Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Why YouTube Needs the Rights to Your Video 139

Posted by timothy
from the all-in-the-phrasing dept.
erlichson writes "There has been a lot of controversy over the YouTube terms of service. Why are consumers surprised? Fundamentally, YouTube's business model requires that they get the rights to redistribute your content. This note analyzes an alternative publishing model available to consumers that doesn't require granting a license to your content, but the trade-off is that you won't get the same level of distribution."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why YouTube Needs the Rights to Your Video

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24, 2006 @04:46PM (#15772635)
    Because many think there is such at thing as a free lunch. They are wrong but that's what they think.
    Just post a story here about ads and banner blockers and you will see.
    • Because many think there is such at thing as a free lunch.
      There isn't? [cornell.edu]
    • by pla (258480) on Monday July 24, 2006 @05:07PM (#15772740) Journal
      Because many think there is such at thing as a free lunch.

      Uploading a music video certainly goes to far. Small clips from a movie might come under fair use. But when people post what amount to home movies - Yes, they most certainly do have every right to upload that to YouTube.

      Free lunches exist - And in fact, when not in a climate of scarcity, people (and even many "dumb" animals) will gladly share that of which they have a huge surplus. Well, "bits" exist in as close to a limitless supply as anything we've ever experienced, and plenty of people will gladly share their bits, even with trolls like you.


      And as for banner ads... Please, tell me who gets the free lunch from whom in that situation - The parasites that think they own my eyeballs just because they put up a web-page, or the people who choose not to read the Chick pamphlets that come with that "free" lemonade?

      Or, put another way, does exploiting the human feeling of gratitude count as more or less sociopathic than suppressing that same feeling? Personally, I'd say the former commits a deliberately "evil" action, while the latter results as a learned response from dealing with assholes falling into the first category. YMMV.
      • Is sharing a surplus actually a Free Lunch philosophy?

        Technically, leftovers are still things you've essentially WORKED for. So even though one might benefit from it without working for it, doesn't mean someone else didn't put that amount of work in it to achieve it. Isn't that the real philosophy of the No Such Thing As A Free Lunch?

        Essentially, it's like energy in a closed system: no matter what you do, nobody gains anything extra, it's always the same amount. You gain x here, but you'll lose x there.

        In a
        • How does having a BBQ where you invite people over work?

          You worked to get the money for the House, The Grill, the charcoal/propane, the lighter fluid, the matches, the food to cook on it, the beverages to drink (a surpluss of them since it's more then you will eat or drink).
          Yet everyone you invited over can't have any of it? since it would be stealing (by your own admission) since they did nothing to earn it.

          So would that be considered a Free lunch or Stealing?

          Same goes for anything else, you wor
          • by anagama (611277) <obamaisaneocon@nothingchanged.org> on Monday July 24, 2006 @06:08PM (#15772992) Homepage
            With the BBQ, there is some expectation of a quid pro quo -- you invite your buddies over and in a vague sense, probably expect your buddies to invite you over some time and stick a "free" beer in your hand. Now, people don't go around keeping spreadsheets of how many beers their buddies owe them, but we've all probably experienced the friend who becomes a mooch and eventually, the mooch isn't invited to more BBQs. In essence, the mooch got a few free lunches by violating a common social expectation.
            • True, but like I said, it's not about (individual) perspectives.

              Technically, you can buy a friend a beer without ever getting anything back, goodbye party or whatever. Does that mean the beer is free? For him it is, but realistically, it costed you to give him that beer. So it's not a free lunch.

              In your case, you lost something which he gained. So which part of that would be the "free lunch"? It's not, you paid for it, he got it.
            • Now, people don't go around keeping spreadsheets of how many beers their buddies owe them
              Why else would PDA versions of spreadsheet programs be so popular ?
          • "You worked to get the money for the House, The Grill, the charcoal/propane, the lighter fluid, the matches, the food to cook on it, the beverages to drink (a surpluss of them since it's more then you will eat or drink).
            Yet everyone you invited over can't have any of it? since it would be stealing (by your own admission) since they did nothing to earn it."

            this is bullshit. For starters, those are finite things. Once they are gone..you need to get more. It's not the same thing with digital goods.

