Margaret Stewart: How YouTube thinks about copyright

http://www.ted.com Margaret Stewart, YouTube's head of user experience, talks about how the ubiquitous video site works with copyright holders and creators to foster (at the best of times) a creative ecosystem where everybody wins.

TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes. Featured speakers have included Al Gore on climate change, Philippe Starck on design, Jill Bolte Taylor on observing her own stroke, Nicholas Negroponte on One Laptop per Child, Jane Goodall on chimpanzees, Bill Gates on malaria and mosquitoes, Pattie Maes on the "Sixth Sense" wearable tech, and "Lost" producer JJ Abrams on the allure of mystery. TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design, and TEDTalks cover these topics as well as science, business, development and the arts. Closed captions and translated subtitles in a variety of languages are now available on TED.com, at http://www.ted.com/translate. Watch a highlight reel of the Top 10 TEDTalks at http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/top10

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Margaret
• Stewart
• TEDTalks
• TED
• talks
• YouTube
• copyright
• creativity
• video
• law
• content
• intellectual
• property

[TheDecadeMoon]

I don't get it. If we upload copyrighted material, then the copyright owner MAY allow it, which is good, OR they reject it and we get a strike against our account. So basically, you have to risk getting a strike just to find out whether or not the copyright owner will allow the video. Is there any way we can check if a copyright owner will allow it before uploading the video, thus circumventing the strike?

[NewWinnipegger]

YouTube (as owned by Google) makes millions of dollars a year on pirated video uploaded to its site, yet hypocritically removes users for - gasp! - uploading a 30-second clip from a movie.

YouTube tells users to "only upload video that they own," but 90 per cent of the content on this site is uploaded by people who don't own it. So, what is it, YouTube?

The website that punishes its users for its own vague policies is the website that needs to get a grip.

[nathanjamesbaker]

This harpy brought us the new channel design.

[Jun127]

I also agree that it should be possible to get a warning for content marked blocked by rights holders so it can be removed and changed before getting a strike against your account.

[Jun127]

Can you imagine how many records "auto tune the news" would have sold if they didn't offer their music for free on youtube? ZERO ZERO ZERO. When record labels say, oh, this song has been viewed 100,000 times on youtube, that must mean they stole 200,000 dollars from our pockets! They need to be kicked in their lying morally bankrupt asses.

[Jun127]

If I upload some of my art, which is completely my intellectual property, but use a clip from a song in the background, that owner can claim my entire video to profit from my work and benefit from free advertisement, or even put a strike against my account.

[Jun127]

IT would be much better if both parties were compensated, because videos, and even covers take a lot of work to make. Even if not, they are giving advertisement to the label and that should be paid for.

[Jun127]

I personally find it absurd that a record label can claim a video and generate revenue on things which include copyrighted content from others as well, just because a clip of their music appears on it. Traditionally you would at least have to share revenue, Chris brown may have made a million dollars on that wedding video, but the people who produced the hit video didn't see one cent even though they advertised the song.

[darkdragonsoul99]

ummm yeah big companies borrows from the little guy but there is a difference a big one. When the little guy borrows from the big companies they demand some form of compensation when the big companies borrows from the little guy they don't pay for those ideas now do they.

[lightandbeautiful]

Homosexual activists understand the power of words.

Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which popular atheist author Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".

The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationsh­ip being discussed.

The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.