What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
115 Comments
- thewebguy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+108
i'll just copy the comment i left on wired..
wow i guess that you didn't care to read the next sentence:
"The foregoing license granted by you terminates once you remove or delete a User Submission from the YouTube Website."
or the part above it that says (in bold):
"For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions."
marked as inaccurate - EdiciusTsaf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+50no, YOU own the content.
BUT you grant them, as long as you work is on YouTube, permission to do anything with it. - kalleanka, on 10/12/2007, -1/+31This has been marked as inaccurate.
Title of this digg:
>>> YouTube's new policy says "we own your content"
In the license agreement:
>>> For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions.
Source: http://www.youtube.com/t/terms - jaytee, on 10/12/2007, -7/+31all your tube are belong to us
- ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26Agreed, Title is misleading. The snippet even says it is a license not ownership.
- KyleRayner, on 10/12/2007, -18/+40Great sands of time! They not only own it, they can sell it, license it, make some stuffs based off it, sell that, and take credit for it all! Its just a matter of time till somebody gets burned by this ridiculous ToS.
- fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Agreed. The title is not just misleading, but inaccurate. There is a very big difference between reality and what the title claims.
YOU still own the content (assuming that you owned the content before you uploaded it), but YouTube is granted a license, by the act of uploading, to use that content for whatever commercial purposes they choose.
Please mark this submission as inaccurate. - GregoryHarbin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12What's the problem here? If you want to sell your work, you're not going to put it on YouTube. Obviously YT needs to have a policy like this so that they don't have to spend forever tracking down people every time CNN calls and says 'mind if we play that video of the bomb exploding on the air?'
- Kurlowski, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11You wouldnt think it would be too much of a problem considering 99% of whats put on you tube isnt worth a dime.
- gandre, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Its already here... pornotube.com
- rabiddogma, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Umm your questions can be answered by reading the YouTube terms of service. You OWN your own work and you can revoke the license as soon as you delete your video from YouTube. This isn't new. YouTube has had these terms in place for several months now. Nothing new here, inaccurate story--I ain't no YouTube fan but this is *****.
- GreenPlastik, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Ok so a license does NOT equal ownership, and furthermore it's not an exclusive license.
What this means is they can use it for whatever purpose they want without having to get your consent, including creating derivative works. That means that if you have a really cool idea for character, they could develop a TV show based on that character and you would potentially get nothing.
They could go forward and sublicense your character to a production study who makes the show and again you would potentially get nothing.
As far as I can tell, Google does not have these types of provisions on Google Video. Is YouTube trying to just give away customers? - Narpas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Indeed. That next line makes it difficult to secure a deal to sell content, or rip music, or whatever. I'm sure they're only doing this to cover thier own butts, in case someone submits content, and then sues YouTube for distributing that content on thier site.
- Sukino, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihAoSwQqo44
All Your Snakes Are Belong To Us in 2006 - quentinp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5So if they license your video and get $$$ to CNN or whomever, and you pull your video thus cancelling their license to your content, what happens to CNN's license to show your video? Sounds messy!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Did you just get connected to the internet in the last month? It's been quoted in several comics (including Foxtrot, and other web comics), mentioned on television, and the flash movie has been posted everywhere pretty much (ebaums and the like).
It'd be kind of hard to miss it; kind of like missing the whole "numa numa" thing. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I see these kinds of stories often, but nearly all of the time people realize that it's really no big deal. I'm sure it's in their disclaimer as a "CYA" type of deal, but I've never heard of a story where someone was actually ripped off by one of these services.
- inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The headline seems a tad reactionary. It sounds more like YouTube is wisely putting some CYA in their terms of service in the event that they use your video, or a still from it in, their promotional materials. Honestly, I can't say I blame them. And hey, if you don't like their terms, don't use them. Put your vids on your own site and pay for your own bandwidth.
- ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@DavidTheDuke:
No, they are legally very different. If you take your work off YouTube, they don't get to keep on using it, for example. There is no such limitation on the actual owner of the work.
Basicly, the owner of the work can do whatever they want with it for as long as it exists. A license grants a license holder the explicit list of benefits as laid out in the license agreement including expiry or conditions by which the license can be voided or removed etc. - mousky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This is not new. Anyone here write a Master's or Ph.D Thesis? If you did, then you granted a similar non-exclusive, transeferable, royalty-free licence to the University where your wrote your thesis and to UMI. Nothing new here, move along.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5EASIEST WAY TO DISPUTE A LAWSUIT: Go ahead and post your content anonymously, of course, because they might track your IP when you upload it, but then say that it was someone else that uploaded your file without your prior consent. What if, for instance, I posted a segment from The Daily Show? Would that then grant them the right to use it as they please? Of course not.
