Question about DCS and YouTube

[ShuRugal]

So, YT has just decided to let me in on their "revenue sharing" thing where they pay the uploader of the video a percentage of the advertising revenue they generate on the video, and it got me wondering: If i take a video of my flight in BlackShark, who owns the rights? Do the rights belong to Eagle Dynamic because they made the content used to make the video, or do they belong to me, being the one who directly generated the video and the unique content within ED's creation?

 

pending the answer on this question, i will not be opting in on the revenue sharing thingy for any DCS vids, just to be safe. But it would be nice to know if it is fine for me to do so

 

(but, hell, if YT wants to give me money, why should i say no? they are making it on the adds whether they pay any to me or not)

[26-J39]

Google ACTA. If passed technically you will be profiteering from ED products by doing this. There's alot of WW opposition for these laws.

Hey well at least Beiber has to serve a sentence in prison for "profiteering" from other artists. :doh:

[cichlidfan]

Actually, you want to read the EULA for DCS products. I don't know exactly what it says but I would not be surprised if there is not verbage indicating that it is not permissable to create new, for profit, content using DCS licensed material (i.e. anything in the games).

 

I could be wrong but at minimum you probably need permission to do so.

[BaD CrC]

That's a pretty relevant question indeed. YT also contacted me for this "revenue sharing" scheme but I didn't reply. I never thought ED could actually claim something from the money I could eventually make from my DCS vids (eventhough this will most likely amount to peanuts).

[Irregular programming]

Lots of people make money on game videos on youtube, while it technically violates both youtube and the games eula it's on the same time free publicity for ED and I haven't heard of one game company that didn't think it was the best thing in the world that people put up videos of their games.

 

I didn't enable it on my channel just because I didn't want people to click away commercials just to watch my silly clips. Also I doubt I have the views to get anything at all from it.

[sobek]

In any case, if you do intend to use this, to be safe, do not do it until there is word from an official.

[Grimes]

EULA fails to mention videos, besides plenty of people on youtube make money off of gaming related content. Day9, Yogscast, machinima and countless others are prime examples.

[159th_Viper]

If i take a video of my flight in BlackShark, who owns the rights? Do the rights belong to Eagle Dynamic because they made the content used to make the video, or do they belong to me, being the one who directly generated the video and the unique content within ED's creation?

 

Inter alia section 2.2 of the EULA:

 

2.2

 

All title, ownership rights and intellectual property rights in and to the Program and any and all copies thereof (including but not limited to any titles, computer code, themes, objects, characters, character names, stories, narrative, locations, artwork, animations, sounds, musical compositions, audiovisual effects, methods of operation, any related documentation, and add-ons incorporated into the Program now or in the future) are owned by TFC, affiliates of TFC or TFC’s licensors.

 

The rights do not belong to you.

 

Best bet would be to contact the TFC legal department in order to seek clarification - contact details in the EULA.

[Dejjvid]

Had the same issue yesterday.

 

Can we have an official answer from ED on this matter? I've seen videos both with and without ads from DCS. And I don't care about any revenue. I just don't wanna upset anyone at ED.

I'm currently working on some tutorial vids, so I'm not selling anything. But if I can get 2$ from YT I can buy myself a beer.. ;)

[EtherealN]

If you intend to do this, to be safe, please contact Matt and/or JimMack by PM.

[winz]

All title, ownership rights and intellectual property rights in and to the Program and any and all copies thereof (including but not limited to any titles, computer code, themes, objects, characters, character names, stories, narrative, locations, artwork, animations, sounds, musical compositions, audiovisual effects, methods of operation, any related documentation, and add-ons incorporated into the Program now or in the future) are owned by TFC, affiliates of TFC or TFC’s licensors.

I think this part is aimed mainly on people who would take some parts from ED product (i.e. models, sound effects) and sold them on their own, or as a part of another product.

As ED has no problem with payed user-made content I don't see them having problem with YT partnership, as it is a good way to promote a product.

[EtherealN]

I've alerted the relevant people to the question. Hopefully they'll be able to clarify the situation soon.

Personally, I'd caution against making interpretations on your own, better to get it straight from the powers that be. (IANAL applies very much, so I don't want to give advice either way on this.)