            "Same goe
      • You have no right to upload anything to YouTube. However, YouTube has given you permission to upload things, so long as you follow their conditions. They can quite easily take away that permission and all you could do is whine about it.
    • by wish bot (265150) on Monday July 24, 2006 @05:17PM (#15772781)
      Did you think for a moment about your use of the word 'consumers'? Yes, I know it was in the summary as well, and that this is a general trend rather than something specific to Slashdot. We're talking about people uploading (possibly) their OWN CONTENT to YouTube, and we call them 'consumers'? In almost every post on Slashdot these day, when we're talking about a collective group of persons, the word 'consumers' is used.

      There used to be some better words - 'people', 'citizens', 'females under 25', etc.

      All that this indiscriminate use of the word 'consumers' does is reinforce the notion that your sole purpose in life is to consume.

      Stop it with the 'consumers' bullshit. Be people again. Give some respect to all these other individuals in the world by calling them 'people' too.

      /rant

      • It comes with the capitalism. If you don't want to be considered a consumer regardless of what you do or who owns the content, you've gotta head somewhere else. Citizens don't exist anymore, at least not in our land of buying votes. You'll notice the same effect doesn't seem to occur in the wartorn parts of Africa or other places where there's more to life than the dollar.
      • The worst one is when people refer to themselves as a "consumer" in a context where it isn't appropriate, which is most of them.
      • [sarcasm]
        Oh sure, and next you're going to tell us that you want to be a person and not a human resource.
        [/sarcasm]
    • by Anonymous Coward
      There are many businesses which provide "free" service and don't lay claim to your content. In fact I believe that YouTube is going to get into hot water if they go ahead with the "all uploads are belong to us" plan. There's lots of illegal stuff on YouTube and now it's not yours but theirs, so if there ever was a shadow of a doubt that they're breaching copyright, they can kiss that goodbye now.
    • by vertinox (846076) on Monday July 24, 2006 @05:33PM (#15772848)
      Because many think there is such at thing as a free lunch. They are wrong but that's what they think.

      Technically, I used to get free lunches all the time, but I had to waste time listening to bad powerpoint presentations of sales people who I had no intention of buying anything from.

      But seriously, nothing is free except air and the light from the sun, but cost is minimized to an extent it might as well be free. When your cost to produce comodities reaches near zero (bandwidth, hardware, and electricity) then your product or ad space could be sold for extremely low prices and you still make enourmous profit (depending)

      However, we haven't reached that point (yet) mostly because it still costs an arm and a leg to host full streaming HD quality video and unless you are Comcast, Google, or Verizon you really don't have the resources needed to give it away for free forever like YouTube.

      However, what happens in 20 years when bandwidth exceeds full motion HD video and you can download a 1000 TB in just a few seconds and you can host your own super webserver from your laptop? I mean full imersion can only go up to the point where we can't tell the difference between reality and our downloadable entertainment?

      At that point in our lives (if we are still around) everything will literally become free at least with Intellectual Property (in a sense) because we've saturated the known universe with material that no one is going to bother paying for either through piracy or home made junk or reality TV etc. I dunno... Its just a guess.

      However, in 20 years we might have robotics making things you buy at the store for free as well... But as they mentioned in the technological singularity article a few stories back... Well... It might be a moot point.
      • I mean full imersion can only go up to the point where we can't tell the difference between reality and our downloadable entertainment?

        That'll never happen - what's the point of the itnernet if it doesn't mean downloading videos of freaky sex I won't be having?

      • However, what happens in 20 years when bandwidth exceeds full motion HD video and you can download a 1000 TB in just a few seconds and you can host your own super webserver from your laptop? I mean full imersion can only go up to the point where we can't tell the difference between reality and our downloadable entertainment?

