Why doesn’t YouTube make it easier for people to work things out when there’s a dispute over content?
Every week it seems there’s a new headline bemoaning content that has been mistakenly removed from YouTube due to bogus copyright claims. This so-called “takedown abuse” makes for good headlines, but per usual, there’s much more to the story of what happens behind-the-scenes on YouTube with various types of claims on copyrighted content.
Perhaps in reaction to some of these inflammatory headlines, YouTube recently announced it was creating a team dedicated to “minimize mistakes” when videos are removed from the site. The announcement came via a post on Google’s own blog:
…Recently, there’s been a lot of discussion about the enforcement of our policies, from video takedowns to channel demonetization. We want you to know that we monitor video takedowns very closely, and while we haven’t seen a big change in the overall rate of removals, it’s true that we do make mistakes. For this, we’re sorry and we strive to do better by you, our community.
The good news is that the feedback you’ve raised in comments and videos on YouTube and beyond is having an impact. It’s caused us to look closely at our policies and helped us identify areas where we can get better. It’s led us to create a team dedicated to minimizing mistakes and improving the quality of our actions. And it’s encouraged us to roll out some initiatives in the coming months that will help strengthen communications between creators and YouTube support. We’ll also make improvements to increase transparency into the status of monetization claims. And of course, as we work to implement these improvements as quickly as we can, we’ll continue to take your feedback seriously.
— Spencer from YouTube’s Policy Team
Improving “transparency” on YouTube’s Content ID System would across the board is needed
Unfortunately, YouTube’s new initiative seems only to address “transparency” having to do with monetization claims, not Content ID in general. Content ID is the fingerprinting system that YouTube established to help rights holders protect their creative work from online piracy. Though imperfect, it’s certainly better than nothing but there are many ways to improve it.
If the YouTube team is serious about improving the way Content ID works it could help fix what’s broken is by increasing transparency throughout the system, particularly when it comes to disputes over how content is claimed.
In particular, I’d suggest a simple fix that would benefit both copyright holders and YouTube uploaders–allow peopleto communicate directly when Content ID claims are disputed. If this happened, many misunderstandings could be worked out to the satisfaction of everyone involved.
I’ll give you an example. Let’s say you have a film and someone uploads some scenes from it that are matched via Content ID. It’s a clip that lasts, only several minutes in length and you’ve set up Content ID to match and monetize clips of this length. The matched content is not commentary or a review, only a mashup of scenes taken from your film. You receive notification via your Content ID dashboard that the uploader has “disputed” your monetization claim.(Never mind that this doesn’t involve a takedown, only monetization of the clip).
You take a look at the claim and the justification for filing the dispute. It says:
Reason: All non-original content is in the public domain
Note: Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use”; for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
Ok, clearly there’s some confusion here. First of all, the uploaded clip is NOT in the “public domain”–it’s surprising how often I see this justification and how many people don’t have a clue as to what it actually means–and secondly, there’s no real criticism, comment, news reporting, etc. going on with the excerpt.
Even so, you have no wish to actually remove the clip from YouTube, only claim it and monetize it. Seems reasonable right? Well, in this case, the sender does not allow messages to be sent (via her channel) and no email is provided so there’s no way to contact her to explain the situation. You only want ads to appear with the video (to help you pay down that production debt)–not remove or block it. In this case the only recourse is to “reinstate” the claim and hope the uploader doesn’t file–what would be–a bogus counter-notice.
YouTube user disputed monetization claim with erroneous justification
Why doesn’t YouTube provide a way for parties to contact each other?
All this confusion could be avoided IF there was simply a way for both parties to discuss things. Why doesn’t YouTube, as part of this dispute form, allow the recipient to send a message to the uploader who disputed the claim. Personal information could be protected, BUT a conversation (via email or message) could be had and most likely clear up any confusion over the claim.
As shown in example below, this uploader who filed a dispute doesn’t have a contact senderoption on her YouTube channel. In this scenario the rights holder’s only recourse would be to do nothing OR reinstate the claim and risk further misunderstanding.
Not every dispute needs to escalate
Because there’s no way to have a dialogue these situations often escalate into an actual counter-notice being filed. It’s ironic that at that point the party that files a counter-notice has to provide accurate contact info. Of course, many do not but that’s a post for another day. When a dispute reaches this level, the only way for the rights holder to keep their work off YouTube is to spend money and file in federal court.
