Esports and Streaming Checklist: Publisher Licence Terms, Event and Broadcast Rights, Player and Team Agreements, Sponsorship and Ambush Controls, and Platform Compliance

By Casey Scott McKay · 2023-09-20

This checklist audits an esports organiser, team, or streaming business. It begins with the publisher licence, because everything else sits on top of it and can be no broader than it is. It then tests the sub-licence chain that most broadcast deals fail, and builds the production layer an organiser can actually own. The middle phases work through the events layer, the player agreement clause by clause including minors and employment characterisation, and sponsorship categories mapped across four conflicting layers. The later phases audit the music in the archive, address platform dependency and account ownership, build the integrity programme with an appeal route, and register the brand. It closes with the diligence file assembled against the eight findings every esports transaction surfaces, and gate items mark where work should stop.

IP and Technology > Copyright | Checklist | Published 20 September 2023 - Updated 15 November 2025 | Casey Scott McKay - marksy.us

Summary. This checklist audits an esports organiser, team, or streaming business, beginning with the publisher licence because everything else sits on top of it and can be no broader than it is. It tests the sub-licence chain that most broadcast deals fail, builds the production layer an organiser can own, works through the player agreement clause by clause including minors and employment characterisation, maps sponsorship categories across four conflicting layers, audits the music in the archive, addresses platform dependency and account ownership, builds the integrity programme, registers the brand, and prepares the diligence file. Gate items mark where work should stop.

Keywords: esports checklist · publisher licence review · renewal position · sub-licence chain · community guideline thresholds · production layer assignments · player agreement clauses · minors and capacity · employment characterisation · sponsorship category mapping · music archive audit · platform account ownership · integrity appeals · trademark classes · diligence list

How to use this checklist

| Phase | What it produces | Who runs it | Gate | |---|---|---|---| | 1. Publisher licence | The foundation, recorded | Counsel | Read before any deal | | 2. Sub-licence chain | Every downstream grant tested | Counsel | No grant exceeds the head licence | | 3. Production layer | Executed assignments | Counsel and production | Commentary assigned | | 4. Events | Venue, tickets, prizes, visas | Operations and counsel | Prize structure cleared | | 5. Players | A standard agreement, roster-wide | Counsel and HR | Minors handled properly | | 6. Sponsorship | Categories mapped across four layers | Commercial and counsel | Mapped before selling | | 7. Music | An archive audit and a going-forward rule | Counsel and production | Audit done before a sweep | | 8. Platform | Accounts in the entity, archive backed up | Operations and counsel | Personal accounts transferred | | 9. Integrity | Standards, process, and an appeal route | Competition and counsel | Appeal route exists | | 10. Brand and diligence | Registrations and the file | Counsel | Eight findings addressed |

The matter. An organiser running a licensed circuit on one title, negotiating a broadcast deal, with twelve teams under participation agreements, a four-year archive of streams, trademark filings nobody made, platform accounts in a former employee's name, and an investor conducting diligence in three months.

Phase 1. Read the publisher licence

[ ] Establish what the client actually holds: participation in a publisher-operated league, a licensed circuit, permission under community competition guidelines, or a content policy. These are different instruments with different security.
[ ] Record the term and the renewal position.
- Why. A business valued on multi-year revenue holding a licence shorter than the projection has an expiry date, and the first question in any diligence is what happens at renewal.
[ ] Understand why the publisher can impose conditions. A video game is a copyrighted work and 17 U.S.C. § 106 reserves the rights to perform and display it publicly and to make derivative works, so a tournament, a stream, and a highlight package are all uses within the exclusive rights unless licensed.
[ ] Record every condition: prize pools, branding, sponsorship categories, broadcast arrangements, territory, and approval requirements.
[ ] Record the archive and reuse rights, which are the provision most often overlooked and most often restrictive.
[ ] Check the community guideline thresholds on prize money, attendance, and sponsorship.
- Trap. Events grow past the thresholds without anyone rechecking, and an unlicensed event is one the publisher can stop the week before it runs.
[ ] Note that content policies are revocable and amended, so a creator's business rests on a unilateral permission.
[ ] Price the concentration risk of dependence on a single title, in the client's own planning rather than in a buyer's diligence.
[ ] [Gate] No deal is negotiated before the licence has been read and recorded.