        Nothing... We will have run out of extractable oil by then. The developed countries will be lucky to have enough food, much less maintain high-speed internet to the public.
    • As another poster said, the YouTube users the article deals with are not consumers.
      In fact, they are providers, just the opposite.
      You might call them customers, but they don't act primarily consuming any YouTube product, they are the ones that provide the most important part of the bussiness.

      Of course, what they require is fair enough to me. If they are going to host your content for free, they need first a license for that content, and as a legal shield, they ask for the right to edit your content, in case
    • We're just going to have to wait a couple of generations and see if the gene pool ups it's standards, aren't we?

      I mean, you were born for free. Did your parents give you the bill for raising you? You live in a free country. Where's your payment to the revolutionaries who fought and died so you could have it? Don't tell me your tax dollars are there to compensate patriots for their deaths - I think that if that was all they were fighting for, they would have said "Forget it!" Somebody, somewhere (I hope!

  • I wonder (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Mysteerie (972719)
    If youtube will start selling dvd's of mixed content. I.e. top 100 view videos of 2006, etc...
    • I will go one further, and suggest the YouTube cable channel.

      For your consideration:
      • Reality TV
      • Adult Swim
      • The MySpace phenomenon

      Please note: 10 years ago, *I* would have modded this suggestion "-5, What are you smoking?"
    • Re:I wonder (Score:5, Interesting)

      by apflwr3 (974301) on Monday July 24, 2006 @09:10PM (#15773563)

      Here's a big problem-- Youtube may claim a license/ownership in their TOS. But if they try to sell the videos for profit, they will in all likelihood open themselves up to lawsuits from any subjects in the video who did not grant permission for their likeness to be used. You simply cannot film a person who is not a public figure (e.g. politician, celebrity) and distribute it without an agreement. Or to be precise, you CAN (it's not illegal) but you will be sued (especially if you make a profit) and you will most likely lose.

      Say a high school kid films another guy lighting farts on fire at a party and throws it up on Youtube. Did the fart-lighter sign a personal release? How about the crowd of people in the background, especially if their voices can be heard? Did the owner of the house sign a location release? I'm not even going to get into the problems that will arise if a copyrighted song is playing in the background. If any of these parties think Youtube is making a profit from this video they could sue. I'm not even sure they're wrong, I certainly wouldn't want a video of myself circulating on the internet without my permission-- and I would certainly do what I could to put a stop to it if someone else was making a profit.

      I should also add, by the way, that a minor cannot sign a release. So even if the fart-lighter says you could post the video, his parents might feel otherwise-- and, yes, they could sue.

      This is a problem that's going to bite Youtube in the ass sooner or later-- say when the parents of the next Star Wars Kid sues Youtube for being a party in the distribution of the video. Since Youtube is licensing the video rather than washing their hands and saying they don't have anything to do with their content, they will certainly be named in any lawsuit. And if they're making a profit from this video they will certainly be liable for damages.

      And no, I'm not a lawyer. But I have been an assistant producer at a production house that makes reality shows and documentaries and I've seen the great lengths they need to go to to secure releases-- and dealt with the legal department extensively over the inevitable problems. Producers actually have to take out insurance policies to protect themselves against oversights.
      • I don't think youtube will turn and directly sell videos, either singularly or as a collection for the reasons you mention. And especially because many of the people in these videos are minors. However, while I didn't go over every square inch of the TOS (or even one square inch actually... I'm just that lazy and it's time for bed), there may be implied or explicit language that states the uploader of the video has obtained proper documentation for the subjects in said video. This way, if any discrepencies

  • Renaming (Score:4, Funny)

    by Eightyford (893696) on Monday July 24, 2006 @04:50PM (#15772656) Homepage
    I heard they were renaming their company to OURTUBE.com
    • Re:Renaming (Score:2, Funny)

      by bhima (46039)
      I Think you meant 'Theirtube'
    • More like OURPIPE.com.

