In “Some Media Companies Choose to Profit from Pirated YouTube Clips” the New York Times reports that content companies from Universal Music to Lionsgate Film have opted to participate in a program that allows user uploaded content to remain on YouTube with advertising revenue diverted to the owners of the content.
As you may recall, a few weeks ago I reported that I had been watching an Unnamed Premium Cable Show on YouTube. It was wonderful keeping up with the show even though I did not subscribe to the Premium Cable Channel on which it appeared.
When YouTube/Google finally released its long promised application to identify copyright protected works, it was not merely implemented. No, Google offered the YouTube Video Identification application with choices for copyright owners. They may (a) remove the content; (b) leave the content as is or (c) “if a copyright holder chooses to partner with us—create revenue from them.”
According to the article, Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, announced during the call that Lionsgate had had the “good judgment” to participate in the revenue sharing, leaving their content on the site through the Video ID program.
Hmmm… Curious… hmmm…
Last week, lo and behold, all of the content related to the Unnamed Premium Cable Show was gone from YouTube, from micro-clips to the longer segments. When I first noticed the clips had disappeared, the traditional notice from YouTube alerting users that the clip had been removed because of a copyright claim … from Lionsgate as the producer of the show, Weeds!
According to the article, Lionsgate had recognized the marketing value of having clips on YouTube, no matter who uploaded them. While I understand, and applaud, Lionsgate’s removal of the Weeds content, I think the article misrepresents the purpose and value of the VideoID advertising partnership program. Companies like Lionsgate are able to choose which content they want to leave on YouTube, and YouTube has provided a revenue sharing mechanism to encourage companies to leave content on its site. All, fine and good.
But the article makes it seem like content companies are falling all over themselves to participate in the advertising sharing program. Google claims that users of the VideoID program have chosen to leave 90% of the copyright infringing content on the site seems incredulous. Not only has all the content from Weeds been removed, I have been hard pressed to find much content from major films and television programs.
The exceptions where “name brand” entertainment remains on YouTube seem to be well conceived marketing and promotion plans for movies, artists and television shows, or uses that do not cannibalize the market for the underlying content. With services like Hulu.com for streaming and ITunes for sales available to content owners, YouTube has emerged as a marketing resource rather than a broadcast replacement.
Nearly a year into the launch of the Video ID program it is still in Beta. The application to participate asks for a variety of information, including how many videos the applicant creates specifically for the web a week. It seems to be aimed at copyright owners primarily interested in marketing, rather than protecting their content from infringement.
Of course, I suspect the major content companies, like those highlighted in the New York Times article, do not use the online form to join programs YouTube offers like Video ID. No, YouTube has a business development team that fosters relationships directly with the major content companies. Considering the major labels, studios and broadcasters are still responsible for the majority of popular content it makes sense that resources are dedicated to developing those relationships.
Yet, the market for independent professional content is nearly as great in some segments. Has YouTube negotiated rates with Merlin for music or the Independent Film and Television Alliance (yes, Lionsgate is a member but their membership includes itty bitty producers as well) for television and film?
Fundamentally, however, my concern with YouTube’s efforts like Video ID and its other business development activities is that content companies and other copyright owners should not release YouTube/Google from liability for copyright infringement in order to participate in the program. That Billion Dollar valuation was not the result of homemade videos of babies and cats, it was the result of concert footage, movie clips and television shows. The creators and rightsholders deserve to participate in the payout from Google as much as any investor in YouTube.
