Well, you have to check the monetize checkbox when uploading, after that the dev will review and possibly approve the content.

Oh sorry, My mistake. Videos can not be monetized due to legal issues.

thanks but even if its user generated content? I have a ton of 4k material I shot and editing myself, I think the legal issue could be avoided if there is a check box to verify on upload that content is owned by the user. If the content uploaded violates rights it can always be removed, or possibly maybe only verfied uploaders and contribute video content? I would love to put a ton of ambient 4k video wall papers together.

It's not about the submitted content. It's because you are not allowed to monetize content that is being encoded in mp4.

Interesting never heard of that before, would you happen to have a source that you can share for some info on the subject. Im not saying that you're incorrect, im just trying to understand because I did find this document -http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Documents/avcweb.pdf

On slide 9 it states - "Where End User pays for AVC Video
Subscription (not limited by title) – 100,000 or fewer subscribers/yr = no
royalty"

Also here it states -
https://www.engadget.com/2010/05/04/know-your-rights-h-264-patent-licensing-and-you/

"So what are the rates, and who has to pay?

An excellent question that cuts to the heart of the matter. Remember, patents cover making, using, and selling the patented technology, so the MPEG-LA actually offers two licenses: one for codec developers (who make and sell the patented H.264 technology) and one for video content and service providers (who use it to distribute H.264 encoded content). The rates vary significantly; the yearly royalties for distributing an encoder range from free to $5m, while the royalties for distributing for-pay content are subject to complex rules about distribution but also range from free to $5m. In any event, MPEG-LA has said to us that only the parties at the top and bottom of the H.264 tool chain are generally required to pay royalties; that is, the party who makes the encoder, and the party who distributes the encoded file to the end users. You can think of that as the first and last transaction, if you like -- the person who sells the encoder and the person who sells the content are the ones who have to pay.

That ultimately means products that come with an H.264 codec don't also come with a license to use the codec commercially -- in order to distribute H.264 content in a way that makes money, the distributor has to pay for a separate license. So products like Windows 7, Mac OS X, Final Cut Pro, Avid, and modern video cameras aren't licensed to distribute video for commercial use -- they all have fine print somewhere that says they're for personal and non-commercial use only. It's language that feels incredibly aggressive and broad, especially since it apparently conflicts with the MPEG-LA's general position that only the final link in the chain -- the party selling or distributing the video to the end user -- has to pay royalties for using the H.264 encoder.

Using H.264 to distribute free internet video to end users doesn't cost a thing, and won't cost anything until at least 2015.

Yes, but it's not as bad as it seems. First off, directly asked MPEG-LA whether or not using an H.264 camera simply to shoot video for a commercial purpose requires a license, and the answer is no. We've also asked whether an end user watching H.264 videos would ever have to pay or be licensed, and the answer to that question is also no. Yes, the license terms are worded poorly, but those are the answers straight from the patent horse's mouth."

I was under the impression that mp4 and h264 are the same thing? Or would Wallpaper Engine need to obtain a license to be able to offer content monetization? Could this be a possiblity with other types of codecs?

I don't think anyone wants to pay for backgrounds.

I bought something earlier for $0.99 on here because I thought it was cool. There is a value here for what im talking about though not everyone agree's. I mean look at this.

https://www.amazon.com/3D-Aquarium-Blu-ray-Clownfish/dp/B004Q0CHBK

here is a good example of what im talking about, I already have 11 subs and was posted only a few hours ago. http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=854584854

Now 20 subs

I do know a lot of modders of games will have donate to support links in their mod descriptions, I mean, it's not a for sure thing, but it's a way to give fans an option.

nobody is going to pay for your videos. do like how everybody else does, and just upload it for free.

I'm now at 122 subs on this, I'm not against free content by all means. But instead of only uploading a few video wallpapers I could actually do it more actively. I have over 200 hundred similar scenes that I have filmed. Granted, I understand not everyone wants to pay or can afford to pay for content, but I can offer constantly new content. It really comes down to my time and the materials that go into generating the content. If I can generate income from it, it's a huge incentive to keep it going. Thanks

Some of my wallpapers have several hundred, and in some cases several thousand, of people subscribed to them.

Yes, it would be great if there was a way to allow video-based wallpapers to be submitted for monetization, but I understand that the Developer is concerned about licensing issues in that regard.

However, I can still use it as a way of promotions of sorts, as in the description for my wallpapers I give a link to my YouTube channel and I believe I've gained some new subscribers from that.

I guess the main thing is I enjoy creating wallpapers and I'm also glad to share them with others (though yes, it would be a nice bonus if I was able to monetize some of my wallpapers as I have put in a fair amount of time and work into making some of them).

Thank you for the insight lonewolfdon, you gave me a pretty good idea for an alternative solution. I could create a desktop app template to load and repeat the videos via YouTube urls. I could do a one time charge to use the app and provide all my content within the selection. However I would just be reinventing the wheel to accomplish this due to the developers stance on pay for content in video format, which would still be streamed in h264. Lots of other people out there charge viewers for private content hosted on YouTube that plays back in h264, I can think of Indy companies as well as some very large ones. I'm still enjoying the wallpaper engine workshop item that I paid $.99 for, I just think that video content should be strongly considered and implemented rather than condemned. Worst thing that could happen is a legal cease and desist, at which point remove the feature or allow other video codec types to be uploaded.

230+ subs... I also am asking subs to post here for support so the devs can include the feature. Who knows maybe someday it might happen. Thanks!