YouTube is a vast, murky swamp inhabited by creatures greedy, opportunistic, and utterly retarded. It's legal landscape isn't any different. Yes, EA does own some of content the video is based on, and in this case I guess it's fair. But often times it isn't. Far, far from it.
I'd be concerned too.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is super common. This is how copyright works. If you don't have permission, they can - and many do - just tell youtube to put ads next to your video. RIOT has been doing the same thing with thousands of League videos.
It is pretty simple, fair use covers clips wherein the UI and video/audio is less than 50 seconds total, or if it is a tutorial or 'how to' type of video, otherwise it is extremely close to black gray area, where the company gets their way 99% of the time.
Comment has been collapsed.
And even with fair use -- it doesn't dictate that they can't make money off it. All it says is that you aren't breaking any law. You still don't own the content, you're just allowed to use it in the way you did.
This isn't new and has been going on for years with pretty much every media-related company and YT. Looks like some people just found out (and shocker, nothing bad happened!)...
Comment has been collapsed.
Incorrect, sir! "Fair Use" is a limitation and exception to an exclusive right granted by a copyright, of which does not require the permission of the copyright holder (so long as it is being used for a how-to, commentary, critique, review, archive, etc.)
So in short, no, they're not allowed to make money off of videos even though they produced some of the material in the video.
Comment has been collapsed.
???
Yes they are. Fair use doesn't transfer ownership to anyone else, it just means you are no longer liable for any damages. If I have a project that falls under fair use, that does not mean I own the content. All it means is I don't need permission to use it and I can't be taken to court over it. It doesn't mean I own anything, as by the very definition of fair use laws a copyright still exists.
I think you're a little confused on what exactly the language you posted means.
Comment has been collapsed.
"I think you're a little confused on what exactly the language you posted means." Argumentum ad hominem, though I do receive a chuckle from a logical fallacy once in awhile.
If you create a project, (say this project is a commentary on diversity in Skyrim) and you include a clip from the game Skyrim in it, Bethesda doesn't magically own your entire project, nor can it put commercials in your project.
You don't need permission to use it, you can't be taken to court, and you still own your own project. For the purposes of fair use, you are borrowing a clip that is still theirs, but in which case copyright ownership does not hold water in the particular instance of which you're using the clip; it is a part of your project. That's what makes it a limitation and exception to a copyright rule.
Hell, going beyond what you think, youre even allowed to make money off of fair use copyright suspension. How do you think game reviewers make a living? How do you think Machinima even EXISTS? Do you think that only the games they review are allowed to post advertisements before their videos?
Please submit yourself to any amount of research before presuming to be an expert. Anywhere as simple as wikipedia will do for God's sake.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry for the ad hominem; my intention wasn't really meant to denigrate your post so if it seems that way whoops!
Anyway, in your first scenario about the Skyrim clip, Bethesda would own the project unless it met any of these exceptions: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter0/0-c.html#1
So really, if you just showed a small clip and spent the rest of the video talking about the game, you'd own the video. If you did what the OP or any of the other people claiming fair use did, Bethesda owns part of your work. The only real distinction here is that you aren't liable to civil litigation since you're using it for a “transformative” purpose. Of course, the second someone starts to make money off this you start to hit problems.
As for Machinima -- they absolutely pay or have deals with game developers and publishers. So do IGN, Joystiq, Kotaku, G4, etc. By definition this means they aren't in violation of any copyrights. And of course, this ignores the entire implicit understanding that Machinima is just a giant advertising medium itself. At any rate, read #7 in their ToS: http://www.machinima.com/tos
In other words, they have explicit permission from the copyright holders, so they don't own their content but the owner allowed it.
All fair use does is prevent specific uses of copyrighted works from being illegal infringements. That's it. In the OP's situation, he doesn't own the content and he has no right to claim he does, which is why EA can either have it removed or allow it to remain online with ad revenue going to them. Just being part of your project doesn't make it fair use in the slightest.
Also, you can't honestly complain about my employing ad hominem and then employ it yourself multiple times. Come on dude. But sure, I've done my research and I'm honestly confused as to why you're linking the Wikipedia page that says pretty much what I said. The USC quote literally says what I said in the above paragraph and in previous posts.
