EA & Youtube

[Fields]

As a warning: EA has been going around youtube, finding gameplay footage of BF3 and tagging it as IP so they can place ads on it. If you do the youtubes, be aware that EA will probably try to tag your gameplay videos and will take a portion of your revenue if you're partnered.

[fawadforlan]

That sound fraking cheap... And I have no idea about how much those youtube adds will pay youtubers and how much EA will get from that, but I think that EA doesn't even make any profit from this (or maybe so less that they shouldn't even care about it). Even if they make alot of profit from other people videos, then most of that profit will go to people they hire to find these videos and flag them.

But that's just what I think, maybe I'm wrong.

[Calloutman]

I don't fully understand the problem with this... They put years of hard work producing the game and someone else is profiting from it, why shouldn't they get a part of that?

[styphon]

I don't fully understand the problem with this... They put years of hard work producing the game and someone else is profiting from it, why shouldn't they get a part of that?

Well for starters they didn't spend years producing crap. They spent a few months producing and advertising it. DICE, a subsidiarity of EA, spent years developing it, which is an important distinction.

As for the problem with this; if EA were to come along and tag a video with a gamer who has done nothing but film himself playing with absolutely no input (no speech from him, no text description on the video added, nothing at all) then perhaps EA could claim something. However, even if EA made this game, once someone takes footage from the game and modifies that (adding voice over, text effects, special graphic effects) then it becomes a new piece of work and comes under a completely different copyright that EA has no entitlement to at all. Most people won't know that though and who is going to be able to fight a large company like google or EA?

How do I know this? I work for a web design and development company, and in our line of work we regularly purchase licenses to copyrighted images. This allows us to use the images in our work, but not to redistribute. However, once we modify those images and create a completely new image with parts of those copyrighted images in, their copyright no longer applies and we are free to use and distribute the images we create as we see fit. We now on the copyright to the newly created work of art.

So, how can EA claim any income from works of art created by other people, even if it does include footage from their game? That's not right as EA has no claim to any copyright of videos taken of BF3.

[Ash2Dust]

EA must have sneaked in some new wording in Origin EULA to say they have the right to place ads on a video in a youtube user's account. I just cant see IP law giving them any ability other than removal. Attaching (leeching) something to a video is a whole new ability and I'm sure Youtube gets their cut. Especially a video that the person already paid EA, spent time acting in, producing and finally publishing on Youtube.

[styphon]

No amount of wording in the EULA will give them a legal right to do this. EULAs can't break copyright laws.

[Calloutman]

I don't fully understand the problem with this... They put years of hard work producing the game and someone else is profiting from it, why shouldn't they get a part of that?

Well for starters they didn't spend years producing crap. They spent a few months producing and advertising it. DICE, a subsidiarity of EA, spent years developing it, which is an important distinction.

EA bought DICE, meaning EA bought the outcome to those years of hard work. They paid a lot of money for those years of hard work and the product at the end of it, so why not? If the youtubers were just making videos for the kicks and not getting income from it, then it would be a huge dick move by EA. However this is not the case.

Wouldn't the same thing apply to when people put into songs/soundtracks into videos, if someone has a song as a backing track to a TV series/movie then the artist has a vested interest in that and should be paid royalties or be able to sell a licence to the song. Just because there is other stuff over the top of the song (voices/sound effects) doesn't change the fact that the artist produced the song and should be rewarded for his work.

[styphon]

EA bought DICE, meaning EA bought the outcome to those years of hard work. They paid a lot of money for those years of hard work and the product at the end of it, so why not? If the youtubers were just making videos for the kicks and not getting income from it, then it would be a huge dick move by EA. However this is not the case.

Wouldn't the same thing apply to when people put into songs/soundtracks into videos, if someone has a song as a backing track to a TV series/movie then the artist has a vested interest in that and should be paid royalties or be able to sell a licence to the song. Just because there is other stuff over the top of the song (voices/sound effects) doesn't change the fact that the artist produced the song and should be rewarded for his work.

Not quite, it's more like someone taking an album written by someone, taking different bits of different songs and mashing them together to create a brand new track, replacing the lyrics with their own voice over. That would be more accurate to what people on youtube are doing when they create machinimas and things like that from BF3.

EA got the money from the years of hard work, from the inital sale, plus all the adons coming and the payments they receive from Retail Server Providers (they pay an ongoing fee to EA). EA doesn't have any right to claim money from other peoples creations. What they are doing is similar to licencing the Frostbite Engine to a company for a fixed fee, and then after a company creates a game on that engine (which they've paid EA to license), coming along and saying to that company we want a percentage of all game sales as well because you built it on our engine. Forget that the other company spent all that time and effort into creating the game, or in this case the person spent all that time and effort into creating that video, EA seem to think they have the right to money because it's using their product. The guy creating the video owns the copyright to the video, not EA, no matter what EA say.

[Fields]

This is being done to both monetized and non-monetized videos. It could be anything from a short 5 second clip to a fully playthrough video.

[Calloutman]

EA bought DICE, meaning EA bought the outcome to those years of hard work. They paid a lot of money for those years of hard work and the product at the end of it, so why not? If the youtubers were just making videos for the kicks and not getting income from it, then it would be a huge dick move by EA. However this is not the case.

Wouldn't the same thing apply to when people put into songs/soundtracks into videos, if someone has a song as a backing track to a TV series/movie then the artist has a vested interest in that and should be paid royalties or be able to sell a licence to the song. Just because there is other stuff over the top of the song (voices/sound effects) doesn't change the fact that the artist produced the song and should be rewarded for his work.

Not quite, it's more like someone taking an album written by someone, taking different bits of different songs and mashing them together to create a brand new track, replacing the lyrics with their own voice over. That would be more accurate to what people on youtube are doing when they create machinimas and things like that from BF3.

EA got the money from the years of hard work, from the inital sale, plus all the adons coming and the payments they receive from Retail Server Providers (they pay an ongoing fee to EA). EA doesn't have any right to claim money from other peoples creations. What they are doing is similar to licencing the Frostbite Engine to a company for a fixed fee, and then after a company creates a game on that engine (which they've paid EA to license), coming along and saying to that company we want a percentage of all game sales as well because you built it on our engine. Forget that the other company spent all that time and effort into creating the game, or in this case the person spent all that time and effort into creating that video, EA seem to think they have the right to money because it's using their product. The guy creating the video owns the copyright to the video, not EA, no matter what EA say.

Fair enough. EA are dicks.

[.Sup]

lol odd reply from you, Calloutman. What about those who don't profit from gameplay videos? If I make a frag vid will they tag it as well?

[daskro]

yeah, I suspect that this issue will go away in the coming months if they start threatening the big partnering companies' revenue streams. It's a form of free promotion for EA, just like traditional media such as E3, trade publications, etc.

Personally I'm indifferent to it. I don't make any money from my videos, I just make them because its fun.

[LoA]

Not surprised... My videos haven't been flagged yet at least.

[tehman]

Most of mine have.

[Fields]

It's not a big problem for the producers if they don't already monetize their videos, but if your subscribers start seeing ads on videos they may decide to unsubscribe.