Where gameplay footage sits

[ ] Explain the layers before advising on any deal that depends on footage. The audiovisual output — graphics, characters, environments, animations, interface, and music — is authored by the publisher and protected under 17 U.S.C. § 102. The player's skill produces a specific sequence that is not authored in the ordinary sense, since a chess game is not a copyrightable work and expert play is closer to athletic performance. Commentary and camera work are separately authored by the broadcaster. Streamer overlays and reaction content add expression clearly belonging to the streamer.
[ ] Do not build a business on the ambiguity. Where a client's model depends on owning footage, the answer is a licence from the publisher saying so rather than an argument about where the player's contribution sits.
[ ] Know where the fair use fallback stands. 17 U.S.C. § 107 directs attention to purpose and character, the nature of the work, the amount used, and market effect, and the analysis after Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith weighs whether the use serves a distinct purpose and whether it substitutes.
[ ] Rank the positions honestly. Criticism and review are strongest; full playthroughs of narrative titles are weakest, delivering expressive content to an audience that might otherwise have bought it; competitive broadcast sits between, promoting the title while performing it publicly at commercial scale.
[ ] Note that transformativeness is not a talisman, since adding a facecam changes presentation rather than purpose.
[ ] Recognise why the sector runs on permission: publishers fear a precedent limiting their control and creators cannot fund a test case, so the policy is the operative instrument rather than the doctrine.

Phase 2. Test the sub-licence chain

[ ] Confirm the client may sub-license at all, since some licences prohibit it and a broadcast deal made under one is a breach as well as an over-grant.
[ ] Test every downstream grant against the head licence: broadcast, streaming, clips, archive, territory, exclusivity, and duration.
- Why. A sub-licence cannot exceed the head licence, and an organiser selling exclusive broadcast rights must hold them exclusively and for a term no longer than its own. This is the most common structural defect in esports deals.
[ ] Check derivative content rights for highlight packages, documentaries, and promotional material built from event footage.
[ ] Flow the publisher's conditions down — sponsorship category restrictions, branding requirements, and approval rights — since a broadcaster that has not accepted them creates the client's breach.
[ ] Warrant only what is held, since an organiser warranting clear title to rights it licences has given a warranty it cannot support.
[ ] Check the position on archive exploitation after the event, separately from live rights.
[ ] [Gate] No broadcast agreement is signed before the chain has been tested clause by clause.

Phase 3. Build and own the production layer

[ ] Recognise what it is. Camera direction, observer decisions, replay selection, graphics, analysis segments, and commentary are authored contributions producing a protectable programme — a derivative work under 17 U.S.C. § 103, with protection extending to the new material rather than to the underlying game.
[ ] Assign commentary properly, since commentators author and perform it and both need assigning under 17 U.S.C. § 204.
[ ] Assign the graphics package and broadcast identity, produced by an outside studio under a quotation that usually says nothing about copyright.
[ ] Secure on-air talent agreements covering assignment, likeness, exclusivity, and post-term use of recorded material, since these are frequently thinner than the player agreements.
[ ] Multiply the assignments for localised feeds, since each language adds commentary and production contributions.
[ ] Treat statistics and analytics overlays as compilations, thin in copyright and protectable in the methodology.
[ ] Confirm the archive position against the publisher licence, since the library is an asset only to the extent the licence permits retention and reuse.
[ ] [Gate] No production goes to air without executed assignments from commentary and design contributors.

