@robert – it looks like your usage example would be covered by one of the exemptions in EU law. Maybe:

art. 5.3(c) press reviews and news reporting;
art. 5.3(d) quotations for the purposes of criticism or review ?

In my own case – speaking from experience of an incident from about three/four years ago – the fact that the copyright/trademark for my content (my toys in this case, covered by NDA between me and Mattel) belonged to me wasn’t sufficient for me to request Youtube to take down the video featuring my toys (since the creator of the video was the copyright owner of the content of the video). I did request the video be taken down; Youtube cited the appropriate EU law and refused. Also – as Ben suggested – it’s not you, the individual who would be expected to make any necessary compensations, but Google/Youtube/Facebook, as the platform provider (or they might take down the video).

There may be a question mark about recorded streaming of video games (I understand these to be quite popular) since the only content that appears in the video is footage from the games console. Videos featuring someone playing  a tabletop game, moving miniatures, on a board with terrain etc. would probably be exempt under either incidental (the main part of the video would be the person) or for review (if the camera focussed entirely on the game board).

It’ll be interesting to see how hard content manufacturers push at this law, to see how much money they can squeeze out of Youtube/Facebook and how hard they push back (arguing under one of the many exemptions); the whole thing was supposed to stamp out channels that simply share TV shows/music videos and thus deny income to the online streaming services.

I’m still not convinced that it’s the death-knell to user-generated content that some have made out?