Myspace makes the same claim. It's total crap and a worthless attempt at content farming by both YouTube and Myspace. - bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Except Myspace retains the rights to all "backups" they may have.
- championchap, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4agreed, as threatening as this is.. i doubt they will actually do anything horrendous with the power.
That will lose them users, and im sure they dont want that.
Anyway, i heard about this ages ago now, and youTube themselfs poke fun at it with an image they had on the site at one point reading "youTube: All your videos are belonging to us!" - mgainor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Why would media companies be asking to use YouTube content when the only thing the site is good for is hosting content the media companies already own?
- aqualdr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It is sensationalist BS that is going to make Digg just like the rest of the news sources.
- politech, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5My Internet tubes are clogged at the U turn.
- DeathSun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Okay, people, we tried to cover all of this when those Keith and the Girl people were freakin' about about the PodShow contract. I guess people like being paranoid--though who wants to steal your video of you picking your nose in your PJs for an hour that you recorded via a ***** webcam, I'll never know.
All the damn policy is saying they have distribution rights. You have to give that over to them, else they run the risk of being sued by any-ol' person out there. YOU own the copyright...THEY need you to understand that by uploading your video you're telling them that it's okay for them to distribute it however they like. Otherwise, YouTube couldn't really work. - fsapo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2All your videos are belong to us?
- SnuKs, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Wow.. imagine if a network bought YouTube? They would practically have a entire library of content to do whatever they want.. like make a tv show just showing random videos found on YouTube. I can just see someone just channel surfing and all of a sudden seeing their drunk video pop up on the tube. Crazy!
- GreenPlastik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Actually no. The language in the terms specifically mentions derivative works, which is a term of art for copyrights. Also, a character CAN be subject to copyright (http://www.publaw.com/fiction.html) under several tests. If the character constitutes a word portrait and is specifically delineated, or under a lesser test if it constitutes the story being told, that is if the character is merely a vehicle for telling the story. Another type of character which will be even more likely to be subject to copyright protection is a graphical and other animated characters (http://www.publaw.com/graphical.html).
I'm not saying that the person is putting their stuff up to YouTube for commercial purposes (which may even be prohibited by YouTube terms). I am saying that if someone puts something up and it's funny and just goofing off, and someone at YouTube thinks "Hey, I should pitch this and develop a derivative work" it doesn't matter that the license is gone. Once you have created the derivative work, it is in itself a protectable work, and no longer relies on the grant of a license. So even if someone posts a vid and then pulls it. The derivative work was created when there was a validly granted license. And if I remember correctly you can't revoke it at that point, most likely out of equity grounds. YouTube relied on the valid grant of the license to use the work in a derivative work and that MAY be enough. Also let's bear something else in mind. Who has more money: Joe Shmoe with the funny drawing or YouTube? Legal battles aren't cheap these days. - unreal32, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4And if you read the terms of digg, I am sure you are granting digg a license to publish your comments and story submissions. Big friggin deal.
If you expect to be able to post to other people's websites, and somehow retain exclusive rights to it? You're living in a dreamworld. I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn, as the old saying goes.
Inaccurate AND lame. Wish I could choose more than one reason.
@digitalgopher: I know you have been submitting like crazy, 20 posts a day and all that. And getting lots of home page hits. But come on. Quality articles, not crap like this. Please! - apeguero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Now I know. Thanks for the explanations. I've been using the web and playing video games ever since Sega Genesis. I can't believe I've been ignoring AYB all this time enough to not figure out what it actually meant or where it originated from. LATE!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I dislike ebaums as much as the next person and wasn't intending to plug it (hence why I didnt put the whole name); just used it as an example since if it there's there, it was probably somewhere else first already ;o.
- Ryosen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@SlappyMc
They don't gain joint-ownership of the content. They gain a license to use it. The license is non-exlusive (hence the lack of ownership) and non-restrictive (we can do with it what they want).
This is a fair exchange for a company that is providing you with free content hosting and delivery. If you don't like the terms, you are free, of course, to host the content on your own website.
Just because people don't understand the SLA (or even read it) doesn't mean that they are being taken advantage of. J - dark1152, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Ah, so THAT'S how they're going to pay for thier ludicrous bandwith. Well, if CNN keeps playin YouTube videos every 10 minutes than I hope YouTube is getting paid. Maybe we'll get some new content or features out of it.
