A video of someone playing a copyrighted game has value separate from the game, and the person producing that video almost certainly has copyright of their own over it, but the video clearly derives from the music, images, and other materials provided by the game. Under most circumstances, the person publishing or streaming the video should be able to defend their usage via fair use; fair use specifically mentions uses like "commentary" and "criticism".
Similarly, people who upload/stream "reaction" videos, where they watch another video and provide commentary, can defend that usage via fair use.
Fair use doesn't mean that the video/stream does not derive from the copyrighted game or other material, but rather that the video/stream may legally use that copyrighted material.
Fair use only exists in case law, and treaties have the power to override the Constitution itself (IIRC), let alone things like case law or the legal code. That's why TPP is such a game-changer.
Treaties do not have the power to override the constitution itself.
To quote the Supreme Court case Reid v. Covert (1957), "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty".
"Treaties do not have the power to override the constitution itself."
While I agree that should be the case, it is sadly a bit more nuanced[1]:
Under the Constitution as originally understood, the short answer is: “No, a treaty can’t override the Constitution. The treaty has the force only of a statute, not of a super-constitution.”
But the full answer is more complicated. This is because the Founding-Era evidence does suggest that the Constitution enables the federal government to acquire significant—although not unlimited—additional power by entering into treaties.
...
In 1783, the Confederation Congress debated and approved a treaty with the Netherlands despite recognizing that the terms of the treaty might interfere somewhat with freedom of religion. Thus Congress impacted the exercise of religion, an area over which the Articles otherwise gave it no authority.
And it doesn't matter anyway, because trade pacts in the US have been enacted through Congressional-Executive Agreements rather than the treaty ratification process for decades.
Right: Assuming treaties were intended to override the rest of the Constitution is basically making the claim that everyone who ratified it back then was an idiot.
Specific applications of fair use appear in case law, and the question of whether any particular use qualifies as fair use would require determination by the court if sued, but fair use itself exists in statute, specifically 17 USC 107: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107
Similarly, people who upload/stream "reaction" videos, where they watch another video and provide commentary, can defend that usage via fair use.
Fair use doesn't mean that the video/stream does not derive from the copyrighted game or other material, but rather that the video/stream may legally use that copyrighted material.