by Ellen Seidler | Google, Tech
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.
While there has been an ongoing debate among news organizations about how to handle the disturbing footage, there should be no debate as to whether this footage is monetization worthy. Earlier this year YouTube (and advertisers) were embarrassed by reports of advertisements appearing on terrorist recruiting videos. Now this.
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.
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Piracy
Facebook has long turned a blind eye to profiting from piracy on its pages. Has the worm finally turned?
This past week Facebook reached a milestone when, according to founder Mark Zuckerberg, more than one billion users logged on to the social media site in a single day. Part of that growth has come from video views (4 billion per day) and so this week Facebook also announced it would (finally) tackle the online piracy that has long plagued the site.
In recent months, as a result of its increased focus on encouraging video uploads, the social media giant has faced growing criticism that it allows “freebooters” to rip-off (monetized) YouTube videos and repost them on Facebook, thereby cannibalizing creators’ profits. According to Time’s Victor Luckerson:
Online video creators, who make money by selling advertising against their content, are increasingly frustrated with the problem. In June, George Strompolos, CEO of the multichannel network Fullscreen, said on Twitter that pirated versions of Fullscreen creators’ videos were racking up more than 50 million views on Facebook. This month, Hank Green, longtime YouTube vlogger and co-founder of the online video conference VidCon, penned a diatribe against Facebook’s video policies, arguing that the social network’s preference for Facebook-native videos in its News Feed algorithm encourages theft of creators’ YouTube videos. –
Of course the same thing has happened to filmmakers for what seems like forever, but it now appears complaints (and users) have reached critical mass so Facebook may finally have to confront the rampant copyright abuse that flourishes on its pages.
Given that Facebook has its sights set on competing with YouTube as the go-to (monetized) video platform–in order to effectively compete–it seems Facebook’s days of skipping around copyright compliance may have come to an end. Following in YouTube’s Content ID footsteps, Facebook will begin to rollout its own content fingerprinting technology. According to Recode two of Facebook piracy’s loudest critics will be the first in line to test the technology:
Now Facebook says Jukin and Fullscreen are two of its initial launch partners for the new technology, along with Zefr, a service company that helps content owners track their clips on YouTube. Facebook says it is also working with major media companies on the effort, but won’t identify them.
original image-iStock
Despite this news, Facebook still has a long way to go. Not only does it need to implement and effective content matching technology (and user interface), but it also has to figure out how to split up ad profits. If history is any indication, monetization income is likely to favor Facebook rather than creators.
As with YouTube, video monetization also opens the door to scammers and may in fact worsen the problem of bootleg uploads. YouTube, despite its Content ID system, is a tangled mess. Scammers routinely upload stolen and/or dummy content and monetize it. Perhaps Facebook will do a better job and learn from YouTube’s bad example, but I’m not holding out much hope.
Has the Ostrich finally (been forced) to pull its head out of the sand?
Meanwhile Facebook, like Google, still provides fertile ground for online pirates to share their stolen goods and it’s not limited to video uploads. Like their legit counterparts, it seems every online pirate website also has its own Facebook page to share illegal links and drive traffic and ad dollars to their sites. In typical fashion, Facebook also makes money from these pirate pages by placing advertising on them. Per usual, it’s the creators who lose.
The DMCA’s safe harbor provisions have allowed this Wild West to flourish. Some call it “innovation,” but for creators, it’s just plain theft. Facebook has profited from piracy for a long time. Its proposed actions against piracy are long overdue.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Music, Tech
No, actually everything’s not hunky-dory in the creative universe
The creative community has been buzzing this past week in response to the NY Times Sunday Magazine piece by Steven Johnson, “The Creative Apocalypse That Wasn’t.” Not surprisingly, feedback in the Times comments section was decidedly negative. As the week’s progressed we’ve also seen a number of thoughtful responses in commentaries published across the web. Some of the criticism, notably that found in a blog post, The Data Journalism That Wasn’t by the Future of Music Coalition’s Kevin Erickson, took Johnson to task for his questionable analysis:
Alas, what ended up running was rather disappointing. NYT Magazine chose to publish without substantive change most of the things that we told them were either: a) not accurate or b) not verifiable because there is no industry consensus and the “facts” could really go either way.
Steven Johnson’s article “The Creative Apocalypse That Wasn’t” frames itself as a data-driven response to concerns about the plight of creative workers in the digital age. But Johnson’s grasp of the limitations of the data he cites seems tenuous, and he ends up relying on some very dubious and all-too-familiar assumptions. In its sweeping dismissal of artists’ various concerns, the article reads as an exercise in gaslighting.
Erickson’s criticism prompted Johnson to pen a follow up piece that was published in yesterday’s Times where he defended his reportage, and his examination of the “data.”
Amid the tit for tat, I suggest reading some other thoughtful responses to the original piece. Each questions the central premise of Johnson’s article–one that asserts that the business of creativity is thriving in the digital age.
Below are just a few snippets from pieces I suggest folks read in their entirety. First up is journalist is author Robert Levine, author of Free Ride: How Digital Parasites Are Destroying the Culture Business, and How the Culture Business Can Fight Back. Writing for Billboard, Mr. Levine questioned Johnson’s thesis in his piece, Are Creators Really Thriving in the Digital Age? Doesn’t Look Like It:
The biggest problem with Johnson’s piece is that he’s asking the wrong question. He’s trying to figure out if creators as a group are making more money. There’s considerable evidence they’re not. What we should be looking at instead is whether creators can sell their work in a fair and functioning market that will reward them according to the demand for their work. That’s why we have copyright — because the best way to find out which artists ought to be creating what is to see who wants it and what they’re willing to pay.