Edit: I kinda had to deal with a lot of copyright bullshit for a major project in the past, and basically what I got out of it was that even under fair use you do not own the entirety of your work, since many parts are still under copyright. The distinction is that you aren't liable for litigation as you aren't breaking any [infringement] law. Of course, if you start profiting off that "fair use" work, it starts to violate many of the underlying terms. What I ended up doing was specifically contacting the copyright holders and getting explicit, written permission that my work was acceptable and they would make no claim for the copyright. This is pretty much what Machinima or any of the big review sites/channels are doing, except in their cases there's probably some money flowing too.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well I'll let this one lay, seeing as we seem to be arguing the same bloody thing.
My cousin is actually the owner of Bro Team Pill, a Machinima director, and from his experience in the Machinima limelight, very very little, if any, royalties from videos go to gaming publishers or devs. Because if you think about it really, why knock it when they're just reppin your games for free, right?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yep, but not all devs see it the same way depending on who's putting the video up. Machinima is an established brand with large viewership, so it's basically free advertising and EA's making quite a bit of money through it. On the other hand, random people upload videos that don't help EA's bottom line at all (or if they do, it's negligible). I can see why they'd try to tack ads onto these, since Machinima is just a glorified ad already.
Comment has been collapsed.
On a side note though, OP's video and other unpopular videos only have 200 views and change. I would picture companies like EA having much more productive things to do with their time and resources than to advertise on something so miniscule.
If only 200 people have watched it, it's not going far in the scheme of things. Just seems like pissing into the wind if you ask me.
Comment has been collapsed.
As for what you're saying:
"Fair use doesn't transfer ownership to anyone else" No it doesn't. Your project remains yours, and their game remains theirs. Any clips you use are borrowed, and in the act of "fair use", copyright claims are suspended.
"If I have a project that falls under fair use, that does not mean I own the content." Your language is obfuscating. You still own your project. In the instance of a game review, for example; you own that game review, and although you don't own the rights to the game you're reviewing, you own the review of the game, and therefore the contents of the review. That's precisely what is meant by "the copyright is suspended." If you include a video of Skyrim in a commentary on some part of Skyrim, Bethesda knows that you're not claiming that you made the game and knows that you're not stealing their intellectual property; you're borrowing a clip from their game in a game review that doesn't pirate their game (or do anything that's actually illegal for that matter), and if anything, the video itself advertises their game for them.
"as by the very definition of fair use laws a copyright still exists" The very definition of fair use is actually the limitation of and exemption from of copyrights; although yes, a copyright still exists, remember that commentaries, reviews, and the like have exemptions from them.
Also, I'm moreso lending my argument towards more definite intellectual properties such as reviews and commentaries. I'm not trying to argue the fair use principle for the case of Tychades; I'm not familiar with playthroughs or walkthroughs, though I do imagine they would lend themselves to the "how-to" category.
Heavens me. Sorry about the rant.
Comment has been collapsed.
EA is taking over youtube? Nooooo, btw i subbed ya :P
Comment has been collapsed.
you can counter the claim citing fair use for commentary/review if you did just that
Comment has been collapsed.
If you didn't make money off it you're not losing anything, right? And seeing as they created 95% of the content, including the content you used to make yours, it's fine if they make money off it.
This is actually a pretty awesome thing of EA (and YT) to do, since it's fair to everyone involved and doesn't result in videos getting taken down.
Comment has been collapsed.
I know I'm losing nothing, I like making videos and do it for fun in my spare time but the fact that EA makes money off it isn't right. It's as if I'm an employee but I can assure you I'm not and never want to be. And 95% of the content? Like what? Its the developers who actually make the game (Epic Games in this case) and nothing else to do with the video is affiliated with EA in any way
Comment has been collapsed.
The developers sold the rights to EA if EA is the one filing copyright claims, so that means the money EA makes did go to the developers through said sale. This is pretty much how most things work as far as copyrights, patents, and trademarks go. IF you've ever bought a game, movie, music, watched TV, bought a PC, bought a Mac, etc., you've already send money to a company for work that isn't entirely theirs.
So my point still stands -- you lose nothing, the video stays up, and the people who made the game and own the content make money. It's literally a win-win-win and there isn't any downside beyond you not liking it despite it not hurting you in any way.
