case basis. Although the SpectateFaker case was the genesis - and will be the first case where this policy will apply - it isn’t specifically targeted to him, any pros or even pro players exclusively. If you believe you are being targeted for harassment by someone streaming your spectator games, please file a ticket with Riot player support.

This doesn’t mean that there won’t be a technical/API fix in the future that helps us tackle these kind of problems at the root. Spectator mode is an evolving tool that should not only enable players to watch gameplay live, but also be sensitive to the concerns of players who feel targeted or harmed by others who systematically stream each of their games without their consent. The in-game spectator experience for ranked games is an important part of the LoL experience for those that enjoy watching and learning from other players - pro or otherwise. It’s the act of streaming that gameplay that becomes problematic when the player actively objects - and at the moment we’ll intervene to protect them. Any technical tweaks to our API have a longer timeframe than this response allows for, but we’re committed to assessing what we can do to improve choices for players and streamers.

With regards to the SpectateFaker stream case, we believe strongly that the potential material harm caused to the player is real - as such, we’ll be honoring Faker’s request and pursuing a takedown of the stream.


What did we learn from communications around this issue?

Sorting through complicated and grey legal issues has become par for the course for Riot as we refine our processes in response to player need. Unfortunately, we sometimes show our inexperience when tackling a new area and there’s a lot to learn from this situation.

When I jumped into the debate on Twitter and Reddit, my first concern was to clarify our position around protecting the player experience. My gut instinct was in full force, and I was quick to jump to what I considered to be the defense and protection of a player who was being mistreated. Unfortunately, in my efforts to explain my concern with the situation, I made several mistakes which hurt our efforts to clarify things.

  1. Although I disagreed with StarLordLucian’s actions, they were born out of good intent. By making things personal and adversarial, and accusing him of ‘estalking’ Faker, my comments didn’t appropriately reflect his original intentions, which was to showcase Faker on Twitch.
  2. I moved too quickly to comment in a situation where I didn’t have the full context. I made an error by originally assuming that StarLordLucian was rebroadcasting direct streams; in fact he was streaming spectated games in an automated fashion. Basic factual mistakes like this blurred the message I was hoping to get across - that our primary goal was to protect players who felt they were being harmed by being systematically streamed against their will.
  3. Players were calling for an overall comment on the issue and the legal precedent it created (like this one), rather than a laser focus on the isolated StreamFaker case. By focusing solely on this case, I obscured some of the bigger issues at stake that we are hopefully now clarifying.

Untangling the threads around this kind of issue has been a learning experience for all of us - and it’s one that’s still ongoing within Riot and externally. We know that our decisions will spark a ton of debate. We think that in these instances when something has the power to set precedents in a new and emerging space, debate is not only healthy but necessary.

I look forward to hearing your feedback and want to thank everyone who participated in the discussion. To be honest, a lot of the comments still sting - but we’ll learn from this experience and improve going forward.

- Marc Merrill

Correction: We mistakenly referred to a direct stream as a ‘rebroadcast’ within this original post - error in writing has now been fixed.

467 Comments

ˉ102/27/2015, 10:05:33 PM181 votes

Spectate players playing with faker is coming......mark my words rito

Dfenestrator2/28/2015, 5:35:19 AM88 votes

I'm not very familiar with SpectateFaker, or the situation surrounding it, but I'm pretty concerned about how you're handling it.

I disagree with your argument that Faker is materially harmed or harassed by the existence of SpectateFaker to the extent that RIOT should take it down.

From what I understand from your article, SpectateFaker was a Twitch channel that automatically broadcasted games that Faker played in League of Legends. It accomplished this through League of Legend's spectator data. You also state that Faker, according to RIOT's ToS, has no right or claim on the gameplay content from that data.

If Faker has no right to the gameplay content, he is incapable of suffering material harm if someone else takes or copies that gameplay content. Additionally, Azubu cannot contract with Faker for the exclusivity of that gameplay content. (Azubu can, however, contract for the exclusivity of what Faker does and says on his stream. That material belongs to Faker, and he can do with it as he pleases.)

While Faker cannot suffer material harm if someone takes or copies the gameplay content, he can be harmed if his stream loses value (e.g. by losing ratings, views, etc.). In this case, it appears that you are upset because SpectateFaker caused Faker material harm by causing his stream to lose value; and it lost value because some viewers preferred to watch the raw gameplay content over his stream.

I understand why this would upset you. A high profile gamer (and his sponsor) lost money and value. High profile gamers and sponsors are large pillars for your company, and are essential to obtain RIOT's goals.