For most indie creators, this is where the story ends. Their content goes back up on YouTube and nothing more can be done. For all the talk of abusive takedowns, there’s not much press coverage for the ongoing problem of abusive (and false) counter-notices.
Bottom line, in many cases, folks could simply work things out if YouTube made it easier to communicate. Seems like a simple move. Can’t we just all try to get along?
YouTube and some of its advertisers apparently have no problem making money off videos of the WDBJ shooting incident
When it comes to making money, management at YouTube apparently has no shame
It’s no secret that YouTube slaps advertising on pretty much anything without regard for subject matter or ownership, but making money off of last week’s on-air murder of WDBJ-TV reporter Alison Parker and her cameraman Adam Ward is a new low. A source tipped me off to the fact that a number of opportunistic (and shameless) YouTube “partners” have uploaded and monetized clips of both the station’s live broadcast and the video taken, (and uploaded to Twitter) by the deranged murderer as he executed the two journalists during a televised live-shot for the morning news.
The ads appear as sidebar ads, pre-roll ads, and overlay ads. It wouldn’t be difficult for YouTube to prevent this type of disturbing video from being uploaded in the first place, much less monetized. After all, YouTube brags about what a great job its Content ID program does keeping infringing content off the site. Why not use it to block these type of uploads? Can’t YouTube use its own technology to safeguard advertisers?
While the debate as to whether these clips are newsworthy will continue, are videos depicting the cold-blooded murder of two people really ad-worthy? Where are the advertisers in all this? Are they even aware of where their ads appear? They are culpable in this fiasco too. When ads were placed on ISIS videos advertisers several advertisers expressed their displeasure with YouTube and pledged to take action. With this latest revelation it appears their words may have simply been spin control. After all, we’ve heard time and time again how the ad industry is concerned about “brand integrity” online. Perhaps the industry should look at the consistent lack of “integrity” in YouTube’s monetization practices?
As for YouTube itself, in the past, company representatives have defended its hands-off approach. When called out for the ads on ISIS recruiting videos earlier this year a spokesman tried to justify YouTube’s approach in a statement to NBC News:
“YouTube has clear policies prohibiting content intended to incite violence, and we remove videos violating these policies when flagged by our users. We also have stringent advertising guidelines, and work to prevent ads appearing against any video once we determine that the content is not appropriate for our advertising partners,” a YouTube spokesperson said Tuesday in a statement to NBC News. YouTube videos are frequently preceded by ads that are picked at random by an algorithm. That means often neither YouTube nor the advertiser will know what ads are playing before which videos.
WDBJ Shooting videos make money for YouTube and its “Partners”
YouTube boasts its monetized videos provide “Advertiser Friendly Content”
YouTube purports to require that partner monetized videos provide “advertiser friendly content.” What exactly is that? Well, this is how YouTube explains its standards on for its “Partner Program” :
Even though content may be acceptable for YouTube under our policies, not all of it is appropriate for Google advertising. Google has principles around what we monetize that we expect our content creators who want to monetize to comply with. Advertisers also have their own standards and requirements on the type of content that meets their individual needs. [emphasis added] Learn more below about how YouTube defines “advertiser-friendly” content and how we prevent ads from serving against videos that do not meet this criteria.
In short, advertiser-friendly content is appropriate for all audiences, from our youngest to older viewers. It is content that has little to no inappropriate and/or mature content in the video stream, thumbnail, or metadata such as video title. If there may be inappropriate content, the context is usually newsworthy or comedic where the creator’s intent is to inform or entertain, and not offend or shock.
Content that YouTube considers to be inappropriate for advertising includes but is not limited to:
Sexually suggestive content, including partial nudity and sexual humor
Violence, including display of serious injury and events related to violent extremism
Inappropriate language, including harassment, profanity and vulgar language
Promotion of drugs and regulated substances, including selling, use and abuse of such items
Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown
If any of the above describes any portion of your video, then it may not be approved for monetization. In cases where monetization is approved, your video may not be eligible for all of the ad formats we offer. YouTube reserves the right to not monetize a video, as well as suspend monetization feature on channels who repeatedly submit videos that violate our policies.
The implication here is that some sort of quality control is happening. The Partner Program information continues with this disingenuous gem:
How do we qualify content as “advertiser-friendly”?
