YouTube to Pay for User Generated Content

R

Rich Tate

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
5,955
It looks like YouTube will be compensating users who create and upload their own original content.

Speaking at the World Economic Forum, YouTube CEO Chad Hurley has revealed that the company plans to financially compensate users who produce and upload their content. Other sites such as Revver and Brightcove have long offered a revenue-share to content creators, where YouTube has sought to only do deals with old media, in an attempt to avoid litigation over copyright infringement.
Click to expand...
 
amdfan25 said:
One can only wonder what kind of content will appear on youtube next.
Click to expand...

I shudder to think about it!

Maybe Google knows they will just be getting sued more if people keep uploading copy protected content. This looks like a paradigm shift.
 
They pay you for a video that you made yourself...

geeze, there is going to be a lot of junk on there now.


Time to start recording everything, including my morning shower tunes... yes! I can make mucho dinero.
 
I didn't read the article but this does bring up a question that I have even about this very forum.


User generated content on sites that use that very content to make money. Why does the creater not see any sort of percentage of that? Now a site I do know needs a lot of many just to be kept in place, not to mentino the rising costs of actually keeping it nice. I agree to that wholefully and things like ads and such are a neccessary evil. However what I haven't been set straight on I guess is things like the intellitex, they take key words from the things that we post and turn them into ad links. So something I may have writting could have created a possivility where someone did view a product and possibly even a click through, why don't we see a return on it?

I'm not toalking about actualy dollars and cents returned to the creator, that would be way too much to deal with, but lets look at the livejournal model for a second. They don't put advertisements on your page, but there is a free level and a pay level, so the users that want the features of the pay level without actually paying for it can opt to have adverstisements on their page. This doesn't get them all the benifits of the pay users but a few of them in some degree. I guess the equivelent here would be previews of Gen may I guess.

The point is a lot of places are making actual money off of user submitted work and in cases like youtube thier work is really the majority of the content and reason of the site and popularity. So if there was no contract to give up rights to compensation there is a tiny tiny little feeling that could be getting suckered.


Ok this is long and this is the last part. To play devils advocate especially to youtube you can argue that site and storage fees are alot in themselves not to mention bandwidth and monitering.
 
bigstusexy said:
I didn't read the article but this does bring up a question that I have even about this very forum.


User generated content on sites that use that very content to make money. Why does the creater not see any sort of percentage of that? Now a site I do know needs a lot of many just to be kept in place, not to mentino the rising costs of actually keeping it nice. I agree to that wholefully and things like ads and such are a neccessary evil. However what I haven't been set straight on I guess is things like the intellitex, they take key words from the things that we post and turn them into ad links. So something I may have writting could have created a possivility where someone did view a product and possibly even a click through, why don't we see a return on it?

I'm not toalking about actualy dollars and cents returned to the creator, that would be way too much to deal with, but lets look at the livejournal model for a second. They don't put advertisements on your page, but there is a free level and a pay level, so the users that want the features of the pay level without actually paying for it can opt to have adverstisements on their page. This doesn't get them all the benifits of the pay users but a few of them in some degree. I guess the equivelent here would be previews of Gen may I guess.

The point is a lot of places are making actual money off of user submitted work and in cases like youtube thier work is really the majority of the content and reason of the site and popularity. So if there was no contract to give up rights to compensation there is a tiny tiny little feeling that could be getting suckered.


Ok this is long and this is the last part. To play devils advocate especially to youtube you can argue that site and storage fees are alot in themselves not to mention bandwidth and monitering.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you, but saying these things here is like playing on the Grim Reapers front Porch.
 
Ockie said:
They pay you for a video that you made yourself...

geeze, there is going to be a lot of junk on there now.


Time to start recording everything, including my morning shower tunes... yes! I can make mucho dinero.
Click to expand...

No one wants to see that Ockie :p *shutters*
 
There are too many sites for that already topaimz, I've already had to block one and the filtering company got a second, I think I know of a third but I can't remember.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top