Can I advertise my gaming videos?

[CallumVlogs]

No, he's never said that to my knowledge. Nor would he, as it would be extremely brazen for anyone with even a smidge of legal training to make a claim which has yet to actually be tested in court. What he said, was that the YouTube system is designed with only the content owner and DMCA protection in mind, so even those with a proper fair use defense in all of their content, such as Joe Vargas, are penalized first and have to fight in order to keep otherwise entirely legal content online. It remains to be seen whether a Let's Play video of the standard "play the game, talk about the game" format would make it through a fair use defense in court. Personally, I think there is a good chance of it's success, so long as the first court case is against someone with a bit of intelligence.

The "play a game, talk about your life" format has far less likelihood of success.


Now, on the topic of the thread, which has been addressed in at this point, thousands of threads on this forum which are hard not to trip over yet apparently the search function is too hard to find.

You do not need a network for game content. There is no special license for game content that networks provide. There never has been on a grand scale and there never will be. At most, there are singular event based agreements for pre-release or sponsored content.

As a result, you can monetize game content just fine with really only a few notable exceptions. Ideally, you will find that removing cutscenes and in-game music will make your life easier in the long run because those are the things that sometimes get registered into ContentID and will be flagged.

And since you can use this content in your videos, it follows that you can use the content in your ads.

In his response to having his Day One Garry's Incident video taken down, he talked about how networks made a deal with YouTube to be responsible for the monetizing of gaming content and the channels that did so. Obviously then YouTube introduced their automatic claim system, which led to some silly incidences that could have been prevented if they left everything alone.

In CaptainSparklez' case with one of his music videos, he likely would have been protected by the law. The issue is that YouTubers do not have as much money as the bigger companies, and therefore cannot afford to go to the final option which is taking the case to law. If they lose, I believe their channel is taken down completely. That is why, in a video, he said that he had been advised not to fight it and take it down.

Also, why would there be a list of games/developers that give you permission to monetize their content if there wasn't an issue with it?

 

[Tarmack]

In his response to having his Day One Garry's Incident video taken down, he talked about how networks made a deal with YouTube to be responsible for the monetizing of gaming content and the channels that did so. Obviously then YouTube introduced their automatic claim system, which led to some silly incidences that could have been prevented if they left everything alone.

In CaptainSparklez' case with one of his music videos, he likely would have been protected by the law. The issue is that YouTubers do not have as much money as the bigger companies, and therefore cannot afford to go to the final option which is taking the case to law. If they lose, I believe their channel is taken down completely. That is why, in a video, he said that he had been advised not to fight it and take it down.

Also, why would there be a list of games/developers that give you permission to monetize their content if there wasn't an issue with it?

Ahh, you've completely confused the issue. There is a substantial difference between what is an effective defense against YouTube policy and what is an appropriate legal defense. You make it sound as though, when the law is there to protect you, you don't need to fight for that protection. Fact of the matter is that the reason game companies are abusing the DMCA and YouTube systems is because they've never been tested on this matter in court. And why would they want to go that far? It is entirely possible that they will lose when it finally happens.

 

[CallumVlogs]

Ahh, you've completely confused the issue. There is a substantial difference between what is an effective defense against YouTube policy and what is an appropriate legal defense. You make it sound as though, when the law is there to protect you, you don't need to fight for that protection. Fact of the matter is that the reason game companies are abusing the DMCA and YouTube systems is because they've never been tested on this matter in court. And why would they want to go that far? It is entirely possible that they will lose when it finally happens.

I understand, and I don't think it will ever get that far because of the expense of going to court. That is why I think it is best to avoid getting to that point by not covering any game where you don't have permission to monetize it because, unless you are willing to go to court, it will most likely get taken down and earn you a copyright strike.

 

[CaptainSauce]

Now, on the topic of the thread, which has been addressed in at this point, thousands of threads on this forum which are hard not to trip over yet apparently the search function is too hard to find.

You do not need a network for game content. There is no special license for game content that networks provide. There never has been on a grand scale and there never will be. At most, there are singular event based agreements for pre-release or sponsored content.

As a result, you can monetize game content just fine with really only a few notable exceptions. Ideally, you will find that removing cutscenes and in-game music will make your life easier in the long run because those are the things that sometimes get registered into ContentID and will be flagged.

And since you can use this content in your videos, it follows that you can use the content in your ads.

Thanks for saving me a lot of typing.

Long story short, do your research, and if they have a blanket statement giving permission to people to post monetized videos than you're in the clear. Some are a little trickier than others. For example EA has no such statement, but clearly states that everything falls under american copyright law, making it applicable to free use. They actually have some programs where they pay YouTubers to make videos of their games. They've also issued statements to YouTube saying they will let people go ahead and use their content but still retain the rights to remove stuff if they deem necessary. It's because of this most people feel safe uploading The Sims, Sim City, Spore, Battlefield, FIFA, Dragon Age etc.