YouTube relies on sophisticated technology and our policy enforcement processes when determining if a video is suitable for advertising. [emphasis added] We have trained systems that automatically check various features of a video – from the video title, metadata, and visual imagery – and makes a decision on how appropriate this video is for general advertising.
In conjunction with these automated checks, we also depend on our user community to flag inappropriate videos to us for our review. Depending on the nature of the policy violation, videos can be removed from the site or age-restricted. Monetization is disabled on age-restricted videos and Google will immediately stop serving ads on these videos.
Sophisticated technology? Huh? Did YouTube’s “sophisticated technology” deem video depicting the murder of two innocent people suitable? The implication here is that some sort of quality control is happening, but that’s not at all the case. Crap uploaded by “partners” (aka scammers) routinely gets monetized on YouTube by without any sort of approval process. Whether its videos for ISIS or those promoting peeping Toms, it’s only when someone flags it or publishes a story, that YouTube takes action and even then, too little, too late.
Money over morals is the YouTube mantra
Of course one of the videos (with advertising) that I saw had attracted more than 600,000 hits. Eyeballs mean money for YouTube and the partner who uploaded the video, never mind he didn’t own the rights to it. Apparently money matters more than ethics.
Where are the advertisers in all this? YouTube infers that they have their own “standards” that must be met. Do these clips showing the murder of two people on live TV qualify? Do Celebrity Cruises, Hitachi, NFL GamePass, SolarCity, Book of Mormon Musical, Sprint, Save the Children, PayPal, Honda, Flir, Claritin and other major brands really want their products slapped onto these videos?
WDBJ officials could probably get some of these videos taken down, but I imagine they probably have better things to do–like mourn their colleagues–than send DMCA notices to YouTube.
I can’t imagine what it must be like for the family and friends of these victims to know that the murder of their loved ones has become a money-making opportunity for the likes of YouTube/Google. It’s beyond shameful and there’s absolutely no excuse. YouTube needs to clean up its act and if company officials won’t make it happen, advertisers better demand better accountability.
Youtube slaps ads on scam uploads and collects dough from advertisers who look the other way.
It’s not news that Google doesn’t take kindly to anything standing in the way of revenue. Its business practices on YouTube are no exception.
In order to stuff the mother ship’s coffers, YouTube will monetize just about any crap upload, whether it’s a terrorist recruiting videos or scams linking to pirate websites. When Google monetizes these uploads both it and the uploader make money from the ads. Does anyone care about this dirty income?
Two years ago stories surfaced showing YouTube monetized Al Qaeda videos. At the time a YouTube the Daily Mail quoted a YouTube spokesperson as saying:
‘We also have stringent guidelines regarding advertising on the site, and we may choose to stop placing ads against any video or channel if we determine that the content is not appropriate for our advertising partners.’
Ad for Amazon Prime links to scam pirate movie website
As with most of Google’s dubious business practices the attitude is shoot first, ask questions later (if caught). Is it really OK with advertisers that their ad budgets go to support YouTube and scam account holders (or terrorists)?
I wonder if the folks at Amazon Prime know where its YouTube ad dollars actually go? Do they realize Amazon Prime ads pre-roll on scams for pirate movie websites? It’s likely some of the productions pirated are Amazon Prime originals like Transparent. Does Amazon, or any advertiser on YouTube, demand any sort of accountability as to where their advertising appears?
Earlier this year Google/YouTube was again called out for ads on terror group videos. This time ads played with ISIS recruiting videos. Companies like Proctor & Gamble, Toyota and Anheuser-Busch were among those who ads played alongside terror videos and Google scurried to remove the ads once it was outed by the press. Though clearly not pleased, advertisers didn’t say much, perhaps not wanting to draw more attention to an embarrassing situation. According to a report on NBC News:
“Our ads should not have appeared and we’re working with YouTube to understand how it happened and to avoid it happening again,” Proctor & Gamble said in a statement to NBC News. Other companies whose pre-roll ads were spotted on since-removed ISIS-related videos — Toyota, Anheuser-Busch and smartwatch maker Pebble — didn’t immediately respond to an NBC News request for comment.
Of course ads on videos linking to scam pirate movie sites are clearly not in the same category as ISIS recruiting videos, but the underlying issue remains the same. Where are the standards?
Why does Google depend on its community guidelines as a means to vet content for monetization rather than hire a staff to do it?
