Content hosting services such as Google’s YouTube or Facebook are among the most important digital public spaces. Many entirely new forms of creativity have been inspired and flourish due to new and easy ways of sharing (more or less slightly) modified content on the net. What is more, popular examples of such user-generated remixes or mash-ups rarely stay isolated but lead to video responses – often based on another round of remixing.
Precondition for this ecology of user creativity is not only the technological platform but also an enabling legal framework: while, at least in the U.S., many instances of remix culture fall under the fair-use exemption of copyright, this cannot easily be recognized and thus bears risks of costly litigation. As a result, platform operators such as Google are tempted to pursue policies best described as “delete if in doubt” whether a particular work might infringe copyrights.
But why should copyright holders persecute such “infringements” by ordinary users – often fans and dear customers – who engage in creative work without commercial interests? The reason are commercial revenues generated by platform operators, mostly via advertising. Copyright holders of works (re-)used in user-generated content distributed on these platforms demand their share of those revenues and use their copyrights as a collateral in the respective negotiations.
Strategic copyright enforcement by rights holders at the expense of non-commercial creators is not an empty threat. Quite the contrary, what we observe are continuous (re-)negotiations with recurrent instances of mass-infringement claims, leading to the deletion of hundreds of thousands of user-generated videos – collateral damage.
In a recent study in the realm of the EU-funded COUNTER project, Domen Bajde has conducted an impressive virtual ethnography on how one such strategic copyright enforcement by the Warner Music Group (WMG) had incited something he calls a “web storm” – massive user protests against deletion of their works. On his blog Bajde presents a condensed version of the story, which started with a private agreement between WMG and YouTube:
“Warner Music Group (WMG) was the first company to strike a revenue sharing deal with Youtube. The deal (put simply) included WMG getting a share of Youtube advertising revenue in return for allowing the copyrighted content to be published on Youtube either in the form of “original” WMG content (music videos, etc.) or in the form of user generated videos using WMG content (for example a video of your mom snoring with Madonna’s “Bedtime story” playing background).”
In a way, this private deal between two corporations led to the generation of a public good. This seemingly win-win situation turned loose-loose two years later when renegotiating the terms of the agreement between the same two companies failed:
“Users’ videos containing WMG stuff either got muted or pulled down. You could imagine the users were not to happy with that. A host of user rants and comments ensued, some quite feisty!”
As an exemplary user reaction, Bajde points to the video embedded above. As both contributors to and beneficiaries of the public good that is a user-generated content ecology, these protests may lead to another form of collateral damage – in this case for the corporate brand of Warner.
But WMG, which settled the case with Google for the time being in 2009, is not the only rights holder in constant conflict with Google/YouTube over adequate compensation for usage of contents. This week, to give just the most recent example, the German copyright collective GEMA publicly announced to abandon the negotiations with YouTube after over one year of fruitless haggling (see German press release).
As a final remark with regard to governance across borders, let me highlight another interesting development in the latter case: the negotiation struggles with the transnational YouTube platform motivated GEMA to team up with 8 other national collecting societies listed in the press release: AKM (Austria), ASCAP, BMI and SESAC (all from the U.S.), SABAM (Belgium), SACEM (France), SIAE (Italy), and SUISA (Switzerland). Thus the common transnational “enemy” YouTube accomplishes something the European Union has unsuccessfully striven to do over the past decades: it leads to more transnational integration of the still very nationally rooted collecting societies.
(leonhard)
9 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 11, 2010 at 10:43
Phil
First of all props to the maker of that video. Second, props to you Leonhard for your poignant analysis. The question asked at the end of the video “Who gets to make the rules?” really is the central one of the copyreight debate, in my opinion. Things will truly get tricky when the copyright industry wakes up, smells the coffee, and begins working to assimilate the copyrights reform debate. If they do like the World Bank did with the participatory and alternative development discourses in the 1990s and 2000s, they will suddenly be “down” with all the new concepts and ideas, letting the users do their thing, so long it doesn’t mean a true user-owned “commons”.
May 18, 2010 at 11:14
R. Campbell
It was reported in April, 2010 that Warner Music Group and YouTube were about to resolve their contract dispute, which would allow upload of videos containing Warner music.
This is the middle of May, 2010, and today I was again refused when I uploaded a video with Warner music. Who wants a silent video?? I withdrew my video.
What is the current status of this situation? This is my third time back to YT with this video and refused again. I won’t try many more times.
Answer, please!
December 8, 2010 at 12:32
This Post is Available in Your Country: «
[…] the platform’s ad revenues and hold content created and shared by users hostage (see “Private Negotation of Public Goods: Collateral Damage(s)“). The funny thing is how this erects new and increasingly ridiculous barriers in the […]
December 16, 2010 at 11:41
Viral Web Videos and Blocked Talent «
[…] discussed before on this blog (“This Post is Not Available in Your Country” and “Private Negotation of Public Goods: Collateral Damage(s)“), many user created videos that remix existing works are not available in certain areas of the […]
April 16, 2011 at 13:21
Crazy Copyright Cartoon: The YouTube Copyright School «
[…] in Your Country“) and described by fellow workshop participant Domen Bajde (see “Private Negotiation of Public Goods: Collateral Damage(s)“), users who posted three videos containing (seemingly) infringing content to YouTube have […]
May 28, 2012 at 01:56
New Layer of Copyright Enforcement: Search «
[…] of (seemingly) infringing YouTube videos (see “The YouTube Copyright School” and “Private Negotiation of Public Goods: Collateral Damage(s)“), this automatization regularly leads to removal in case of doubt. Andre Meister, blogger […]
October 16, 2013 at 13:41
Graduating the YouTube Way: From Copyright School to Creator Academy |
[…] use of their content, users protested against respective deletion of their accounts (see “Private Negotiation of Public Goods: Collateral Damage(s)“) . In this situation, Google launched its “YouTube Copyright School”, which […]
November 11, 2018 at 19:09
Upload-Filter und YouTuber: Keine Panik, aber berechtige Bedenken – netzpolitik.org
[…] der Warner Music Group abgeschlossen und beide haben dazu aufgefordert, diese Inhalte zu nutzen. Keine drei Jahre später wurde diese Vereinbarung nicht verlängert und zahlreiche Videos gesperrt. Manche YouTuber haben damals sogar ihre Accounts verloren, weil sie durch die Mehrfachsperrung […]
November 14, 2018 at 22:37
Upload-Filter und YouTuber: Keine Panik, aber berechtigte Bedenken – Avada Classic
[…] der Warner Music Group abgeschlossen und beide haben dazu aufgefordert, diese Inhalte zu nutzen. Keine drei Jahre später wurde diese Vereinbarung nicht verlängert und zahlreiche Videos ge… Manche YouTuber haben damals sogar ihre Accounts verloren, weil sie durch die Mehrfachsperrung […]