On a fundamental level, however, I do not feel that it is RIOT's job to step in and resolve this conflict. It's Faker's job (not RIOT's) to provide value in his stream. If players are preferring to watch the raw gameplay content rather than his stream, it is because it does not adequately fulfill the needs of those players. I think Faker's contracts and agreements (with Azubu or whoever else) should reflect this. I also think that the onus should be on Faker to maintain the value of his stream; he shouldn't rely on RIOT to grant a pseudo-monopoly/license.

Additionally, by shutting down player's access to certain gameplay content, you are indirectly subsidizing and sponsoring particular players and companies. This, on it's own, I don't particularly have an issue with, but I do take issue with the fact that it appears that you will only apply this to a certain echelon of players. This appears unfair and arbitrary to a lot of your playerbase. It also creates a large grey area for people who want to use that content for commentary and entertainment purposes.

All that said, I agree with you that harassment is a legitimate concern. If someone uses data under the API to shame, harass, or embarrass specific players, I'm fine with that content being removed. However, I feel that harassment is more than merely watching a stream, raw gameplay content, or even simple commentary.

If I'm misunderstanding the situation or this article, please let me know, but what I'm seeing here is not encouraging or exciting as a League of Legends player.

Shimmers2/27/2015, 10:04:48 PM71 votes

Can I opt out of being spectated and streamed? Is it just top players that allowed to do something about being streamed when not wanted?

Skytop2/28/2015, 12:28:30 AM53 votes

This needs an apology to StarLordLucian for how you acted.

DrMarshSwamp2/28/2015, 12:22:50 AM47 votes

You didn't just come off as a bully - you were literally using your position in Riot to make insulting accusations and to force someone to do what you tell them to without having the correct amount of information for the situation.

You literally insinuated that watching replays using your own system is tantamount to E-Stalking.

And even now the situation hasn't changed as you basically said that you'll force people to stop what their doing if its not to your liking.

Crocabilly2/28/2015, 1:16:37 AM35 votes

My apologizes for not reading every ones post where this may already be covered. According to the what you (Riot/Tryn) have described. If I am in a game against Faker or any other streaming player and I do not want my name or play being on stream, whatever my reason may be (being mocked or harassed for getting outplayed for example), then that streaming player would have to stop their stream for the duration of said game. Now imagine if everyone not a pro player, playing in those ranks were to take that stance. At what point are you protecting the players or protecting the "pro" players/ financially compensated players. Don't get me wrong I think we can all appreciate and accept the jumping to conclusions apology, and I am in no way trying to support one side. I just want to point out that whether it's Faker, Oddone, Krepo, Cutie, or even Trick2G, there are always 9 other players in that game who may or may not be making money on the game they are playing. By the information you've placed here and are putting into effect each and every one of them have a valid reason for shutting down any stream that includes them. As much as some may not admit it, this can be a community of trolls and you seemed to have opened a giant can of worms for what at least on the surface seems to be to protect a financial partnership and not the actual best interest of the overall game and its entire player community and its fans. I truly hope this doesn't go as sideways as it has the potential too. Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Very Respectfully,

Yaknose2/27/2015, 10:38:09 PM34 votes

I appreciate getting a very thoughtful wrap up for the first round of this after all the heightened emotions and some confusion. I think this is really well done, and I agree that Faker does have a financial interest threatened by having a stream using his name that detracts from his exclusivity with Azubu.

This still leaves the big question of what permanent changes are coming because of all this, but I do feel hopeful given how reasonable and thoughtful this post was in explaining things and the apology for the mistakes in the Twitter posts. I don't envy the people having to try to figure out the permanent plan to deal with this.

Adolf Ghostler2/27/2015, 10:46:18 PM28 votes

This seems like a load of crap.

GUARDXDOG2/28/2015, 2:55:25 AM16 votes

Great, shut down competitive and legal streaming and allow monopolies to exist.

12 Kills A Wave3/1/2015, 6:16:29 PM16 votes

Seriously Riot? This is a bad idea and you have to realize it. He doesn't own the gameplay footage, anyone should be free to stream it if they so desire. That's like telling me I can't host Superbowl Parties because it financially hurts a player. We get that you're all about LC$BIGPLAYS now instead of the rest of the community, but come on. This only hurts your image in your fanbase's eyes. Also, you're essentially creating a monopoly. If you continue on this course of action, that's illegal in the country you're based out of.

Mild Boy2/28/2015, 12:34:20 AM15 votes

This absolutely blows my mind "This is a precedent that doesn’t just apply to pro players - or to monetary or brand loss. Imagine a scenario in which a bronze player was targeted by an unwanted stream that meant all of his ranked games were broadcast to a crowd who made fun of him and his gameplay - all against his will." This literally happened, there is or used the be a stream which name has slipped my mind, that streamed random games of low bronze-rated players so people viewing can laugh and make fun of them. I cannot fathom how you can make this comment when you let stuff like this go on and only address it when it is about a pro player and his 'brand'.