Why does Google allow YouTube to monetize uploads without checking them first? Where are the gatekeepers? Why doesn’t Google, with all its riches, hire staff to review content before ads appear on videos? Google wont’ stand in the way of users uploading pirated movies or hate videos but certainly it could vet the videos to determine if they are appropriate for monetization. Why don’t advertisers demand as much?
There’s a reason Google flacks pull out the same old rhetoric when any of its YouTube policies are scrutinized. For Google, muddying the waters by mixing its protect free speech message with its unfettered approach to monetization is a savvy tactical move. It’s a smoke bomb that provides political cover so YouTube can continue to rake in big bucks and avoid accountability.
It’s one thing to hide behind the shield of free speech by allowing unrestricted uploads, but making money off them is quite another. The two are very different issues, yet Google gets away with treating them as one in the same.
Those with enough clout to force change seem either impotent, or unconcerned. Despite the ad industry’s formation of the Trustworthy Accountability Group and its “Brand Integrity Program Against Piracy” there seems to have been little effort, beyond weak rhetoric, to call Google to account for its bad business practices.
Where’s TAG when it comes to Unilever’s ad promoting its sustainable business practices or the Weinstein Company promoting its upcoming movie No Escape on scam pirate uploads? Why don’t industry representatives demand accountability from Google?
Do the advertising folks for Intel, Lexus, Sanuk Shoes, Oxiclean, Sandals Resort, the Weinstein Company and Disney care that their ad campaigns underwrite criminals? Does anyone care?
The advertising industry needs to take charge and force change. I can write blog post after blog post documenting the myriad of ways YouTube scams advertisers (and the public) but unless those who send money Mountain View’s way demand accountability, nothing will change.
Black markets are endemic in criminal culture, so it’s not much of a surprise, given the popularity of Internet commerce, that an illicit economy thrives online. By now we’ve grown accustomed to finding pirated content and counterfeit products marketed on web sites across the world. What’s disturbing is how entwined (and dependent) some of these shady enterprises are on so-called “legit” companies and how complicit such companies have become in creating, sustaining, and profiting from these dubious activities.
Google’s YouTube appears to be one such entity–a respected online portal favored by videophiles worldwide. Yet if you pull back the curtain, you’ll find that the site’s partner program facilitates–and reaps income from–a thriving crooked economy. It’s a racket that financially benefits the uploader, an intermediary and YouTube. Like a leech, its business (survival) model depends on a host (content creator) to thrive.
In a blog post published earlier this week, I outlined an instance where an industrious YouTube user had uploaded and monetized full-length feature films–films they did not own the rights to. In that piece I mentioned other instances I’d discovered whereby a number of YouTube account holders upload and monetize various movie trailers, most likely without permission from the rights holders.
I recently found an example of this activity on YouTube channels published by the user “MyTrailerIsRich.” It’s an ironic, and apt, choice of moniker since his channels boast more than 51 million monetized views. If the trailer isn’t “rich,” this industrious YouTube entrepreneur might be well on his way to becoming so, thanks to his mastery of this monetizing scheme. I call these folks “pleeches” for short–content “pirates” that operate like leeches–hangers-on who cling to, and feed off (the work of) others for personal gain.
Here’s one of this pleech’s channel offerings. Note that it’s easy to navigate to the pleech’s other channels (TV Series, Indie Movies, Documentaries and Sci-Fi Horror) by clicking a handy menu atop the page. To date he’s uploaded 362 videos to YouTube.
One of “MyTrailerIsRich’s” YouTube’s channel featuring trailers the user doesn’t own rights to but earns money off of.
A trailer for a recent indie release “Gayby” has attracted more than 350 views in just one day. Like the other trailers on this channel, it’s monetized with advertising and when I looked to see who claimed the trailer, I found this:
What’s worth noting about claim is that the “provider” is Wizdeo, an actual company based in France that’s serves as an intermediary to those seeking to monetize content online. Using YouTube’s Content Management System I researched the clip’s “ownership information.” According to the results, Wizdeo has claimed “worldwide” rights to this trailer. There’s just one problem; it’s not true. I spoke with 2 distributors who do own rights (in multiple countries) and neither has given this company permission to monetize the trailer. (This trailer was likely downloaded from YouTube via a distributor’s own channel).
