In Variety, Scott Kirsner looks at a new technology at YouTube called Video ID, which Kirsner describes as a “lost-and-found desk for unauthorized video content…through which media companies can “claim” videos that have been uploaded to YouTube without permission.”In a brief entry inspired by the LA Times‘ coverage of Video ID, Chuck Tryon comments that there are potentially “some real problems here in that many of the videos that would be subject to removal would fall into Fair Use categories,” and Kirsner does address this in his story. Noting that the YouTube faithful tend to “get steamed when the site takes down videos that make incidental use of copyright material, especially parodies or commentaries,” Kirsner reports that YouTube is reticent to explain exactly how Video ID works, because they don’t want videomakers who are using copyrighted content (whether within the bounds of Fair Use or not) to be able to easily skirt the system.
It’s entirely possible that Video ID could prove to be entirely blind to fair use; there’s also the issue of conflicts between copyright holders, as well as a lot of possible damage to YouTube’s organically aggregated fan communities. More thoughts after the jump.
From Kirsner’s story, we know that it’s going to be up to copyright owners to upload their materials into a database, which Video ID will then use to match content submitted by users. Once an instance of copyright infringement is detected, Video ID will allow rights holders to pick between “blocking their copyrighted content from the site, allowing the content to continue playing for the promotional upside or requesting that YouTube split advertising revenue with them.”
So I wonder how this will impact mashups, which will more often than not involve the use of material from more than one copyright holder. Coincidentally, I just watched the above clip this morning, thanks to a link from PopWatch, and after reading the Variety story, I went through and counted the sources. There’s the Christina Aguilera song, which is owned by RCA (aka Sony); the Keira Knightley version of Pride and Prejudice, which was released by Focus Features (aka NBC/Universal); Sense & Sensibility, also Sony; and Emma, which is owned by Miramax (aka Disney). So let’s assume that Disney, Sony and Universal all participate in Video ID (according to both the Variety and LA Times stories, it’s already been tested by Disney and Time Warner, but there’s no word yet on which studios will opt in once the program is out of beta).
What happens to a clip like that if Disney and Universal decide that they want it taken down, but Sony, seeing its potential as a tool to help sell Sense and Sensibility DVDs to Christina Aguilera fans, wants it left up? Do the three studios take a vote? Let’s say Sony gives in and the clip is taken down. YouTube user HeathDances may not have created the original clip for financial gain, but just by deeming the clip illegal, the studios will have struck at the currency that really matters in the YouTube community: comments and views. And what if Sony then uses the clip as inspiration for their own marketing–what if they put together their own promo in which Emma Thompson discovers that there ain’t no other man but Hugh Grant? Who’s looking out for the already-disgruntled YouTube user’s intellectual property?
I know, I know, I know: it’s a just a funny video, HeathDances is just taking advantage of a broken system to attain status in a virtual community, Christina Aguilera is just a former Mouseketeer. But these fan mashups are generally such loving tributes from the consumer to these various fictional worlds and characters. Fandom on YouTube is essentially the en masse writing of love letters, and the community aspect of it ultimately encourages further consumerism. This mysterious surveillance bureaucracy is going to look like a wrecking ball to that community.