      You see, in the internet, things like, say, videos, get to people's homes by pipes. Or tubes, for that matter.
    • Re:Renaming (Score:3, Funny)

      by LordMydrin (654748)
      Actually, I think it would be UsTube.com or WeTube.com, since 'you' is not a possessive form. Oh, wait... you were joking... :-D
    • I heard they were renaming their company to OURTUBE.com

      Really ? I heard it was YOUSHAFT.com

      There was even a commercial that had the Two-Headed Monster from Sesame Street with the letter U, & a picture of a shaft.
    • Regardless of who owns it, I think YouTube demonstrates that if you build a big enough tube it won't be clogged. Proof enough against the new ISP moneygrab, if you ask me!
      • OTOH nobody uploaded an Internet to yourTube either. Who knows what will happen when someone tries that ?
  • Wow! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheSpoom (715771) * <slashdot@ubermMONET00.net minus painter> on Monday July 24, 2006 @04:51PM (#15772661) Homepage Journal
    A comparison of Phanfare and Youtube by Phanfare! Clearly as unbiased as one can get.
    • Much like a comparison of windows and linux by linux distros?
    • Re:Wow! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by smackenzie (912024)
      Why was this modded offtopic? TFA is a Phanfare blog entry that, while not being particularly offensive in handling another business model, is clearly commercial. The article summary doesn't do a good job mentioning that this is a Phanfare note, comparing Phanfare to YouTube!
  • It's simple (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Data Link Layer (743774) on Monday July 24, 2006 @04:54PM (#15772676)
    If you want to a massive amount of people to see what you have created you have to give the website you are posting it to right to use it anyway they want. Same works with deviantart and myspace, what is posted there they can use it free of charge. If you want it so only you can redistribute it then very few people will likley see it.
    • If you want to a massive amount of people to see what you have created you have to give the website you are posting it to right to use it anyway they want.

      Why?

      If you want it so only you can redistribute it then very few people will likley see it.

      Do you think that there might be something between these two extremes that might function, like, oooooooh, say, a limited license?

      KFG
    • OT: deviantArt (Score:4, Informative)

      by kn0tw0rk (773805) on Monday July 24, 2006 @06:10PM (#15772996) Journal
      As an artist that has put up stuff on dA, I'd like to say that originally I was loathe to put 'content' up there, but as I thought about wether I wanted exposure or to retain complete control/ownership I decided that I'd rather get exposure. But I have chosen which works I wanted to put up there, which is primarily my older works, and have several recent pieces that I wont put up as I feel they are superior to my earlier ones.

      And its not like dA have total ownership of the pieces I've put up, IIRC they have a limited license to cover themselves legally, and I can still put up the pictures on another site if I choose. One day when I decide to upgrade my membership there so I can sell prints, dA will still only have a limited license and I could still sell prints at local markets/fairs.

      Maybe I'm going about this wrong, as I'm not 100% sure of what is the right way to do this, so if anyone from the /. gallery wants to comment, feel free.
      • Re:OT: deviantArt (Score:2, Interesting)

        by databoss (702586)
        There are a couple important distinctions between the YouTube and deviantART agreements, although I find both dispicable. The YouTube license is transferrable without limitation, while the dA agreement is only transferrable in very specific cases. This is important because if YouTube sells content to a third party there is some ambiguity about what the third party can do if the user later removes their content from YouTube. Another important point is that the dA agreement allows them to modify content.
    • I call BS on that arguement. Then why do movies work? Somehow big studios are able to ensure tight control over their works when massive amounts of people see it.

      Why can't crapspace et al have strict rules that are favorable to user ala what big studios have? Both big studios and users are putting up content that distributors make money off of. Myspace has an even better deal then movie theaters. They get the content for Free, make money off of it, and then tell the users to go F themselves if they want any
    • I don't see why myspace and youtube pick up the creative commons licensing schema....this is exactly what CC was created for...
  • Slashvertisement? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This note analyzes an alternative publishing model available to consumers that doesn't require granting a license to your content...

    s/analyses/advertises/
  • by hguorbray (967940) on Monday July 24, 2006 @04:56PM (#15772688)
    Asked and Answered (I think)

    I wonder if creative commons licensed videos would be a problem for YouTube with these new terms?