I also found this trailer (shown below) for the upcoming release “A Perfect Ending,” uploaded four days ago (January 9th, 2013). It’s already attracted nearly 2,000 monetized views. Distributors for this film also confirmed to me that they did not give this pleech (YouTube user) or Wizdeo permission to upload and monetize this clip.
YouTube user “MyTrailerisRich” claims this asset (worldwide) through Wizdeo even though he doesn’t own the rights to it.
Wizdeo may well have a number of clients who legitimately own the content they upload, but since I’ve verified that this pleech does not own the rights to these trailers, it begs the question: What exactly does Wizdeo do to monitor compliance with its terms and, in turn, what does YouTube do to make sure that third-parties such as Wizdeo comply with YouTube’s terms of service? In this situation, it appears to be a case of “Who’s on first?”
Wizdeo’s terms for acceptance in their partner program includes the following language:
We will review your application before you notify our acceptance or refusal. We may reject your application if we believe that your string is not consistent with these terms and conditions…
(B) in any way violate the intellectual property rights. You must not distribute videos on your channel protected by copyright, which you are not the author, nor include in your video content that you do not have rights if you do not get authorization holders rights…
If a partner violates these terms, supposedly their account can be terminated:
In addition to any other rights or remedies available to us, we can at once or as the case may terminate this Program if we determine that you or other people, we establish that they are your affiliates or act in concert you (either as part of an existing partner account, either as part of a previously terminated account Associate)
do not comply with any requirements or limitations described in one page “Requirements for participation in the Program Partners” or have otherwise violated these Terms or any Documentation operating
have breached the Agreement distribution of audiovisual programs on the Internet, confirming your membership in our program,
Essentially, Wizdeo allows its users to create an account and then utilize Wizdeo’s drop-box account to upload content directly to YouTube. Using this setup, Wizdeo also acts as the financial intermediary (or bagman) and collects the resulting ad revenue from YouTube. They keep a portion of the proceeds; the uploader (in this case the pleech) gets a share, and YouTube/Google the rest. The actual rights holder earns zero.
In their terms of service, Wizdeo claims the company does not tolerate copyright infringement but it’s a claim that rings hollow. I spoke with a representative from another U.S. distributor who owns rights to a trailer that’s also posted on one of MyTrailerisRich’s YouTube channels. He said the company was familiar with Wizdeo and has had ongoing problems with them for the very reasons I’ve outlined. He told me that when the studio’s content management staff discovered trailers uploaded and erroneously claimed by Wizdeo, they corrected the claim via their YouTube CMS dashboard. Despite owning no rights for the trailer, Wizdeo reinstated the claim forcing studio staff to contact the Wizdeo tech department (in France) directly. If a distributor can’t come to an agreement to correct the claim, YouTube requires the aggrieved party to go to court if they want the video removed permanently. This can be an expensive proposition, particularly for those without deep pockets (like indie filmmakers).
Meanwhile, according to my source, they’ve made little progress in forcing Wizdeo to drop their false claim(s). It’s obvious as to why. The longer Wizdeo drags their feet, the more money they make. My source explained that if, and when Wizdeo does eventually give up, the company knows it’s not likely to face any real consequences. Meanwhile, the cash keeps coming. Reviewing their terms of service, it becomes obvious that in this instance, Wizdeo’s legalistic homage to honoring copyrights is boilerplate bull.
YouTube instructs a rights holders to use their DMCA takedown procedure when they come across this situation and routinely ignore any direct correspondence on the subject. They also won’t acknowledge how much income is derived from this illegal commerce, nor do they refund any of the resulting income to a video’s rightful owner. As is typical for YouTube/Google, it’s a matter of “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” when it comes to this dubious activity. Meanwhile, company balance sheets continue to grow. Missing from this scenario is the fourth monkey, “do no evil.”
Content monetization is a business model that works well for both those who seek legitimate profits, and those seeking illegitimate ones. For YouTube and its stockholders, the difference between the two is apparently irrelevant. This despite their own “YouTube Partner” criteria:
You may not be able to monetize videos which use any of the following without the explicit permission of the person who created or produced all material:
Music (including cover songs, lyrics, and background music)
Graphics and pictures (including photographs and artwork)
Movie or TV visuals
Video game or software visuals. Click here for details.
Live performances (including concerts, sporting events, and shows)
For more information about content copyright requirements, please review the resources here.
