Using textures and model on YouTube

[benrob0329]

So I am now monetizing my YouTube videos, but I know that some textures and models are licensed under CC noncommercial, does this apply to this situation?

[LazyJ]

I'm curious about this too because, someday when I learn how to record Minetest videos for YouTube, I'd like to be able to make some extra income from AdSense or whatever YouTube uses.

I posted this thread's link on freenode #minetest to see if anyone had experience on this issue. As yet, there has been no "experienced" input. While chatting I did a bit of quick research and found two links of interest.

It looks like you ("you" being anyone reading this) are not allowed to make any money from using anything that is CC-by-NC: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/

Another set of examples, in layman's terms: http://mollykleinman.com/2008/08/21/cc-howto-2-how-to-use-a-work-with-a-noncommercial-license/

Where I get confused is by what they mean by "use".

If I post a YouTube video of me driving a nail into a 2x4 with a "MasterCraftsman" brand hammer, but the video is about how to nail a couple pieces of wood together with a hammer and nail, am I supposed to pay royalties to MasterCraftsman?

If one uses a mod or texture pack in their YouTube video, they are not selling the mod or the texture pack. In fact, they are not selling anything at all - Google is. It is Google who decides what ads to put in the adsense slots. It is Google who gets paid first and then, if the YouTuber gets enough views, clicks, or whatever metric is used, then the YouTuber gets a tiny sliver of Google's ad revenues.

But in the second link I posted, there is the "Three pairs of mini examples" paragraph, example number 3: "Using a photo on a personal website that has no ads = Non-commercial Using a photo on an ad-supported website = Commercial"

That last part, "Using a photo on an ad-supported (ie, monetizing with Google's AdSense) website = Commercial" , I think, is the trip-up that means you are not allowed to use the CC-by-NC stuff in your YouTube videos if you get any money out of it.

I'm not a lawyer so I may be completely wrong on this. I'm hoping those with more experience and insight chime-in on this thread.

[benrob0329]

Hmmm...then I may have to figure out somehing else out for my new YouTube intro, sense my skin is based on Sam 2...

[rubenwardy]

What's under a NC license? It's shouldn't be.

[benrob0329]

Sam 2 is under a NC license, unless the one included with MT Game is under LGPL...

[jp]

What's under a NC license? It's shouldn't be.

Why ? I personally couldn't stand anyone making easy money on my toil (collaborators aside).

[rubenwardy]

An NC license isn't open source or free content, which would surprise me:

OSD - Open Source Definition
The case for Free use: reasons not to use a Creative Commons -NC license

[jp]

^ These are more ideological than pragmatic definitions. Open-source is open-source, i.e. ability to access the code. If commercial parasitism is allowed, then it's an extra-right gravitating around, but it's certainly not a participative catalyzer by itself.

[Kpenguin]

Maybe donate the proceeds to the Minetest project? If you did do that, you would want to advertise that in the description so people that like Minetest will watch your videos more.
I've considered this with my SuperTuxKart youtube channel.

[benrob0329]

Donating wouldn't change the license, if Jordach doesn't get on this thread I'll have to ask him in a PM about licensing...

[PilzAdam]

Every artwork included in minetest_game is CC BY-SA (some textures are even WTFPL).

[Jordach]

Donating wouldn't change the license, if Jordach doesn't get on this thread I'll have to ask him in a PM about licensing...

uwotm8?

The only time I ever got bitchy about someone using my stuff was this:

This image was the offender (Dirty P2W MC server I accidentially found while browsing le Reddit):

Spoiler

One of these "cards" has the MT dirt block on it.

Now, look at this.



Seems familiar? You should. Want to know the source blend? My MediaFire;

http://www.mediafire.com/?2jjl70udzmv7na3

(This happened one year ago and the owner did change the image to something less FOSS-y. And no, I didn't make any demands, just a simple request to change it.)

Go nuts m8. I simply don't care.

[benrob0329]

Wait what!? Someone used your MT Blend file for MC?!? Did they even give you credit???

Thanks Jordach, though I don't know what "uwotm8?" means...

Well I guess I better figure out what mods I used in my videos and double check licensing...

[Jordach]

Wait what!? Someone used your MT Blend file for MC?!? Did they even give you credit???

Thanks Jordach, though I don't know what "uwotm8?" means...

Well I guess I better figure out what mods I used in my videos and double check licensing...

No credit given. ayy lmao.

[Nathan.S]

Well I'm no lawyer and ha e no legal experience but I know of several gaming channels that do lets plays of commercial games which they monetize. I dont think the gameplay is an issue, but I think if you were maybe using the mods graphics card or models to make channel art that you would need to give credit.
I've been found mod reviews for about a year and have the videos all monetized never gave the licenses of the mods any thought, have't had any issues either.

[Byakuren]

I think that just nobody bothers to enforce it, because YouTube videos are publicity for them anyway, and they're unlikely to successfully demand royalties.

[Wuzzy]

benrob0329: In theory, to legally do a Let's Play series or something similar and put it online you first have to obtain the permission (unless it's already libre, see below) of the copyright holder(s) because your let's play may be seen as a “derivate work”. You could be sued for copyright violation otherwise. If you use YouTube, they could go to Google in order to complain and ban you from YouTube and even delete all your creations. YouTube has a very harsh copyright policy, heavily slanted towards copyright holders. You may want to be prepared to try out other video platforms as well.
In practice, however, copyright holders rarely go after let's players, even if they have the chance. Ultimately, it depends on the authors of the game. If they don't have a history of going after let's players if many videos already exist, it's unlikely they will do in future.
Long story short, let's play is just one of many areas in the Internet which is, in theory, crippled by copyright and the fact that let's plays haven't been destroyed so far is only because most copyright holders seem to have no issue with these.
Note that if the game material is already under free licenses (like for Minetest+Minetest Game), you're perfectly fine. In this case, you don't and should not ask for permission, you already have it (via the license).

Users: Stay away from -NC (NonCommercial) content like it's toxic waste, unless you have the explicit permission from the author (or you're a rebel, but that's not my point xD). Even if you don't intend to make any money. The language used in the -NC licenses is so bad you could even get sued if you're not commercial. Even version 4.0 of the license has this problem! This happened once in Germany for the Deutschlandfunk; a 100% state-sponsored radio with no ads whatsoever but a court somehow managed to judge this radio as “commercial” in the terms of CC BY-NC and thus in violation of a work under said license (source in German: https://openjur.de/u/686021.html). Yes, it's really that bad, you have to treat it like it is fully copyrighted. If you have patience, you may try to convince the author to drop the -NC clause.

Artists: Please never use -NC if you can unless when at gunpoint maybe. -NC has almost never to be used, because if you want to avoid commercial exploitation, CC BY-SA already suits you very fine, but is also compatible with free software. If you want to destroy capitalism, it is quite naive to believe that a license is going to make a difference and you are likely to only hurt the weak. Please take your time and try to understand the key problems with -NC:

The key problems with -NC licenses are as follows:

• They make your work incompatible with a growing body of free content, even if you do want to allow derivative works or combinations.
• They may rule out other basic and beneficial uses which you want to allow.
• They support current, near-infinite copyright terms.
• They are unlikely to increase the potential profit from your work, and a share-alike license serves the goal to protect your work from unethical exploitation equally well.

Source with very good long explanation: http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC

rubenwardy, forum admins, forum moderators: -NC is still implicitly allowed in the Mod Releases forums. I have launched a discussion to explicitly forbid these licenses: viewtopic.php?f=47&t=18258

jp: I'm excited to read your refutation of http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC.