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

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jun 2010 @ 3:57pm

    Creative Commons? That's not in the constitution.

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

    • icon
      Rose M. Welch (profile), 8 Jun 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 chronology ]

    • identicon
      flagg1209, 12 Jun 2010 @ 3:39am

      Re:

      Neither is copyright!

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jun 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 chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 8 Jun 2010 @ 10:55pm

      Re:

      yup

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

    • icon
      Hephaestus (profile), 9 Jun 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 chronology ]

  • identicon
    anonymousBlox, 8 Jun 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 chronology ]

  • icon
    cc (profile), 8 Jun 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 chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jun 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 chronology ]

    • icon
      cc (profile), 8 Jun 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 chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Jun 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 chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Jun 2010 @ 9:11pm

        Re: Re: o rly

        Magic!

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

    • identicon
      abc gum, 8 Jun 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 chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Jun 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 chronology ]

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

    viacom and cc

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

  • identicon
    JB, 9 Jun 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 chronology ]

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

    Oops

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


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.