If I use background music in a game, can streamers who use the game monetize it?

I am working on a pay-to-play game using envato music.
If a streamer uses the game to create a video, can that streamer earn money from the video?
The license we are using is “Music Mass
Reproduction”.

Hello,

The answer is no. No matter which license you get, none of them allow for redistribution.

Is this a thing though? Are there really game editors who use music in their game that players can then monetize? I’ve seen questions similar to yours pop up often, but I never had an actual example of how it would work.

It’s just a content producer streaming themselves playing the game, with the audio on, and the content producer receives ad revenue for their content.

That’s just not how it works. Music is still a copyrighted asset the streamers don’t have a license for. Those videos will receive a copyright claim and the uploaders won’t be able to monetize them. They will have to get their own license in order to do that.

Nope. Gameplay is not a streaming but a new audio-video synchronized end product. Kind of ridiculous thing but everybody treats it that way. @PurpleFog is right that gameplay author should buy a sync license to keep all monetization rights.

1 Like

Yeah I’m just explaining what game streaming is on Twitch and how it’s monetized, not the legality of it.

Got it. I wasn’t asking whether game streaming was a thing though. Rather whether it was actually a thing that game editors were seeking music to use in their game that their players could then monetize in their streams.

I could be wrong but to me this sound like a question from an inexperienced game editor who’s overthinking the matter, and not at all the industry standard. I don’t mean to be disrespectful by any means with this statement, I just think this isn’t an issue. How do big game studios deal with this issue? How do hot shot streamers deal with this issue? Do they avoid some games because of how the music could jeopardize their monetization?

Nope. Streamers often turn off the music (or even add “their own” music) if they want to keep full monetization rights. Unfortunatelly.

They do not care (e.g. GTA) or / and hire composer who will not register music in CID (it can be potentially problematic when it comes to CID piracy or false positives).

Theoretically game studios can add to a game license that they are granting streamers right to use music (if they have permission from composer to do so). But streamers usually do not check the game license. Even more - CID services do not like such behavior and there can be a problem with them. E.g. Identifyy do not allow to upload music which do not have the direct Author>(Media Creator)>One Client licensing. Identifyy call it “exclusivity” but it should be called something like “direct licensing exclusivity”… In other words Identifyy monetizes such streams.

The problem is in the general copyright law theory which say that gameplay is an audio-video synchronization. And each synchro needs “sync license”. IMHO there should be an exception for gameplays with the “native game music”. But who has the right to make such an exception? Local goverments setting local copyright law? It will not happen quickly…

1 Like

Thanks for answering my rhetorical questions and for supporting my point. It’s not the game studio responsibility to provide their players with “reusable” music.

However, sidenote:

Don’t see this as a problem, as it’s indeed what it is. Music remains an important part of the stream audience experience. Why should a music author relinquish their rights to accommodate a player/streamer’s own business?

It would be great if we could tap in this huge revenue “stream” that gameplay streaming is, without blocking anything. Unfortunately that’s not how it works now. In the meantime, I’m not willing to give a free pass to any random streamer, just because… what exactly? If we do that, that’s just one more step towards the total devaluation of music.

Oh, now I see there were rhetorical xD

Because streamer is not the one who should pay you for the music that has been already bought by the game studio. Player has payed already for the game so why has he to pay additionally for the in-game-music?

The one who has to pay us is… streaming service (e.g. Youtube) via PROs. They already pay but earnings are still very low and it’s not so easy to get them. Youtube rates should be higher, tracking should be easier, etc. It will change but it needs time.

Streamers make streams for fun and cash. If there is a way to earn more, they will go for it. So they turn down the music. Game developers see that so they use non-CID music to increase streamers and streamings hype.

This non-CID music loses possibility to protect itself and possibility to monetize other uses than gameplays.

And what about us? We (stock composers) are loosing possibility to sell our music to the game industry because the industry avoids stocks to keep their games free from unpredictable CID claims…

In the perfect world streamers should stream in-game-music with full rights to monetization which should generate additional high Youtube royalties. In such scenario composers should be protected by CID and stocks could get additional income source from the mass streaming PRO royalties.

So where is the problem? Besides low Youtube-PRO rates and huge number of tracking problems? Copyright law which limits PRO, Youtube and CID initiatives in that manner.

1 Like

Better to hire a musician to write an exclusive track that will not be registered or sold elsewhere. This is what most game developers do. It is very rare that they use copyrighted music, in which case they allow you to disable copyrighted music in the game options, which is useful for streaming.