Also taking issue with Johnson’s cover story was David Newhoff of The Illusion of More blog. In his post, Steven Johnson & A Thesis That Isn’t Newhoff dissects each of Johnson’s assertions point by point, and also views the issue of copyright as being central to having genuine debate as to whether creators can thrive in the digital age:
Ultimately, Johnson is supporting an anti-copyright — and even pro-piracy — argument; but he seems to want to have his Cake and eat John McCrea’s lunch, too. And I say this because so much of the evidence for prosperity he offers — both economic and anecdotal — is largely dependent upon the framework of copyright. So, after leading off with a thesis that fundamentally begs a question about the seeds of piracy (i.e. Did it hurt us?), he winds up painting some pretty pictures, but never quite answers the question because so much of the good news he alludes to is antithetical to a market that ignores, tolerates, or even extolls the permission-free use of creative works. Because, as we see with examples like MusicKey or with the Internet industry’s willingness to monetize infringement while lobbying hard against creators’ rights, many creators themselves continue to discover that the Web giveth shortly before the Web taketh away.
Chris Castle from the Music Tech Policy blog also chimed in with a critical response in a post Why is the New York Times Coverage on Artist Rights So Oddly Inconsistent? Castle notes that not only did Johnson co-opt the blog’s tagline “Your Survival Guide to the Creative Apocalypse”, but that suggests that many of the assertions made by Mr. Johnson are strikingly similar to well-worn tech industry talking points. Castle also takes the Times to task for not offering an opposing viewpoint:
The real question is what is the New York Times up to. On the one hand we have great reporting at NYT by journalists like Ben Sisario who has some of the best music business writing out there. He takes the time to actually talk to people, get both sides, and so some first rate analysis. Trying to get at the whatchamacallit..you know, that truthiness thing. This is what we expect from the New York Times, the newspaper of record.
But to have factcheckers cherry pick issues presented “how long have you been beating your wife” style and then to not even use the information in a side bar is really hard to understand as being anything other than agenda driven. How difficult would it have been to run a companion piece saying that people disagree?
If nothing else, Johnson’s assertions in his magazine piece stirred up the creative community. Apparently those working in “creative careers” are not “thriving” quite to the extent he would have Times readers believe.
If you would like to let editors at the Times know your thoughts, send off an email to the NY Times ([email protected]). Will Buckley Jr., founder of Fare Play sent a letter to Margaret Sullivan, the NY Times Public Editor. In his letter, titled “The Creative Meltdown That Is,” Buckley noted that Johnson’s piece was, essentially, a rehash of tired tech talking points:
First off the article is basically a rehash of Mike Masnick’s ‘The Sky is Rising‘, a much derided and criticized overview of the entertainment industry and how in January of 2012 things were actually looking up for artists. Many of the points made in Masnick’s Techdirt post and ‘The Creative Apocalypse That Wasn’t‘ are actually the same ones used by the proponents of online piracy attempting to make a case for the positive attributes of illegal free file sharing.
Well said Mr. Buckley. The more the creative community who join with him to push back and set the record straight, the better.
*Update: My original blog post originally misidentified the Future of Music Coalition as the Music First Coalition. I regret the error.
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Law, Piracy
BI screencap-Ashley Madison on Pirate Bay- click for story
Ad sponsored piracy run even more amok
This has to be the irony of ironies. According a piece by Lara O’reilly in Business Insider, advertising for Ashley Madison is popping up on the Pirate Bay in searches for the hacked data. At the bottom of the results that list the complete torrent to the stolen files there’s an ad for Ashley Madison’s website. I suppose given all the bad publicity of late, the extra-marital affair website needs to find customers wherever it can eh? According to Business Insider:
A check of the source code reveals that the ad is being served by a Barcelona-based ad network called ExoClick.
ExoClick lists on its website that its partners include well-known brands, including bookmakers William Hill, Bet365, and Ladbrokes. The company has featured in Deloitte’s Fast 500 ranking of the fastest-growing technology companies for three years in a row.
Business Insider has contacted ExoClick to ask why the Ashley Madison campaign is running, and also why an ad appeared on Pirate Bay, which is often blacklisted by advertisers because it is notorious for illegal filesharing of copyrighted material. It can be extremely damaging to brands’ reputations for their ads to appear next to illegal or indecent content, and for their companies to be seen to be funding piracy websites through their advertising spend.
Of course Avid Media’s parent company has sent DMCA notices to various web operators to block publication of the hacks, but as everyone knows Pirate Bay sites are impervious to DMCA takedown requests. I’d previously written about the fact that using the DMCA to block release of the hacked data is a questionable application of the law. As of this morning it seems the ads are no longer showing up on the Pirate Bay website. It looks like Avid Media sent a takedown notice to its own advertising folks instructing them to remove the ad and stop sending money Pirate Bay’s way.
Companies allowing ads to be displayed on pirate websites (or alongside pirate scams on YouTube) is nothing new, but this puts an entirely new twist on the problem.
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Google, Law
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?
I’ve written more than one blog post about these shady YouTube monetization practices, but it’s like the movie Ground Hog Day--nothing changes.
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.
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?