YouTube also specifically includes movie “trailers” in its explanation of “what is copyright:”
Some examples of potentially infringing content are:
TV shows
Music videos, such as the ones you might find on music video channels
Videos of live concerts, even if you captured the video yourself
Movies and movie trailers
Commercials
Slide shows that include photos or images owned by somebody else
What you have here is a crime that falls through the cracks, not obvious at first glance, but insidious nonetheless. It’s a criminal business model that has seemingly become routine. YouTube can deny responsibility since Wizdeo provided the interface to upload and monetize the video, and Wizdeo can claim that it’s the “partners” who violated their terms of service by uploading content that’s not their own. Where exactly does the buck stop? Is this the sort of “safe harbor” envisioned by those who crafted the DMCA? Is it really acceptable for YouTube and Wizdeo to look the other way while pocketing loads of cash from what is clearly illegal activity?
Imagine how much money you could make if the dancing cat videos you uploaded to YouTube got 51 million hits? Some will argue that trailers are designed to publicize films and that this viral marketing is good for business. Of course having one’s trailer on YouTube is good for business. If I search YouTube for “Gayby” or “A Perfect Ending” I can easily find and view the legit versions uploaded by the film’s distributors. In fact, I can embed one right here on this website.
Theres no doubt viral marketing has become a fundamental part of modern-day film marketing. In most cases, distributors have no problem with YouTube users who upload and share trailers to films, but it should be left to the rights owner to monetize them, not the uploader or intermediaries. As host of the site, it’s reasonable that YouTube share in any revenues for legitimately claimed trailers, but beyond that, it’s basically theft.
Remember, even those who developed the Creative Commons license options have made the distinction clear. Creative commons licensors may be happy to allow sharing with attribution, but generally not content commercialization without compensation. The recent kerfuffle over Instagram’s proposed changes in their terms of service was also sparked by the fact its users did not appreciate the idea that the company would monetize uploaded photographs without permission.
This activity has clearly evolved into a cottage industry on YouTube and it’s clearly “good” business for their bottom line– but the question remains, is it an ethical way of doing business? Not so much.
I was on YouTube recently and came across another, not so surprising, downside to their content monetization. At first I’d noticed some movie trailers that were uploaded, claimed, and monetized by entities other than the studios/rights holders. Now it’s not surprising that folks upload trailers that aren’t theirs, claim it and make money off it. However, it doesn’t stop there.
How about uploading an entire movie and earning money off it even if you don’t own the rights? Well, on YouTube it’s apparently pretty easy. Here’s an example of a Canadian feature film called “Lost and Delirious” that I discovered on YouTube—the entire film, all 95 minutes of it, conveniently offering subtitle options in multiple languages. Take your pick: Czech, French, German, Polish, English, Portuguese, Spanish and Turkish…
Full stream of “Lost and Delirious” complete with subtitles in multiple languages monetized on YouTube by someone other than copyright holder.
When I checked to see what entity “claimed” the film I found that it wasn’t the director Lea Pool or the studio that had claimed it. It was claimed by YouTube user __u1DkXdYlQ6__. It’s not a user name per se, the actual uploader seems to be attached to a channel aptly titled “Art Cinema” with the YouTube user name: myArtCinema3. However, by the looks of it, it appears that __u1DkXdYlQ6__ is the “Partner” (i.e. monetization account) that has “claimed” the film on behalf of “Art Cinema.” Since there is advertising on this upload, one can assume that the clip was indeed claimed for the purpose of monetizing it.
Here’s the ownership information for this movie viewed via my CMS dashboard. The user “asserts ownership” worldwide. I wonder what the film’s legit distributor thinks about that claim?
Notice that the film was uploaded on October 15th, 2012 and in less than four months, has already attracted nearly 1.5 million views. What that means is lots of ad money for YouTube/Google and lots of money for the pirate who uploaded the film. The filmmaker and her production company apparently get nothing.
This is not an isolated example. It appears that this same YouTube user has uploaded other complete films, using several accounts, with varying degrees of success. In November, “myartcinema4” uploaded and claimed another popular indie film from the 90s, “The Incredibly True Adventures of Two Girls in Love.” It’s already attracted more than 2 million views, worth nearly $6,000, a tidy pirate profit.*
YouTube user “artcinema4” has uploaded and “claimed” this film. Uploaded in November it’s already attracted more than 2 million views.
