Is Viacom Doing To Independent Content Creators In 2010 What It Says YouTube Did To Viacom In 2006?

from the questions,-questions... dept

Igor Zevaka was the first of a few of you to point to John Green's video where he discusses the Viacom/YouTube lawsuit with a bit of a twist, highlighting the fact that Viacom is making money off of amatuer content, without the rights to do so. Viacom owns Spike.com (a subsidiary of MTV), into which it folded iFilm.com, home of all sorts of amateur content, including content such as a Jonathan Coulton video that has a clear Creative Commons license -- but only for non-commercial use. However, on Spike.com... it's covered in ads sold by Viacom. So, Green wants to know, has Viacom paid Coulton?
It's a fun video (though, Green is trying too hard to be Zefrank) that does make a good point -- though, I'm a bit disappointed that it (a) does not link to the Spike.com Coulton video he's discussing (I went searching for it, and it looks like it's been taken down) and (b) plays a little fast and loose with the facts of the lawsuit itself (to the point of being inaccurate at times). For example, he keeps saying that Viacom just wants a cut of YouTube's advertising, but that's not really accurate. It's asking for statutory damages for copyright infringement, which has nothing to do with advertising or advertising rates. It's also not clear where he comes up with the numbers he uses for what Viacom owes Coulton.

Either way, it would be interesting to see if anyone has more evidence that Viacom properties are improperly monetizing CC non-commercially-licensed videos. That would seem like a relevant point in the ongoing lawsuit...


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 3:57pm

    Creative Commons? That's not in the constitution.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 4:10pm

    Shouldn't Viacom also owe money to each of the original photographers (assuming the CC licenses under which they released their photos were also non-commercial)?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    anonymousBlox, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 4:27pm

    copyright gives the rights holder the right to set forth terms for the use of their work, for example a contract. creative commons is a contract that is drawn up to give both the rights holder and user of the work clear guidelines on what can be done.
    whilst creative commons may not be in the constitution but copyright, which is what creative commons needs to work, is in the constitution.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    cc (profile), Jun 8th, 2010 @ 4:32pm

    "I'm a bit disappointed that it (a) does not link to the Spike.com Coulton video he's discussing (I went searching for it, and it looks like it's been taken down)"

    There's a caption in the vid at around 2:25 that says it's been taken down.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 4:43pm

    actually, there is a problem here: if the video is submitted to ifilm under their terms, which includes granting them a license, then there may be a 'conflict of rights'. in theory, the submitter had granted rights that they may not be allowed to grant.

    you have to track how the videos were obtained, and if ifilm has any way to know who submitted them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    cc (profile), Jun 8th, 2010 @ 4:59pm

    Re: o rly

    And exactly the same argument back at you, seeing Viacom is suing YouTube for user-uploaded content. How is YouTube supposed to know if the submitter had the rights or not?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 5:05pm

    Re: Re: o rly

    without knowing who their submitters are, you tube should (and mostly does) assume no rights. ifilm, if i understand correctly, was a "producer submits" site. i think that iflim likely has better track of their contributors.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    cynumbr9 (profile), Jun 8th, 2010 @ 6:06pm

    viacom and cc

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 6:28pm

    Re:

    "you have to track how the videos were obtained, and if ifilm has any way to know who submitted them."

    Why does ifilm not have super natural powers which would enable them to know who submitted the content and whether the subby did indeed own the copyright? It is their responsibility to ensure this is the case and futhermore ifilm should be held accountable for their indiscretion. Seems they just steal stuff from others with the sole purpose of tirning a profit from it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Jun 8th, 2010 @ 6:55pm

    Re: viacom and cc

    That's brilliant. :D

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    Rose M. Welch (profile), Jun 8th, 2010 @ 7:26pm

    Re:

    That's right, it's not. Neither are the current laws for copyright.

    In this case, Viacom has written permission from Coulton to use his copyrighted works, as long as they don't use it commercially. They used it commercially, thus violating his copyright and their agreement.

    They should pay up, just like they want all other infringers to do.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 7:28pm

    Re: Re:

    sarcasm wins you few points here. If ifilm required people to sign up with accounts that disclosed full name, and information, and required disclosure, then they would know who submitted the clips.

    remember, ifilm was a short movie and video production site created by a movie producer type, not a slash and burn copyright violationhaus.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 7:33pm

    Re: viacom and cc

    very good!

    (would have been better 2-3 mins shorter :) )

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 8:20pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    So you're saying that Viacom steals content? It all makes sense now!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    PRMan, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 8:34pm

    Re: viacom and cc

    That's the most delicious irony I've seen in a long, long time.

    It would be fun if Google blocked them for violation of TOS.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 9:11pm

    Re: Re: o rly

    Magic!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 8th, 2010 @ 10:55pm

    Re:

    yup

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Jun 9th, 2010 @ 8:37am

    Re:

    Yes they should, you have to love the second edge of the sword sometimes. The big media companies are setting themselves up for a huge failure in the future. They are pushing for laws to allow them to maintain a monopoly on content, without adapting to the current trends, without optimizing their business models, and violating all the rules themselves.

    Its slowly coming back to bite them on the behind. Its really fun to watch, knowing full well what the trends are and from that what the future holds for them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    JB, Jun 9th, 2010 @ 1:58pm

    Um...he doesn't say that Viacom wants a cut of YouTube's advertising. He says that Viacom DESERVES a cut of the ad revenue for their videos, but that Viacom is instead asking for a portion of YT's overall value (hence the $1bn lawsuit). As for how he came up with what Viacom owes Coulton, as a YouTube partner John Green knows how much online advertising is worth, so he'd know how much Coulton should be getting for the 18,000+ views his video received on Spike.com. Similarly, the discrepancy between the true value of online advertising and $1bn Viacom is asking for in their lawsuit is probably how he came up with the second, much larger figure that Viacom should pay Coulton if they don't want to come across as big, fat hypocrites.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Jun 9th, 2010 @ 7:20pm

    Oops

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    flagg1209, Jun 12th, 2010 @ 3:39am

    Re:

    Neither is copyright!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This