Phase 4. Run the events layer properly

[ ] Read the venue agreement for recording rights, since a venue reserving rights over footage shot on its premises complicates a broadcast the organiser thought it controlled.
[ ] Draft ticket terms incorporating the recording prohibition, the attendee image release for broadcast, and the conditions of entry.
[ ] Obtain public liability and event cancellation cover, which small organisers skip.
[ ] Clear the prize pool structure.
- Trap. Depending on structure and jurisdiction, a competition with an entry fee and a prize may engage gambling or promotional lottery rules, skill-based exemptions vary, and crowd-funded prize pools raise questions about the character of the contributions.
[ ] Settle prize payment mechanics, including withholding, cross-border payment, and the position where prizes are awarded in virtual items rather than money — which changes the tax and consumer analysis because an item is a licence rather than property.
[ ] Draft eligibility, transfer, and roster rules, which are contractual constructs resembling sport's regulatory apparatus without the institutional structure.
[ ] Start the visa process early, since immigration is the operational failure most likely to disrupt an event and it requires lead time nobody allows.
[ ] Address health, safety, and duty of care, particularly for younger competitors and long event hours.
[ ] Review franchise slot arrangements where participation is sold, since that converts a licence relationship into an investment and raises the stakes on renewal.
[ ] [Gate] No event opens ticketing before the prize structure has been cleared.

The events layer, in detail

Beyond the licensing question, running a live event is an ordinary event law exercise and organisers new to live production miss the same items every time.

[ ] Read the venue agreement for recording and broadcast rights, since a venue reserving rights over footage shot on its premises complicates a broadcast the organiser believed it controlled.
[ ] Check the venue's own sponsorship and branding restrictions, which can conflict with the organiser's sold categories.
[ ] Draft ticket terms incorporating the recording prohibition, the attendee image release for broadcast, the conditions of entry, and the refund position.
[ ] Obtain public liability and event cancellation cover, which small organisers skip and which is the difference between a postponed event and an insolvent one.
[ ] Clear the prize pool structure, since depending on structure and jurisdiction a competition with an entry fee and a prize may engage gambling or promotional lottery rules, skill-based exemptions vary, and crowd-funded pools raise questions about the character of the contributions.
[ ] Settle prize payment mechanics: withholding, cross-border payment, timing, and the position where prizes are awarded in virtual items rather than money.
[ ] Publish eligibility, transfer, and roster rules before the season rather than during a dispute.
[ ] Start visas early, since immigration is the operational failure most likely to disrupt an event and it needs lead time nobody allows.
[ ] Address health, safety, and duty of care, particularly for younger competitors and events running long hours.
[ ] Review any franchise slot arrangement, since selling participation converts a licence relationship into an investment and raises the stakes on renewal considerably.

Phase 5. Standardise the player agreement

[ ] Name a parent or guardian as a party where the player is a minor, not merely as a signatory, and check whether the jurisdiction requires court approval for a long-term commitment involving a child.
- Why. This is the exposure most likely to produce a regulatory problem rather than a commercial dispute, and it is handled by organisations whose contracting practice was designed for adults.
[ ] Settle the employment characterisation deliberately, with advice, rather than defaulting to contractor status, since minimum wage, hours, tax, and benefits exposure follow from it.
[ ] Align the practical arrangements with the label, since a contractor whose hours, location, equipment, and content are directed by the team is not a contractor whatever the agreement says.
[ ] Draft term, options, and transfer with buyout formulas rather than negotiations, and test enforceability, since options exercisable by the team alone are a restraint in substance.
[ ] Separate the compensation elements: base, prize share, sponsorship share, and streaming revenue — the last being the term the player cares most about.
[ ] Draft exclusivity narrowly, since platform, equipment, sponsor, and appearance restrictions constrain an individual's independent living and that is where disputes arise.
[ ] Limit likeness and content grants by term, or price any tail period rather than assuming it.
- Trap. A player whose image is still being used by a former team two transfers later has a genuine publicity rights complaint.
[ ] Draft conduct and termination with a process and an appeal, since termination assessed unilaterally in a sector with short careers produces an unusual balance of power.
[ ] Include dispute resolution, since the sector lacks sport's institutional machinery and the contract is the whole of the remedy.
[ ] Execute the assignment of created content rather than describing it.
[ ] Standardise across the roster, since inconsistent terms are a diligence finding and an internal grievance.
[ ] [Gate] No player competes without a signed agreement, and no minor without a parent as a party.

