Tarmack
Rhetorical Porcupine
I want to start an interesting dialog on the topic of video game networks and game licenses to monetize content. However, I’d like to request that personal opinion steer clear of the discussion as this is a rather important topic.
It is common belief that YouTubers wishing to make money on video game content need to either be partnered with a network that possesses a license from the game publisher of said game, or use game content from a publisher that has openly granted that permission to everyone.
It is a logical belief. And it carries the follow up that if you don’t have that license, then you are stuck with relying on fair use as a defense by adding value or comedic effect.
So here’s the question. Does anyone here have actual proof that these licenses or agreements actually exist? Proof is not a skype log, or a recruiter sales pitch. Proof is a network publicly representing themselves as possessing documents or arrangements of this kind. Perhaps via website posting, or an official (if internal) list of publishers that are included. BroadbandTV for example publicly posts companies that they work with, including the NBA, Warner Brothers, Universal, Sony and Electronic Arts. Yet you won’t find anything in any contract they offer (I’ve seen several) that actually lists what game publishers have agreed that monetizing content is ok. Indeed their content aggregators don’t seem to be able to get a list either.
I ask all of this because I strongly suspect that no such general game license exists. As yet, I’ve seen no evidence that actually suggests a publisher would give a blank cheque agreement to game content. I see the logic in time release agreements near launch, embargoes to match the media blockades as well. But still, no evidence that the mysterious game license actually exists. And you would think that if someone actually had a document of that kind, they would love to publicly point that out.
A group as large as the TGS podcast can’t post game trailers because they get content matched. Partners get content matched for cutscenes all the time. Why would a publisher give approval for gameplay only and not cutscenes or trailers. It is plausible that we’re ALL operating on fair use and the only difference between adsense and partnership is that YouTube trusts the networks enough to avoid the adsense dance of monetize, deny, appeal.
It is common belief that YouTubers wishing to make money on video game content need to either be partnered with a network that possesses a license from the game publisher of said game, or use game content from a publisher that has openly granted that permission to everyone.
It is a logical belief. And it carries the follow up that if you don’t have that license, then you are stuck with relying on fair use as a defense by adding value or comedic effect.
So here’s the question. Does anyone here have actual proof that these licenses or agreements actually exist? Proof is not a skype log, or a recruiter sales pitch. Proof is a network publicly representing themselves as possessing documents or arrangements of this kind. Perhaps via website posting, or an official (if internal) list of publishers that are included. BroadbandTV for example publicly posts companies that they work with, including the NBA, Warner Brothers, Universal, Sony and Electronic Arts. Yet you won’t find anything in any contract they offer (I’ve seen several) that actually lists what game publishers have agreed that monetizing content is ok. Indeed their content aggregators don’t seem to be able to get a list either.
I ask all of this because I strongly suspect that no such general game license exists. As yet, I’ve seen no evidence that actually suggests a publisher would give a blank cheque agreement to game content. I see the logic in time release agreements near launch, embargoes to match the media blockades as well. But still, no evidence that the mysterious game license actually exists. And you would think that if someone actually had a document of that kind, they would love to publicly point that out.
A group as large as the TGS podcast can’t post game trailers because they get content matched. Partners get content matched for cutscenes all the time. Why would a publisher give approval for gameplay only and not cutscenes or trailers. It is plausible that we’re ALL operating on fair use and the only difference between adsense and partnership is that YouTube trusts the networks enough to avoid the adsense dance of monetize, deny, appeal.
