How ANYONE can monetize gameplay WITHOUT a network: A lesson in Fair Use

[Edward.K]

BF3 case. Some can be monetize, some cannot. Wonder why.

 

[Flammy]

BF3 case. Some can be monetize, some cannot. Wonder why.

I can't remember if I talked about this specifically but the biggest issues are when you use cutscenes or single player footage. Mutliplayer should be fine. EA doesn't give blanket permission to monetize, but they do have an email address you can find fairly easily via google if you run into issues.

 

[nikko stokes]

Here is a quote directly from Vultra CEO:

You gotta be kidding me??! Lmao so whats the point ima do my long hard research b4 any network gets me Lol B)

 

[Switchbox]

I wonder how networks can afford game licenses since a license for one game is like 10 000kr (divide it by 5ish if you want dollar price)

 

[unknown_user00005]

This is a truly brutal thread..
Flammy you are completely off base,
Fair use is something you argue in court when Sony has sued your poor-a** for $1,000,000 in damages.
There are only two groups that can even decide if the "fair use" exception applies.
Judges, and Jury.
The only determination of fair use you'll get is in a court-room, and you'll have sold your house (or parents house) to pay for lawyers even before you even get a chance to make your case.

Also, there ISN'T EVEN ONE case of copyright law where a gamer has argued that commentary constitutes "fair use" .. NOT ONE!

I suggest you read up on copyright law before you spew legal advice. I've bolded the important parts for you, so you don't miss it this time

Michael
GafferGames

This thread is poison, it could ruin someone financially if they were to take this advice and the worst-case happened.. I'll suggest you lock it.

EDIT: It's also clearly against AdSense TOS to monetize gameplay you do not have explicit written permission for.. WHY IS THIS STICKIED!?!?!?

 

[Parallax Abstraction]

As I read it, his argument wasn't that you can necessarily just claim Fair Use to put your videos up, it's that networks simply use that defense and can't provide you any additional copyright protections. From what I've read elsewhere, that seems to be the case. This whole "networks have partnerships with all the publishers" line is nonsense. Most of them don't have any partnerships at all and the ones that do only have them with a couple of publishers. They can provide no actual copyright protection to you (as was evidenced when TotalBiscuit got a strike on his channel from Sega Japan.) Maybe I read it wrong but I don't think he was saying that Fair Use is your trump card to get away with using copyrighted footage, just that partnering with a network isn't a one-stop solution to that problem like so many others very wrongly claim.

 

[unknown_user00005]

As I read it, his argument wasn't that you can necessarily just claim Fair Use to put your videos up, it's that networks simply use that defense and can't provide you any additional copyright protections. From what I've read elsewhere, that seems to be the case. This whole "networks have partnerships with all the publishers" line is nonsense. Most of them don't have any partnerships at all and the ones that do only have them with a couple of publishers. They can provide no actual copyright protection to you (as was evidenced when TotalBiscuit got a strike on his channel from Sega Japen.) Maybe I read it wrong but I don't think he was saying that Fair Use is your trump card to get away with using copyrighted footage, just that partnering with a network isn't a one-stop solution to that problem like so many others very wrongly claim.

When you are referring to copyright law "seems to be the case" doesn't fly.
It's written clear as day.
I didn't know about TB.. Thanks for sharing!
The only good thing about this thread was the three games he listed that allow commercial use of commentary.

 

[Parallax Abstraction]

When you are referring to copyright law "seems to be the case" doesn't fly.
It's written clear as day.
The only good thing about this thread was the three games he listed that allow commercial use of commentary.

Hunh? That sentence wasn't addressing anything about copyright law. I was saying that networks can't provide any additional copyright protections beyond what you get by putting up videos on your own. That's what "seems to be the case." If you're putting up videos with copyrighted footage, you're rolling the dice that you won't p**s someone off and get a strike against your channel. Whether you're with a network or not, the risks are similar. If you dispute that, I'd love to see your arguments and evidence. I'm open to changing my opinion if I see that but I've read up on this a lot and most of what I've read says that networks don't provide any real copyright benefits. They provide many others but that's not what we're discussnig here.

 

[unknown_user00005]

Fair enough, my apologies as I clearly misunderstood you.
You are absolutely correct and I wish more people knew and understood what you what just wrote..

I didn't realize you were talking about copyrighted content in whole, whereas gaming footage in specific is against YouTube's TOS.. No-one can monetize video game commentary (contrary to what flammy says) with AdSense.. It's clear as day!

 

[TigerXtrm]

Fair enough, my apologies as I clearly misunderstood you.
You are absolutely correct and I wish more people knew and understood what you what just wrote..

I didn't realize you were talking about copyrighted content in whole, whereas gaming footage in specific is against YouTube's TOS.. No-one can monetize video game commentary (contrary to what flammy says) with AdSense.. It's clear as day!

If that were true then YouTube wouldn't be filled with commentary and channels with thousands of subs who make a killing doing these vids.

As it stands the footage of a game is a very complicated area. The game is made by the developer but the footage is shot by the user. Regardless of that though, the footage in most cases is considered fair use because of a number of reasons. You're right that only a judge can decide if that is truly the case, but that's exactly what these large companies are hoping for. The threat of a very expensive lawsuit is enough to make any YouTuber back down, even if they are fully within their right. The day someone takes on the challenge and takes a game developer to court over this would be very interesting indeed. And I think you'll find that the judge would rule in favor of the user.

Factually nothing is being copied, stolen or otherwise infringed upon. A game is by definition an interactive experience. By placing it on YouTube the user does not offer that experience for free. He does not offer some alternative to buying and playing the game yourself. If anything, the user is promoting the game. And plenty of game developers realize this all to well, which is why you hardly see any action taken against gamer channels. And if action is taken, you'll notice that the footage isn't taken down but merely claimed, further proving that the developers themselves don't believe the footage to be an alternative to playing the game.

It's like buying a t-shirt and putting a picture of it on Facebook. The design may be copyrighted, but the people looking at the picture can't actually wear the shirt. They may however decide they want the shirt for themselves.