Phase 6. Map the sponsorship categories

[ ] List the four layers: publisher restrictions imposed through the licence, organiser categories sold in the circuit, team categories, and player personal deals.
[ ] Check the publisher's restrictions first, since gambling, alcohol, and specific competitors are commonly restricted and those restrictions bind downstream.
[ ] Expect structural conflict.
- Trap. A player wearing a team jersey with one energy drink logo while personally sponsored by another is routine, and the conflict is designed into the structure rather than accidental.
[ ] Allocate in-broadcast inventory deliberately, since overlays and virtual signage are created by the publisher or organiser and their allocation is a licensing question rather than a physical one.
[ ] Handle regulated categories by market, since gambling sponsorship is prominent, contested, and subject to advertising codes and jurisdictional prohibitions that a global broadcast reaches.
[ ] Apply endorsement disclosure obligations to creator and influencer arrangements, in a sector whose audience skews young enough that regulators pay attention.
[ ] Address ambush marketing realistically, since the event exists inside a game the publisher controls, in-game branding is not available to an ambusher, and the exposure is in the physical venue and on social media around the event.
[ ] Use trademark enforcement as the backstop against unauthorised association, with claims under 15 U.S.C. § 1114 and 15 U.S.C. § 1125 where a mark implies an affiliation that does not exist.
[ ] [Gate] No category is sold before the four-layer map exists.

Phase 7. Audit the music and set a going-forward rule

[ ] Explain the position. A streamer playing a commercial recording transmits it publicly, requiring clearance of the composition and the recording, and personal listening licences do not cover it.
[ ] Expect automated enforcement, since content identification systems match recordings against reference files and act — muting a segment, removing a video, or penalising an account.
[ ] Know the framework. Rights holders proceed under 17 U.S.C. § 512, with the platform's safe harbour depending on expeditious removal and a repeat infringer policy and a counter-notice route where the removal was wrong. Misrepresentation liability exists under the same provision, and Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. requires a rights holder to consider fair use before sending — which does little practical good against an automated system.
[ ] Check the in-game music position, since a soundtrack may be licensed to the publisher for use in the game and not for third-party broadcast, meaning a streamer following the content policy can still be caught.
[ ] Adopt a licensed streaming music service and read its terms for whether broadcast use is included.
[ ] Audit the archive now.
- Why. A rights holder's retrospective sweep can strike years of content at once, remediation is possible before a sweep and not after, and a channel built over a decade can be lost to a decision made carelessly in year two.
[ ] Set a rule going forward: licensed service, silence, or confirmed-clear in-game audio only.
[ ] [Gate] The archive audit is complete before any transaction process opens.

Virtual items and the economy inside the game

[ ] Establish that players do not own items. Terms of service uniformly grant a limited, revocable licence to use an item within the game rather than transferring property, which means a collection worth thousands is a permission the publisher can modify or withdraw.
[ ] Map the secondary markets operating on items whose terms prohibit or restrict transfer, which publishers tolerate, regulate, or shut down according to a calculation that changes.
[ ] Screen for item-based gambling, which has attracted enforcement, with the conversion of virtual value into money through item markets being the mechanism regulators focus on.
[ ] Track loot mechanic legislation in every market the title operates in, since disclosure requirements, age restrictions, and in some places prohibition mean a monetisation model can become unlawful where it currently runs.
[ ] Address prize items specifically, since awarding a licence rather than property changes the tax and consumer analysis and organisers award them without considering it.
[ ] Read the community-created item terms, where an assignment or licence from the creator is established by the platform's terms and the revenue share is contractual rather than a royalty in any copyright sense.
[ ] Warn clients that item removal or rebalancing is within the publisher's rights and periodically produces player anger, class action attempts, and regulatory interest — with the terms drafted to permit it.
[ ] Tell every participant to read the terms as the whole of the position, since the property intuition everyone brings is wrong and correcting it is cheaper before a business model depends on it.