- GrendelT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2In Soviet Russia, content owns you!!1!
- championchap, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2eugh, dont plug ebaumsworld.. ever.
For flash, choose an actual user submitted portal site like Newgrounds or flashPlayer.
ebaumsworld steals content and makes horrific ammounts of money without ever giving credit. - SlappyMc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@narcofiche
This could definately be a big deal.
You tube has a very large user base. If a really viral video gets around (which seems to happen everyweek) youtube has the right to (for example) make t-shirts of said viral video without even asking you, sell them, and make a crap load of money off of your work. They can also redistribute any movie on YouTube over DVD, magazine, TV; any media medium.
YouTube Doesnt "own" your movie when you submit it to the site, that part of the story is innacurate, but YouTube in a sence gains joint ownership of the media as soon as you upload.
It Bugs me, and kind of sounds like something ebaumsworld would do.
But peoples gotta make money somehow - NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What is with all of the sensationalized headlines recently?
- LukeD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Theres probably a couple of reasons for this, firstly they want the option (or are already planning on) re-publishing videos through a third party as some other folk have said - I'd assume that there would be attribution of video. Secondly, I suspect that if you don't own the copyright, you can't legally relicense it to YouTube, so by doing so you're misrepresenting yourself, in breach of ToS and therefor YouTube isn't responsible.
The key word here is "non-exclusive" to me, you can still do whatever you want with it, and if you put it up on YouTube, it was publicly accessible to begin with, so what do you care if they then spread it without royalties? Did you get a profit share from ads served from your video before? No.
All the people squeeling about this and taking their content off YouTube need to wisen up. There's no particular evil empire conspiracy here, its just business as usual. If you can't deal, thats fine, but as the saying goes, you are cutting your nose off to spite your face. - bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Maybe I'm the only one that actually READS terms of service agreements before signing up to a site, but its been like this. It didn't randomly show up in the last 24 hours. I've read that in there quite a while back.
Myspace does have the exact same thing, but its a license. I've yet to see either site use anything from it. I have the feeling it has to do with their recent director setup, they can use whatever movies people make.
Kind of like Myspace, they haven't really exercised the license, but they can use whatever music an artist posts on their official page royalty-free. - rabiddogma, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Umm no if you have a show with characters in it those characters can be trademarked, not copyrighted. YouTube makes no claims on the trademarks of their users. Besides with if the license can be terminated at any time by the user don't you think that they would go the extra step and secure a more concrete license from the user before they did such a thing?
- mzhao, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Most sites that have these policies (read: any site that distributes content to anyone) have that line because without it they could potentially get in trouble for allowing others to access your uploaded content that you made available on their site purposefully. By agreeing to that term you're basically saying "sure, you can have my stuff on your site and you can let others view it, until I take it down." Some companies take the time to clarify this, most don't.
- TheKingInYellow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1myspace has been doing that for a while. it was only a matter of time before youtube did it.
- ionut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Google claims no ownership or control over any Content submitted, posted or displayed by you on or through Picasa Web Albums. You or a third party licensor, as appropriate, retain all patent, trademark and copyright to any Content you submit, post or display on or through Picasa Web Albums and you are responsible for protecting those rights, as appropriate. By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through Picasa Web Albums, you grant Google a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, adapt, distribute and publish such Content through Picasa Web Albums, including RSS or other content feeds offered through Picasa Web Albums, and other Google services. In addition, by submitting, posting or displaying Content which is intended to be available to the general public, you grant Google a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, adapt, distribute and publish such Content for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting Google services. "
Picasa Web TOS
http://picasa.google.com/web/tos.html - Dolemite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This also means that they can get the crap sued out of them by the RIAA. Not a smart move by you tube.
- redbeard36, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yup. As others have mentioned. They are claiming "rights" to the content. I think this is opening the door for them to sell video to TV clip shows etc. But ultimately the user still owns the rights to their content. If you're going to have something hosted on their servers then you have to play by their rules.
- vbsurfer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1These laws. Tisk Tisk.
Say your the IP that uploaded it, that dosn't mean you personally uploaded it. - kahrn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If the content is really important and unique then you wouldn't be stupid enough to put it on a service like youtube in the first place. You'd host it yourself.
- z0manifest, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They didn't plan a good business model, seems fair tbh in a way cuz they store the videos and release it to the world for free for other viewing pleasure.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 115 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is