A fellow running for office in Rockingham, North Carolina recently discovered the dark side of YouTube content-producer rights. Essentially--there are none. The guy made a political advertisement, which, due to its Star Wars parody content, was a natural fit for posting on YouTube. Some time later, Viacom used the clip in a program that aired on VH1. Feeling more than a little slighted, the guy posted the clip as it appeared in the show back on YouTube, only to have it yanked due to a copyright claim by Viacom.All of this begs the question--who is the copyright holder for the content in question? Is it Christopher Knight (the creator of the clip, pictured), YouTube, who apparently optioned the clip to Viacom for their Web Junk 2.0 show, or Viacom itself, which, two steps removed from the creator of the clip, aired it on VH1 and then asked YouTube to remove it after it was reposted?
It all stinks. Sadly, as we've seen before, YouTube "pwnz u" when you post video content on their site. It makes us feel more than a little sympathy for the creators of Chad Vader, who, if they could shift the center of their fanverse to their own web site from where it now resides at YouTube, might be raking in a fair amount of AdWords dough. Content sells content, after all.
So what do you think? Is YouTube's end-user agreement fair?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
9-01-2007 @ 7:47PM
Dan Merritt said...
I have read the YouTube User Agreement and basically it says you can't do some things and they can do anything they want with your stuff and will have the right to do so forever. ... Whether the thing is actually enforceable in its extremity is questionable , but that is basically what it says.
Reply
9-02-2007 @ 8:40AM
Peter said...
Do you now understand why large media companies are reluctant to make digital content widely available without DRM? Once you put something out there, you cease to have any level of control over it. As they say "You can't put the genie back in the bottle."
Reply
9-02-2007 @ 10:23AM
Lonnie McClure said...
Since YouTube is giving you free bandwidth, they at least have to have the potential for getting back something for it.
On the upside, the rights they gain are non-exclusive, so you still have the right to publish your content elsewhere, or sell it to someone. Given the quality limitations of YouTube video, selling it afterward is not that far fetched, assuming the original was high quality video.
It all comes back to TANSTAAFL.
Reply
9-02-2007 @ 1:37PM
Matt said...
Just get around the agreement and have someone else upload your copyrighted content without your consent. When YouTube tries to make money off of it, sue them and your 'friend' (of course, you can drop that second suit). The agreement doesn't give YouTube the right to make money off of content that is illegally obtained.
Reply