Phase 8. Manage the platform dependency

[ ] Read the terms as the operating environment, since platforms reserve broad discretion to suspend or terminate, disclaim damages, and change the rules.
[ ] Read the monetisation programme terms, since a revenue split adjusted unilaterally moves the economics of the whole business.
[ ] Read exclusivity deals for what happens at the end of the term and whether the archive migrates.
[ ] Understand the hosted content position, since a platform is generally not liable for what users transmit under 47 U.S.C. § 230, with intellectual property claims carved out and running under the copyright framework.
[ ] Recognise that moderation reaches the whole channel, so a suspension for conduct removes the archive and the audience simultaneously.
[ ] Transfer platform accounts into the entity.
- Trap. Accounts held personally by individuals who may leave mean the audience asset is outside the entity, which is a diligence finding and an operational risk at the same time.
[ ] Back up the archive where the terms permit, since the library exists only inside somebody else's systems.
[ ] Diversify where possible, accepting that an audience does not move cleanly — which is precisely why the dependency matters.
[ ] [Gate] No transaction proceeds with the audience asset held in a personal account.

Phase 9. Build the integrity programme

[ ] Identify the enforcement categories: commercial cheat developers, individual cheating, match-fixing, doping and conduct rules, and account bans.
[ ] Know the claims against cheat developers: copyright infringement where the cheat modifies or reproduces game code, breach of terms, tortious interference, and in some cases circumvention of technological measures under 17 U.S.C. § 1201.
[ ] Disclose what anti-cheat software does and collects, since kernel-level detection tools installed on players' machines have prompted privacy and security concerns and disclosure is increasingly expected and in some regimes required.
[ ] Treat integrity data as personal data, since behavioural analytics, hardware fingerprints, and communications monitoring carry obligations that programmes built by people thinking about cheating routinely overlook.
[ ] Recognise match-fixing as a criminal and gambling regulatory matter where betting markets exist on the outcome, which they do at scale.
[ ] Build a real appeal route.
- Why. An account ban is a commercial catastrophe for a professional with a career and sponsorship obligations, and disciplinary findings about named individuals are published statements carrying defamation exposure if wrong. The appeal route is what makes the programme defensible.
[ ] Publish the conclusion and the process rather than the evidence, which limits the defamation exposure while satisfying the transparency expectation.
[ ] Apply published standards consistently, since inconsistency is the allegation that survives every appeal.
[ ] [Gate] No sanction is published before the appeal route exists.

Phase 10. Register the brand and prepare the diligence file

[ ] Clear before adopting, since names are chosen for resonance rather than availability and the search that prevents a rebrand takes a day.
[ ] File in the right classes under 15 U.S.C. § 1051: entertainment services, clothing, and increasingly software and gaming services.
[ ] Watch for third-party filings against an organisation that has operated unregistered.
[ ] Treat merchandise as a product line with a design chain, manufacturing terms, and clearance — and with designs frequently made by community members or freelancers who never signed anything.
[ ] Plan the counterfeit response through marketplace programmes and customs recordation, with 15 U.S.C. § 1114 behind it.
[ ] Tie merchandise using player likeness to the player agreement's term.
[ ] Consolidate domains and handles registered personally by founders.
[ ] Manage rebrands deliberately, since acquisitions leave registrations, domains, and stock to consolidate or abandon.
[ ] Assemble the diligence file against the eight findings: a publisher licence shorter than the revenue projection with no renewal answer; a sub-licence chain that does not support the broadcast deal; inconsistent player agreements with unsigned members and minors lacking consent; an unanalysed employment characterisation; sponsorship category conflicts; unquantified archive music liability; absent or partial trademark filings; and platform accounts held personally.
[ ] [Gate] The file is assembled before a buyer opens diligence, not during it.

Advising an individual creator

Where the client is a person rather than an organisation, the checklist compresses into five items.