ThaddeusMike2/27/2015, 11:13:50 PM15 votes

I've usually thought you handled yourself well in public comments, be it on Reddit or the forums. I'm glad to see you admit to your mistakes when you do make them. I hope you reach out to StarLordLucian and offer him something neat. As you note, he was doing something that provided some good to the community, even if it wasn't healthy for the development of competitive LoL.

TrollFan012/27/2015, 10:13:08 PM15 votes

I can't believe all these came from a simple stream.

Dalanin2/27/2015, 10:23:50 PM15 votes

K, can we shut down kaycetron now?, Veeeeery misleading acording to her gameplay and her toxicity

Hellish Prophecy2/28/2015, 1:22:14 AM14 votes

Riot, I have a question. Some people record streams done on Twitch and post it on Youtube. Some specifically go for toxic players so you guys can see what they do and allow us to see how toxic people really are. So my question is, if he records a specific toxic streamer, is there action taken against him, must the toxic streamer request you stop him, or do you take action against the toxic streamer?

Prinplup2/28/2015, 2:14:48 AM13 votes

So for instance I was on a youtube video with brofresco and it showed him beating the ever loving shit out of me. If I wanted to take the video down because obviously I have strict rights to my own game play and it is my brand that got me like 2 subscribers on youtube I could file a report and get the video taken down? What tryn is saying sounds like the biggest mistake riot has made in PR in forever. I see people showing up in youtube videos of popular people, saying post facto that they don't want to be put online, and causing many youtubers, twitch streamers and etc to lose a major chunk of their revenue. it sounds like riot has just tipped the nice resting point by taking down a stream And will create a cascade of hell that will ruin a lot of peoples time and effort, and turn the happy part of the community into victims of trolls who DMCA every video they appear in.

viken2/27/2015, 11:14:33 PM12 votes

SpectateFaker had good intentions, but it was a problem from the very start. First off, Faker knew he was a role model for many players, and when you're as good and famous as he is, that's understandable. But having thousands of pairs of eyes watching you in EVERY solo queue game is ridiculous, regardless it's his choice who watches his games and who doesn't, and he has the right to control that. Meanwhile, while Azubu technically doesn't own the gameplay, Faker signed a contract with them to stream EXCLUSIVELY on Azubu, and having someone off to the side creating more content than this "exclusive" site pretty much nullifies that contract. I think Riot did the right thing here. While the term "e-stalking" is way too much to describe this situation, with someone so closely tied to LoL, it definitely is invading his privacy and if Riot messes this one up, a few months later "SpectateSneaky"'s gonna come up and Riot is gonna take a whole TON if the don't do precisely what they did right now.

Sould Out3/1/2015, 9:02:37 AM11 votes

I agree with a lot of people commenting here... blinks But I also noticed one note here isn't being addressed: Why does Azubu get to make a contract like they own all of Faker's games, and therefore him being streamed on Twitch isn't okay? The contract should simply be FAKER PERSONALLY will only stream on Azubu. I think it's messed up that they get to keep control over who is streaming him. I realize it can hurt the pro players ways of making money, since Faker gets funds from Azubu for only streaming through them, and not Twitch, but I don't think it's fair to remove Twitch streams. I see WHY Riot did what they did... however, I feel like it's giving Azubu a "monopoly" in a sense.

Oddly enough, my brother (Challenger Tier) and I used to watch Voyboy a lot. However, when he made a contract with Azubu and moved over there, we quit watching, because we really don't like Azubu. I think a lot of fans quit watching, also. Azubu is "buying" players in a sense, and that's all fine and dandy, but what about the fans? I specially stop watching my favorite streamers because of behavior from Azubu like this. I feel like they're buying a monopoly, and in this situation they completely won out. I get it's their business, and all, but their contract should be that specifically the pro player is only allowed to stream via Azubu. THAT is the agreement, and THAT is how they get paid. Whether or not fans stream to watch via Twitch should be allowed, IMO. We should not have to be forced to use Azubu and allow them to basically "copyright" all Faker streamed content. Neither party owns ANY of his gameplay, even Faker himself.

If the streamer on Twitch was making a profit, or stalking/bad-mouthing/bullying Faker, it would be an entirely different story. The examples used, such as the female gamer or bronze player, were about bullying. Faker wasn't being bullied. He was simply saying he didn't like it, and I'm sure it was because Azubu was getting angry about him being streamed on Twitch. This wasn't bullying or harassment at all. It was simply people wanting to watch Faker via Twitch, instead of Azubu. Why should Azubu be allowed to control that? Monopolies are not a good thing.

Aeolynx2/28/2015, 3:05:21 AM8 votes

Do you understand that if anybody else (that isnt Faker) from the Korean scene was spectate-streamed. This issue would've never came up?