that would require loss of profit from the videos/streams and Deadlock fully supports his license use.
Now I'm more confused.
Does the license forbids the creation of a video about it?
I never thought playing a game on video would be considered a derivative work 🤔
Did Deadlock actually said or did something? Or this if just people not liking the licence?
I'm not being dense (only slow 🙃)
CC BY-NC-ND covers commercial purposes. With that, you cannot use the licensed material for commercial purposes (which basically is google ad revenue, twich subs etc.), you still can use the material (i.e. IR mod series) but you cannot "profit" from it. With that, many content creators just have not covered IR mod series (or covered and still profit as any reporting requires manual labour from the author) as they cannot gain any profit from their videos and Deadlock was/is defending this stance.
That and the "exotic" license that Deadlock used is a point that makes people angry, as by popular belief - mods should be free, usable to any possible extend and possible to build upon/change by other people. Deadlock went against this idea as he put hard work into his sprites (as you can see) and used some tools/assets (the explaination above).
Of course this post (the first paragraph) is an idealised scenario. It's just very hard to manually (mod maker) track every material that covers your creation and define if the material correctly adjust to license.
There is much to debate about what really can happen (practical enforcement) with mod using CC BY-NC-ND license and how you can even enforce non-stealing, no-profitability policy. Especially when Deadlock country of origin is uknown (Berne Convention), Wube and it's hosting services are covered by Czech IP laws and YT falls within the juristiction of State of California.