[ ] Register the name. A creator operating for years under a handle with no filing discovers the problem when a merchandise seller or a competing creator files first, and the registration would have cost a few hundred dollars at the outset.
[ ] Own the merchandise design chain, since apparel and accessories are frequently designed by a community member or a freelancer who never signed anything and are printed on every item sold.
[ ] Read the exclusivity terms in any team, agency, or platform agreement — on platform, on revenue share of personal income, on content approval, and on post-term use of the creator's own name.
[ ] Diversify the platform position, accepting that the audience does not move cleanly, which is why the dependency is worth reducing before it is tested.
[ ] Understand what the business rests on. The channel is the asset and nobody owns it: audience, archive, subscriptions, and reputation sit inside a platform whose terms reserve broad discretion, and a suspension removes all four with no compensable claim. The content depends on two unilateral permissions — the publisher's content policy and the platform's terms — neither negotiated and both revisable.
[ ] Structure for the exit that does not exist, since a business built entirely on one individual cannot be sold as a going concern in the way a media company can, which is a reason to think about the entity, the trademark position, and the content library early.

Teams as brand businesses

Where the client is a team, the brand work is ordinary trademark practice performed badly because nobody in the organisation is a trademark practitioner, and the items are the same ones any consumer brand faces with one addition.

[ ] Clear the name before adopting it, since team names are chosen for resonance rather than availability and the search that prevents a rebrand two years later takes a day.
[ ] File in the classes the business actually occupies, which for a team means entertainment services, clothing, and increasingly software and gaming services.
[ ] Monitor for third-party applications, since a team operating for years unregistered while building a following is a target for anyone paying attention.
[ ] Document the merchandise design chain, since designs come from community members, freelancers, and occasionally players, none of whom signed anything, and the results appear on every item sold.
[ ] Clear third-party elements in merchandise, including fonts, imagery, and any reference to a game's assets, which sit under the publisher's rights rather than the team's.
[ ] Tie any merchandise using a player's likeness to that player's agreement, since the licence is what supports the product and it expires.
[ ] Consolidate the domains and social handles registered personally by founders, which is how the audience finds the organisation.
[ ] Apply quality control to sponsor use of the team's marks and to the team's use of sponsors' marks, since the obligation runs in both directions.
[ ] Plan rebrands as consolidation exercises, since acquisitions and repositioning leave registrations, domains, and stock that have to be transferred or deliberately abandoned rather than forgotten.

A note on order

The phases follow the dependency chain rather than the client's priorities, and the gap between the two is the point.

The publisher licence is first because every other arrangement is derived from it. A broadcast deal, a sponsorship, a team participation agreement, and a creator's content business all rest on a permission the client did not write and can lose, and none of them can be assessed without reading it. Clients want to start with the revenue; the revenue is downstream of the licence in every case.

The sub-licence test follows immediately because it is a comparison of two documents that takes an hour and prevents the sector's most common structural defect. It should happen before a broadcast agreement is signed rather than after, and it usually happens after.

The production layer sits third because it is the one thing the client can own, and because assignments are obtainable from commentators and studios during a working relationship and awkward afterwards.

Events, players, and sponsorship are operational phases that recur every season, and each is a template exercise rather than a one-time project.

The music audit sits at Phase 7 in the list and should be run immediately in any business with an existing archive, because it is the only phase where the exposure grows with time and where remediation becomes impossible rather than merely expensive.

Platform, integrity, and brand are continuous programmes needing owners rather than completion dates.

The diligence file is last because it compiles everything, and a file assembled first contains assertions the other nine phases would have turned into documents.

[ ] Confirm insurance reaches media and intellectual property claims, since general liability and event policies commonly exclude them and this sector's likeliest claims — music, likeness, and unauthorised association — sit in exactly those categories.
[ ] Check what happens to the circuit if the publisher changes the game, since a balance patch, a mode removal, or a discontinued title ends a competitive format the organiser built a business on, and the licence rarely says anything about it.
[ ] Record any exclusivity the client has given or received on titles, regions, or teams, since these are commonly agreed informally and are decisive when a competing circuit appears.
[ ] Check whether prize money is held on trust or on account, since an organiser that becomes insolvent holding announced prize money has a problem beyond its own balance sheet.

