Soulmonster
Survivor
Apparently, they consider it a disadvantage to their business, so they would disagree with you.There's no cost for TFP to allow it up, either, then?
Apparently, they consider it a disadvantage to their business, so they would disagree with you.There's no cost for TFP to allow it up, either, then?
I would say there is a possibility he didn't know, though I think he did, but I would consider that just as bad. He made this game his job, so if he is making update videos on things he isn't even aware of, that's just unprofessional on his part. If he wants to call it a "business" and expect compensation he should probably take it more seriously.All these people saying Jawoodle "knew" is just as tin foil hat as any other speculation.
As would Woodle?Apparently, they consider it a disadvantage to their business, so they would disagree with you.
Ehm... So his invested time and equipment is considered to be for free?
I know he mentioned it in his video, but I'd like to know what he would've called fair compensation. AFAIK, he mostly does his own editing. How much is an editor worth? What would re-editing a ~30 minute video to cut out a little bit cost? I feel like I could do it in maybe an hour, and I don't even remember how to use editing software, so I assume any competent video editor could do it in much less time. What does 30 minutes of work cost in this situation? Was he really willing to get into this mess over like $50?What's fair? Asking Jawoodle to eat the cost financially for their mistake?
Of course, but the difference is that he doesn’t own the content and hence it is not him to earn money off it.As would Woodle?
Did he buy any of that just to make the videos that got taken down? Or did he already have it? TFP aren't responsible for his equipment. Lol.So his invested time and equipment is considered to be for free? Editing software? Extra bandwith for streaming and uploading you don't need for just gaming?
So the Uber you call should not get paid cuz he already owned the car? Even volunteers are entitled to some form of compensation if they use their private owned means.Did he buy any of that just to make the videos that got taken down? Or did he already have it? TFP aren't responsible for his equipment. Lol.
I live in a world with properly laws.So the Uber you call should not get paid cuz he already owned the car? Even volunteers are entitled to some form of compensation if they use their private owned means.
Sorry but what kind of world do you live in, Utopia?
If anything he would get paid for the time it took to make the video. But he wouldn't get anything for any equipment if he already had it.So the Uber you call should not get paid cuz he already owned the car? Even volunteers are entitled to some form of compensation if they use their private owned means.
Sorry but what kind of world do you live in, Utopia?
The content removed is the video, not the game; he does "own" that.he doesn’t own the content
Thats not certain. He got a copyright strike based on breaching an NDA. Nobody knows what that NDA contains, so stating he "owns it" is premature.The content removed is the video, not the game; he does "own" that.
The video disclosed features of 7DTD (graphics, behavior, gameplay, etc) which are owned by TFP and which they did not want to be disclosed to the public. The video contained IP owned by Woodle (his commentary, disposition, etc) and IP owned by TFP. An analogy could be a video recorded by me which happened to contain a painting by someone else or a soundtrack I did not have rights to.The content removed is the video, not the game; he does "own" that.
NDA's aren't meant to transfer rights. Even if an NDA does so, it might be thrown out in court. Filing a DMCA takedown over a "clean NDA" would be an abuse of the DMCA system.He got a copyright strike based on breaching an NDA.
Both can easily fall under Fair Use; so making strong claims about TFP owning the removed content is generally not advisable.An analogy could be a video recorded by me which happened to contain a painting by someone else or a soundtrack I did not have rights to.
Both can easily fall under Fair Use; so making strong claims about TFP owning the removed content is generally not advisable.
As said we dont know what the NDA covers. If this goes to court we will know. You stating it doesnt, does not mean anything.NDA's aren't meant to transfer rights. Even if an NDA does so, it might be thrown out in court. Filing a DMCA takedown over a "clean NDA" would be an abuse of the DMCA system.
This is not exactly an insult, but you can't seem to grasp context. I was arguing against someone going "TFP holds all the rights" ... by pointing out same CAN apply to JaWoodle as well. Yes, my statement is as empty as theirs without a court ruling / case law. That's the point of it.You stating it doesnt, does not mean anything.
Another point that would need to be measured in court - TFP provided THAT build to do content on, it Was delivered as something to publicize.I don't think disclosing features of a computer game which is not intended to be revealed to the public
Are you for real???If anything he would get paid for the time it took to make the video. But he wouldn't get anything for any equipment if he already had it.
Another point that would need to be measured in court - TFP provided THAT build to do content on, it Was delivered as something to publicize.
You can't just go "therefore TFP is right" after that.