    If they restricted redistribution of content that was emanating from their site or assigned themselves any extra rights regarding editing or ownnership or restricted further distribution I think that it might.

    They would probably just say that you can't put up any content with a license which would be violated by their doing what they wanted with it.

    -What's the speed of Dark?
    • by BrynM (217883) * on Monday July 24, 2006 @05:15PM (#15772773) Homepage Journal
      I wonder if creative commons licensed videos would be a problem for YouTube with these new terms?
      By uploading the content to their server, they could argue that you are granting them a seperate specific license (their terms of service) and thus do not have to abide by the license you offer to the general public.
      They would probably just say that you can't put up any content with a license which would be violated by their doing what they wanted with it.
      With a seperate license granted, this becomes moot.
      • [By uploading the content to their server, they could argue that you are granting them a seperate specific license (their terms of service) and thus do not have to abide by the license you offer to the general public.]

        Yes, but unless your work was first generation (all original to you) then you may not have the rights to give them this seperate license. Say for instance you released a Creative Commons BY-SA licensed video containing CC BY-SA licensed music in the sound track.

        So it may not be possible and so
  • same with journals (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24, 2006 @04:59PM (#15772701)
    Same problem with publishing research. Some journals try to suppress your right to share your paper freely on the web. So generally only people who's institution has a subscription can see the content.

    The answer is competition - post your video on a website with better terms of service and publish in journals that don't have 'embargo' policies on sharing your own work.

    I don't want to equate the problems of ownership of cheezy webcam thong videos with the problem of ownership of academic research publications, but the main problem as I see it is that I'd rather sit around watching the aforementioned videos than read the dozens of journal articles I'm supposed to be reading instead. Christ I'm never going to graduate. F***! now I'm blathering on slashdot. Must turn off internet...
    • I have yet to find a reputable journal that does not allow you to retain the right to place a copy of your paper for download on a personal not-for-profit web site (although most do require copyright be assigned to them).

      For journalists it's slightly different. Some of the places I write for require copyright assignment, some don't. Here, if they do require copyright assignment then you lose all rights to the content. If they don't, then you can do what you like with it; I contributed a tutorial I had

    • Same problem with publishing research. Some journals try to suppress your right to share your paper freely on the web. So generally only people who's institution has a subscription can see the content.

      The answer is competition - post your video on a website with better terms of service and publish in journals that don't have 'embargo' policies on sharing your own work.

      My brother-in-law (a professor who must publish or perish) puts it succinctly - "I can publish in 'free' journals that few read a

  • by gumbo (88087) on Monday July 24, 2006 @05:02PM (#15772713) Homepage
    From the article:
    Folks are apparently surprised that when you post your video to YouTube, you give them the right to distribute it, sell ads against it, and generally make money from it. But this is YouTube's business model. They aggregate an audience around consumer generated video and make money by selling access to that audience in one way or another.

    I thought Youtube was going through cash like a late 90's .com, and haven't come close to making any money off of anyone's content yet. Maybe that's why these guys decided to compete with them, wrote their little blog post and got it on here: because they didn't realize that Youtube wasn't profitable? Or they're just figuring that they'll do it right where Youtube has missed the boat as far as making money...

    Or maybe my brain isn't what it used to be and I'm completely wrong about this, and Youtube has been insanely profitable.

  • by bagofbeans (567926) on Monday July 24, 2006 @05:04PM (#15772723)
    Per licence in OP, "The foregoing license granted by you terminates once you remove or delete a User Submission from the YouTube Website.". So a user just has to remove the material to retract the license...
    • One thing I was wondering about the licence was what would happen if they started selling DVD's of more popular things. I guess they couldn't do that if you can retract the licence at any time like that...
  • Minors (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24, 2006 @05:06PM (#15772734)
    How much of YouTube's content is submitted by teenagers? Quite a bit, I have seen.