Comment has been collapsed.
EA doing this is old news. Nothing to see here.
Comment has been collapsed.
This also reminded me of that video takedown from youtube for that megaupload video. UMG flagged that song for copyright abuse and youtube took it down without checking that nothing in that video belonged to UMG actually. I remember them getting sued for that but not sure what the outcome was.
Comment has been collapsed.
That, or the pic is just bullshit and we can't tell. It wouldn't be the first time someone posted fake evidence of corporate wrongdoing to incite outrage (I'm looking at you Reddit...) and it's trivially easy to change the text on anything in a browser.
Comment has been collapsed.
EA sure wants to the dick of all dicks don't they? They certainly are holding #1 spot currently.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think EA should get #1 : Ubisoft only fcks with PC gamers, while EA fcks with everyone - heard about that Battlefield for iPhones, iPads or some other mobile device? It was released not-so-long-ago (like a month), now they closed servers for it, so you can't play. Main reason - game was too buggy for EA to care about patching it, but of course people who paid for it shouldn't expect any money back...
Comment has been collapsed.
http://n4g.com/news/142476/ea-claiming-ownership-of-tf2-trailers-on-youtube
Bloodycrow for the link
EA is one of, if not the most greedy gaming companies.
Comment has been collapsed.
I got one of my vids removed by Jagex because it was showing a glitch in Runescape from 2yrs ago o.0
They own the content in my vid... Soon we won't be able to post any user made gaming videos on the internet... either that or they'll make money from all of them...
"Your video may include the following copyrighted content:
Visual content administered by:
runescape "Comment has been collapsed.
Why your Video was tagged so late? Youtube uses...mäh, im german...dont know if i can tell it right...
Youtube uses programs to analyze movie and audio streams, this programs activates and analyzes when anyone is viewing your movie or the music...im not 100% sure but i did see it often...i listen to an old musicvideo and some sec later(copy link and give it to friend) its claimed from GEMA or so xD...
Or! EA has sent out some peoples to check and claim such videos :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Read the EULA. Your soul, and that of your firstborn belongs to EA.
It's in the game...
Comment has been collapsed.
that felt more or less like the next CoD game that going to come out. and it EA, they just want to own you, so that you can only buy game from them.
Comment has been collapsed.
They're doing this to my videos too. Really confused
Comment has been collapsed.
When EA starts claiming ownership for videos containing their games, I see dark times for YouTube lets-plays from "big YouTubers" who geht copyright strikes because they make money doing those lets-plays... And to be honest, they influence my decision to buy stuff a lot.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just stop featuring EA Games on your Channel and tell people why you don't show Games from them. Stand up for what you believe in.
Simple.
Comment has been collapsed.
1,179 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by Southrobin
15,623 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by Carenard
1,147 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by jzone55
23 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by icaio
5 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by digitaligor
24 Comments - Last post 13 hours ago by tungmapu
661 Comments - Last post 20 hours ago by SuperT
7,264 Comments - Last post 2 minutes ago by Naviis
7 Comments - Last post 4 minutes ago by Nerrad7246
2 Comments - Last post 5 minutes ago by nuszi555
57 Comments - Last post 6 minutes ago by andraste
2,464 Comments - Last post 7 minutes ago by moonlightdriver
267 Comments - Last post 16 minutes ago by Daniellejake
34 Comments - Last post 22 minutes ago by MSKOTOR
Well, I found this quite interesting.
First of all I would like to point out this is not a channel plug and if the mods are not happy with me linking my video then you can remove the link or let me know and I will do so.
So, today I got an email from Youtube saying that my video may contain content that is owned or licensed by EA and the rest you will see in the image. It is referring to this video which is a play through of a parody or Call of Duty called Duty Calls and is a free game to promote Bulletstorm.
I'd also like to point out it says "In some cases, ads may appear next to it." Does this mean EA is making money from me too?
As far as I'm aware, EA has nothing to do with Epic games or Call of Duty so am I missing something here or what?
EDIT: yes, I'm stupid, EA published Bulletstorm. BUT, I still don't understand why they are doing this to my video now. Its nearly a year old, I make no money off of youtube and theres never been a problem posting gameplay videos for EA games has there?
Comment has been collapsed.