News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:FAA says monetized videos shot from drones are subject to... by gamblor956 on Thursday March 12, 2015 @05:17PM (#9193987)
1) Maybe. If all the videos on that channel are monetized, than it should be considered monetized (i.e., as an ad or trailer for the other videos.

2) Why does it matter if an unrelated third party can monetize other videos using your unmonetized video? You cannot control whether YouTube shows monetized videos in its suggested watching sidebar. You, the pilot, did not monetize your video, and that is what matters for purposes of the regulation.

3) Context matters. It could be treated as a commercial use, but it depends on the greater context of the video. If it was just a portfolio item to get a job as an employee, it likely would not rise to the level of commercial use. But if it was used as a portfolio item to get a job as a contractor/service provider providing drone footage, then it would most likely be treated as a commercial use.

Re:FAA says monetized videos shot from drones are subject to... by Lawtonfogle on Friday March 13, 2015 @09:02AM (#9196881)
>2

The reason YouTube exists and that you can upload videos is so said third party can make money. If they weren't monetizing videos, including yours, the service wouldn't exist. In effect, you are using your video as a form fo payment for having the service. Is a single video that much in the grand scheme of things? No; probably a fraction of a penny. But it is still part of the transaction you are paying to use their service.

>3

Why would this context matter when monetizing it the context of how much money is made doesn't matter. Even if operating at a loss, making only pennies for every dollar spent, it still counts as monetizing?