[RIPTIDE]

Also depends on Jurisdiction. Anyone ever look at Steam's EULA? LMAO. Most of it does not apply in EU.

[Depth]

By uploading anything to Youtube, Youtube earns revenue through ads on the page and the ad placed over the video. So technically, by allowing you to upload something you don't own, Youtube is earning money on a copyrighted product.

 

If SOPA or ACTA went through, Youtube wouldn't exist today.

[winz]

TBH, EULA has very vague legal value, especially here, because it is written in english, which is not an official language, so saying somthing as simple as 'I didn't understant what was in it' invalidates it before the court. Also clicking on 'I agree' checkbox is not considered signing in our legal system.

Not to mention EULAs where parts are in direct conflict with local law. (not EDs case)

[RIPTIDE]

By uploading anything to Youtube, Youtube earns revenue through ads on the page and the ad placed over the video. So technically, by allowing you to upload something you don't own, Youtube is earning money on a copyrighted product.

 

If SOPA or ACTA went through, Youtube wouldn't exist today.

In some US states for example, you could go before the judge and argue that the license agreement is null and void and then proceed to have it ruled that ED entered into a Sale (as opposed to a license agreement). Once a Sale has been established by the court then that frees up the customer's rights on what they can do with the product.

[VincentLaw]

Even in places where laws do not apply, licenses can be enforced by the service provider by refusing service. A good example of such license enforcement is Starcraft 2 players that were banned from playing the game after cheating in single player. Since the DCS license is handled in your own computer's registry, I don't think ED could enforce its licenses to this degree, but they could refuse to provide any more reactivations. I would not recommend trying to exploit such things without proper permission.

[Depth]

A good example of such license enforcement is Starcraft 2 players that were banned from playing the game after cheating in single player.

 

Ridiculous as it was, the stats in single player is linked to your account in multiplayer. There wouldn't be a problem if they had used the guest account, or even the cheats that come with the game rather than a trainer

 

Oh sorry, that damn Depth guy is hijacking the thread

:poster_offtopic:

[RIPTIDE]

Even in places where laws do not apply, licenses can be enforced by the service provider by refusing service. A good example of such license enforcement is Starcraft 2 players that were banned from playing the game after cheating in single player. Since the DCS license is handled in your own computer's registry, I don't think ED could enforce its licenses to this degree, but they could refuse to provide any more reactivations. I would not recommend trying to exploit such things without proper permission.

True that. Steam for example has full power to remove every game from your account at their whim.

[Grimes]

Aye, Valve and Blizzard have denied service under evidence of hacking, fake CD-keys, and other similar activities. However I'm quite sure nobody has been banned for posting a video on youtube. Perhaps those involved with leaking stuff of upcoming games might have, but posting gameplay video likely won't.

[EtherealN]

Please, let's try not to make this a legal discussion - unless you are a lawyer working on IP you aren't qualified (for those who don't know - my "IANAL" initialism is short for "I Am Not A Lawyer").

 

ED is informed that the question has arisen, but it came to their attention (AFAIK) late last night moscow time (which is when I spoke to ED), and now it's weekend, so I'm not sure about whether this has gotten attention by all the relevant people yet to get a response. But ED is aware and will hopefully be able to make an official statement soon. Until then it is dangerous to make legal interpretations without being educated in the field, that stuff is so complex it's too easy to make honest mistakes. (IMO, at least.)

[159th_Viper]

...Until then it is dangerous to make legal interpretations without being educated in the field...

 

Quite true - You'd be surprised at the extent of the debates to be had with armchair-lawyers :)

[EtherealN]

Armchair laqyers are almost as bad as armchair generals! :D

(Was watching season four of Black Adder during my work trip. Awesome stuff, awesome general! :D )

[Grimes]

Quite true - You'd be surprised at the extent of the debates to be had with armchair-lawyers :)

 

Maybe the decor has changed recently, but most law offices are filled with armchairs. :music_whistling:

[159th_Viper]

Maybe the decor has changed recently, but most law offices are filled with armchairs. :music_whistling:

 

Precisely.

 

If my clients spent less time arguing and more time listening while ensconced in that comfy armchair they would have saved themselves half their consultation fees.