    Minors cannot enter into contracts. Seems like a rather stunning flaw in thier business model.
    • Re:Minors (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Bieeanda (961632) on Monday July 24, 2006 @05:14PM (#15772768)
      I'd venture to suggest that at least thirty to forty percent of the stuff on Youtube is also copyrighted to someone other than the poster, as well, which makes contractual claims entertaining too. Every time some twit's collection of full episode rips gets taken down, they just go ahead and re-upload them.
    • Re:Minors (Score:2, Interesting)

      by kfg (145172) *
      Minors cannot enter into contracts.

      a)False

      b)Not all teenagers are minors

      KFG
      • a) False

        While it is true that minors can enter into contracts, those who accept such contracts are generally fools. It is very easy to break such contracts. Thus the requirement of an adult guardian to sign for virtually everything a minor contracts for.
        • by kfg (145172) *
          . . .those who accept such contracts are generally fools.

          a)True

          b)A rather different issue :)

          Nor a simple one, although I will posit that it seems likely a court would rule that a minor did not have legal understanding of the ramifications of the MyTube license when he posted his music video to it.

          Not sure at all that this would have any serious ramifications on MyTube's business model.

          KFG
    • Re:Minors (Score:4, Informative)

      by nullforce (743444) on Monday July 24, 2006 @05:47PM (#15772895)
      Minors can enter into contracts; however, they can exit or void most contracts while they remain under the age of maturity. http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/can- a-minor-contract.html [legalmatch.com]
    • Re:Minors (Score:4, Interesting)

      by aarku (151823) on Monday July 24, 2006 @06:05PM (#15772977) Journal
      Interesting point... So minors can't technically buy any software with a license agreement on it?
      • No, they can buy it. They are just not bound to the terms of the license. The terms of sale do not include accepting the license, only the terms of USE. Since returning the product for license refusal is also an article under said license, the minor is also not bound by that. I've never heard of this actually being testing in court; that would be an interesting case (Honestly, your Honour, my 14 year old cousin installs all my software!). This is why MMOGs are beginning to require that the account own

      • In the US, minors can enter into contracts. However, they are granted the right to void a contract in it's entirety if they choose. Certain types of contracts cannot be voided at will, though. As for licenses, they can enter into the license agreement/contract and then void it later, but that just means that they are now infringing on the copyright.
    • Minors cannot enter into contracts. Seems like a rather stunning flaw in thier business model.

      Wrong. Minors can enter into contracts, but they also have the right to nullify any contract as long as they are still under the legal age. So for anyone who is making a contract with a minor, it is worse than worthless, because while the minor can get out of it at any time, that same luxury is not given to whoever signed the contract with a minor. Of course, if two minors sign a contract with each other, then e
    • Minors cannot enter into contracts. Seems like a rather stunning flaw in thier business model

      Minors can make contracts. What minors do not have is an unconditional escape claue: Lecture Notes - Contracts - Capacity [profj.us] A minor cannot, for example, pick and chose which part of a contract he wants to renounce. It is all or nothing.

    • Seems like a rather stunning flaw in thier business model.

      My first reaction was: "Woah! YouTube actually has a business model?!"

  • Phanfare (Score:4, Funny)

    by linvir (970218) * on Monday July 24, 2006 @05:09PM (#15772744)
    With Phanfare, you are paying to publish and archive your video. Not only do you retain the rights to your content, but we claim no right to distribute, remarket, or otherwise make money on your content

    Wow! What an incredibly innovative publishing model! Wait, I'd better make sure I have this right:

    1. I pay them
    2. They provide a service in return

    AMAZING! It's almost like a paid photobucket account, or say, a normal hosting service, but look [phanfare.com]! It's got flash, a free trial, a mix of over and undersized fonts, and lots of glaring colours, so it's obviously Web 2.0 and therefore a new idea entirely!

  • Controversy? Still? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gumbo (88087) on Monday July 24, 2006 @05:10PM (#15772751) Homepage
    By the way, is there really still any controversy over Youtube's new TOS? Even the EFF guy came out and said that it's not a big deal:

    YouTube wants to CYA itself in case it flows into new formats with old videos, e.g., cell phone downloads. They don't want to have to go back and relicense all the content in new mediums. And its also true that simply yanking the video will cut off all their rights, which is a powerful weapon to keep them in check.

