December 12, 2007
News: YouTube has finally expanded its revenue-sharing program to allow anyone (who creates videos for YouTube) to apply for a share in the ad revenues. If approve, you become a “partner” and get some undisclosed amount of money from ad revenue generated by the traffic generated.
To qualify, you must meet 4 criteria:
1. You create original videos suitable for online streaming.
2. You own the copyrights and distribution rights for all audio and video content that you upload — no exceptions.
3. You regularly upload videos that are viewed by thousands of YouTube users.
4. You live in the United States or Canada.
Analysis: Number 2 must be a typo. There’s no way that most video creators will own the copyrights to the music in the user-generated videos. They could have a nonexclusive license to distribute and perform the copyrighted music. But that’s quite different from owning the copyrights to the audio.
May 7, 2007
News: Finally, YouTube users can share in revenue for drawing viewers to YouTube, just like a corporate partner of YouTube. But it’s only a select few, so far, including Lonelygirl15, LisaNova, renetto, HappySlip, smosh, and valsartdiary. Here’s why they were selected, according to YouTube: “Because they have built and sustained large, persistent audiences through the creation of engaging videos, their content has become attractive for advertisers, which has helped them earn the opportunity to participate on YouTube as a partner.” (more here) If you go to the Partners section, you can find a few more users who have been selected.
Analysis: I’m still waiting for my videos to take off.
January 31, 2007
News: At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, YouTube co-founder Chad Hurley announced plans to share revenue with people who post videos that become popular on YouTube.“We are getting an audience large enough where we have an opportunity to support creativity, to foster creativity through sharing revenue with our users,” Hurley said. “So in the coming months we are going to be opening that up.” (More here)
Analysis: I’ve listened to some YouTube users’ reactions, and they see this development as both good and bad. The fears are that YouTube will lose its “community” ethos and become just another “corporate” site. On the other hand, some people spend a lot of time creating videos for YouTube that generate traffic to the site, so why shouldn’t they get paid? Both sentiments strike me as legitimate.
I’m more fascinated by the copyright issues that could become more intensified under a revenue-sharing model. If the video creators are profiting from videos that are based in part on some copyright infringed clips, and if YouTube pays those creators, then the claims of copyright liability against both the creators and YouTube becomes even more serious. Once money is involved, the video creators’ “borrowing” of content from others — let’s say some copyrighted music synched without authorization — becomes even more tenuous under fair use analysis. And YouTube’s position with respect to the creators would become more akin to an agency relationship, potentially opening it up to stronger vicarious liability claims. Without a concrete plan to examine, it’s too hard to say how serious these risks are. But any plan would obviously need to consider the copyright issues raised by revenue sharing.