Another upload “Antonia’s Line”, has attracted more than 400,000 views but can’t be monetized since it’s labeled “age restricted” under YouTube community guidelines (meaning some user tagged it, probably for sexual content).
Zoosk ad appears at the beginning of this pirated film, despite its “R” rating.
“Lost and Delirious,” also rated “R,” seems to have slipped under the “community” censorship radar–for the time being anyway, but it’s probably why this user uploaded a duplicate copy of the film. In case the first cash cow gets tagged as having “age restricted” content, the second copy can fill viewer demand and earn clicks and cash for this industrious pirate’s coffers.
Uploaded a month later on November 15th, this second version has garnered more than 119,000 views. Adding the two together, that’s more than 1.6 million total views. It’s impossible to know exactly how much income that generates, but it’s likely somewhere around $3,000 so far.
Overall, not a bad payday considering the uploader didn’t do a lick of work…well, unless you count uploading the films and, in profound bit of hubris, adding a customized “art cinema” graphic (below) to the opening credits of the stolen films. Of course we’ll also never know how much YouTube/Google makes on these illegal uploads since the company is notoriously opaque when it comes to providing specifics on its billions in advertising income. I’ve attempted to contact a representative from YouTube for comment on this story and will update if any response is forthcoming.
YouTube pirate adds his/her own fancy graphic to pirated films.
It also appears that this uploader has created a number of other similarly theme YouTube accounts, four of which (created in September, October and November 2012) under the user names: myArtCinema, myArtCinema2, myArtCinema3, and myArtCinema4. All four “channels” offer uploads of complete films, some of which are older foreign titles and may be in the public domain. The uploaded films seem to be linked to various YouTube “Partner” accounts including (__OkhXVt6c-7__) and (__BnxrHCbbK2__), but I suspect they all link back to the same individual, or group of individuals. Though I haven’t yet been able to confirm this with YouTube, given the way the channels are presented, organized and linked, it’s hard not to believe otherwise.
There’s also an account, presumably by the same individual, with the moniker artcinema4. Not sure what happened to artcinema1, 2, and 3…but I would guess they were removed due to repeated copyright infringement. This thief certainly believes in multiple layers of redundancy to protect his/her scheme.
This YouTube pirate has opened multiple accounts using variations on the moniker “art cinema” –all feature full-length movies monetized with advertising
One might ask what YouTube should do about this situation? After all, the films’ distributors don’t seem to have set up Content ID matching to protect these title, or perhaps they just slipped through (Content ID matching is not infallible). Should the onus be on them to prevent this kind of theft–theft that benefits the uploader and the host? By allowing uploads for longer content, including feature length films, YouTube has opened the door to this activity.
I’m all for allowing users to upload works that exceed 20 minutes in length, as long as it’s their own work. For uploads with running times longer than 20 minutes, why not put the burden on YouTube users to prove that they, in fact, own the rights to such material before it’s approved for upload? Of course, until recently, YouTube restricted upload lengths for most users, so pirates would often break films into multiple, 10-minute parts….still piracy, but at least that format created a disincentive to watch a pirated movie.
As of now, YouTube seems to place few obstacles in the path of pirates and their profits. Let’s also not forget that it’s the lure of profits, not altruism, that encourages users like “myArtCinema” to upload this type of stolen content in the first place. This is but one example of a very calculated, and all too common crime. A crime, that for the time being, has little apparent risk and much potential reward. These examples are just the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps the films’ rights holders will go to court and ask for the income to which they are entitled. I hope so.
*My income estimate is based on a similar title that earned $700+ for 250,000 hits on YouTube. Google/YouTube does not release specific information regarding Youtube monetization income.
Update: 9:12 p.m.
Well, apparently the film’s rights holders weren’t pleased with this situation either. Here’s the result:
One of Art Cinema’s accounts (myArtCinema2) was terminated due to repeated copyright infringement
As an indie film and broadcast journalism veteran, I'll share my perspectives on issues of interest to the creative community and beyond--Ellen Seidler
Why doesn’t YouTube make it easier for people to work things out when there’s a dispute over content?
Unfortunately, YouTube’s new initiative seems only to address “transparency” having to do with monetization claims, not Content ID in general. Content ID is the fingerprinting system that YouTube established to help rights holders protect their creative work from online piracy. Though imperfect, it’s certainly better than nothing but there are many ways to improve it.
have been little effort, beyond weak rhetoric, to call Google to account for its bad business practices.