    I guess it's just their competitors that wrote that article that want to keep the "controversial" label going, and apparently it's working.

    • Exactly. There is no controversy.

      YouTube gets a license to re-distribute your content (and its always yours) while you have it uploaded. If you don't like it, yank it off and magically, they no longer have any rights to your video. I think this is a very fair policy that works very well for youtube's distribution model.
  • Revver (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Sanity (1431) on Monday July 24, 2006 @05:48PM (#15772900) Homepage Journal
    Revver [revver.com] asks only for the right to distribute your content (under a Creative Commons no-derivs license) with unobtrusive advertising attached, and they share the revenue with you on a 50:50 basis. Revver's model is also more "behind the scenes" than YouTube. Revver users include EepyBird [eepybird.com] (the mentos and diet coke fountain guys), and Ze Frank [zefrank.com], a popular video-blogger. EepyBird has already made over $30,000 through Revver in just a few weeks.

    [Disclaimer: I am one of the founders of Revver]

    • (under a Creative Commons no-derivs license) with unobtrusive advertising attached

      So how does that work then?

  • YouTube's response to this: All you(r) tube are belong to us!
  • pirate uploading (Score:2, Interesting)

    by njahnke (757694)
    what recourse is there when people upload your content to youtube, stripping your name off?
  • There are some websites which will do worse, which in one part will claim that they will own your material, and will also state that you, the poster, own your material. A conflict in the terms.

    The important thing is this. Do you have a right to force them to remove all of your content off their site upon your own request?
  • by vermox (877880)
    From the BB post:

    reader comment:
    I hate to be put in the position of trying to defend an onerous license... but the excerpt you posted on BoingBoing is a little misleading. It continues, "...The foregoing license granted by you terminates once you remove or delete a User Submission from the YouTube Website."

    That last little bit is pretty important. It means that if you remove the work from the YouTube site, they have to stop using your work. So there is some protection for users who have uploaded origi
  • It seems like this kind of press will really kill all inventive and intersting content that can show up on a site like YouTube.com. While there will still be a lot of the garbage, the stupid videos that people put up just to get their quick internet exposure, the creative people out there who are tying to create something fun and interesting for people to watch most certainly will refrain from putting their work on YouTube after knowing the terms of use.

    Think about putting a bunch of time into making a vid
    • Then having YouTube selling YOUR work to someone else, who now owns your idea, and your finished video.

      They can't sell it to someone else - they can only let someone else use it. If you actually read the terms (or TFA for that matter), you'd see that the user retains ownership AND YouTube loses all rights when you take it down. So they could, for example, let a car company use your video in an ad and get paid for it. But:
      1) the car company wouldn't own the video, you still would
      2) if you take it off

  • I'm sorry, I thought that point of uploading videos to youtube was to gain maximum exposure. You do not give up your copyright protection at all. It's like sending a cd to every radio station in the country and then they actually play it on the air. You can't then turn around and say "Hey, I'm angry at you that you played my cd on the radio!!!"

    In the end, if you want anonymity, just give your uploded video a stupid filename like ##%35yo0safa, so nobody will be able to find it unless they are looking for
  • When you publish a scientific article in a journal, you sign over the rights to own the article to the publisher. In effect, its theirs, however, the data is still owned by the author i believe.
    • Yes, data is still owned by the Author (of course); the scientific article, as is, becomes owned by the publisher. This is the reason why often you can find online just the preliminary (unedited) version, which usually is almost the same but not really the same. The open access model is rather different, because rights remain to the author. However you pay to publish.
      From the little I know, also when publishing an article on a generic magazine or review, rights are transfered to the publisher as default, un
  • If you want free exposure and viral marketing, post a clip on YouTube. If you want exclusive rights to your content, post it on your own site. If you really think you can make money from your content, you can afford a webmaster and hosting.

He who steps on others to reach the top has good balance.

Working...