EA & Youtube

[Chxrles]

To Styphon on copyright laws,

I have no idea about the legality in the case of EA taking a percentage from people profiting off a game they bought. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, you don't own if you possess it digitally from EA, much like iTunes. The distinction between buying the rights to an image to use/modify to promote a self/business interest isn't the same as purchasing/renting a game and then recording footage, displaying the footage and making money off it. I know that much. Then again I used scenery from Battlefield 3 for an animation I made. It was the only thing I outsourced and felt no reason to reference.

TL;DR: EA wants a slice of pie from the little man but I'm not sure if it's legally right or wrong.

[styphon]

No, I know we don't own BF3, we only get a license to play it. But if you record a video of BF3 and then modify that video putting your own graphics, text, voice over, whatever in, then it becomes a whole new work of art. That does belong to the person creating it. They then own the copyright to that video, not EA.

My reference to graphics was only to show the process of changing that graphic and in how the copyright changes when you modify it.

[LyreXeryL]

Buying the game and playing it is not the same as buying the rights to record and use the footage in your own production. IF someone had bought the RIGHTS to use the footage, modified it and produced a video, then yes, they would own the rights to the final end product. The fact of the matter is, you never had the "right" to use the footage in the first place.

[zorplex]

I've been thinking about this issue since Fields posted it and I still haven't come to a solid conclusion. As far as I know, this is the first instance of a producer claiming copyright on digital assets being used to create video content, essentially Machinema, which has taken place for over a decade. As far as I know, there is no copyright law that adequately covers the current circumstances.

In the US, it _is_ legal to remix videos for educational and non-commercial use. But as for commercial use outside of documentaries, I'm almost positive you must license the footage.

Of course this might not apply to video games since they aren't purely cinematic works. But it's the closest law I could find on the matter. A better parallel might be the use of unoriginal props or images as part of an original video production which, to my knowledge, is perfectly legal. But these are much simpler items which don't come with a contractual agreement (the EULA).

As it's been proven in Europe, EULAs cannot undermine state law, but in this case, there is no applicable law on the matter. Thus it's up to the copyright holder (EA) and the production company (Youtube) on what is and isn't a violation of copyright. Many of you think the video uploaders' have a right to create videos of game play footage, but I haven't found a law that would make this the case. Until such a law exists which has been tried in the courts, it's purely at the discretion of the companies involved.

Of course the public can try to shame them into compliance, but that might backfire causing the companies to lobby for laws to be written which would likely be in favor of the copyright holders.

[A Docile Sloth]

In the US, it _is_ legal to remix videos for educational and non-commercial use. But as for commercial use outside of documentaries, I'm almost positive you must license the footage.

But this kinda makes more problems than it solves. Copyright laws are different for different countries. There could be (and I have no idea if there is) one country with the legal right to make videos of game footage with a unique or new soundtrack or other, custom made footage and another that is the total opposite. I was reading an article today that said that EU country members have the right to sell on certain digital media, specifically software, where as other countries, this is not so. What EA is doing could well be within the law in the US but it brings up it being legal to force it onto other countries where what they are doing is not within the law.

Ah the internet and it's ways of creating massive international copyright grey areas.