[ ] Diarise a review before each season rather than annually, since rosters change, sponsorship categories are resold, the publisher's guidelines are revised, and platform terms move — and a checklist run once at the start of a circuit describes a business that has since changed in every respect that matters.
[ ] Name an owner for each continuing phase, since the music rule, the account register, the sponsorship map, and the integrity process all degrade silently and none of them announces that it has stopped being maintained.

[ ] Check the position on user-generated clips and highlights created by viewers inside platform features, since the platform's terms allocate ownership of them in ways that serve nobody clearly and an organiser building a highlights product on viewer clips is building on somebody else's allocation.
[ ] Confirm what happens to the archive at the end of a platform exclusivity deal, since the audience does not migrate and the library may not either.

[ ] Confirm the entity that holds the licence is the entity running the business, since organisers frequently incorporate a new company for a circuit while the publisher licence remains with the original one, and the mismatch surfaces at exactly the moment somebody wants to buy or finance the operating entity.

[ ] Check whether any team or player has a competing publisher relationship, since multi-title organisations carry obligations to more than one publisher and the categories, exclusivities, and approval requirements do not align.

Outcome. A business that has run this checklist can tell an investor what its publisher licence permits and when it ends, show a broadcast deal that fits inside it, produce executed assignments for the production it sells, present a standard player agreement across the roster, explain how its sponsorship categories fit together, quantify the music exposure in its archive, and demonstrate that the audience asset sits in the entity. Those seven answers are what the sector's diligence exercises ask for, and almost nobody has them.

Key Authorities at a Glance

| Authority | What it settles | Phase | |---|---|---| | 17 U.S.C. § 106 | Exclusive rights, including public performance and display | 1 | | 17 U.S.C. § 101 | Definitions, including audiovisual works | 1 | | 17 U.S.C. § 102 | Subject matter; ideas and procedures excluded | 1 | | 17 U.S.C. § 103 | Compilations and derivative works | 3 | | 17 U.S.C. § 107 | Fair use | Fallback analysis | | Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith | Purpose and character; market substitution | Fallback analysis | | 17 U.S.C. § 201 | Ownership and transfer | 3 | | 17 U.S.C. § 204 | Transfers must be in writing and signed | 3, 5 | | 17 U.S.C. § 512 | Safe harbour, notice, counter-notice, misrepresentation | 7 | | Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. | Fair use must be considered before sending a notice | 7 | | 17 U.S.C. § 1201 | Circumvention of technological measures | 9 | | 47 U.S.C. § 230 | Platform not treated as publisher of user content | 8 | | 15 U.S.C. § 1051 | Application for registration | 10 | | 15 U.S.C. § 1114 | Infringement of a registered mark | 6, 10 | | 15 U.S.C. § 1125 | False designation of origin and false endorsement | 6 | | 17 U.S.C. § 504 | Damages, including statutory damages | 7 |

The five things people get wrong

One: negotiating the deal before reading the licence. The broadcast agreement, the sponsorship, and the investment are what the client is excited about, and none of them can be better than what the publisher permits. A deal signed in ignorance of the licence is a liability rather than an asset, and the licence takes an afternoon to read.

Two: granting more than is held. An organiser sells exclusive broadcast rights it holds non-exclusively, or for a term longer than its own, or including archive rights the publisher retained. This is the most common structural defect in the sector, it is entirely detectable by comparing two documents, and it is discovered by a buyer's counsel rather than by anyone inside the business.

Three: leaving the production layer unassigned. Amid a stack where almost nothing belongs to the client, the broadcast production is the exception — and the commentators, the graphics studio, and the on-air talent frequently worked under oral arrangements or quotations that assign nothing. The one asset the organiser could own outright is the one it did not paper.

Four: ignoring the archive's music until a sweep. Years of recorded streams with commercial recordings, remediable now and not later, and capable of removing a decade of content in a single automated action. The audit produces the most alarming number in any esports engagement and it is nobody's job until it is everybody's crisis.

Five: holding the audience in somebody's personal account. The channel, the subscribers, the archive, and the reputation sit in accounts created by an individual who may have left, which means the principal asset of the business is not in the business. It is free to fix while relations are good and impossible afterwards.