MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Buy Stock Footage - Upload to YouTube - Make Money. Is it legit way? Priority?  (Read 7645 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 08, 2021, 08:06 »
 A little backstory.

I was contacted by one YouTuber in order to provide him for free my video clips. In return I supposed to get a promotion, wide audience and other warm crap we all so familiar with. I just ignored his offer, but decided to have a look what the guy is actually doing. His niche is relaxing nature backgrounds with music he composed himself. He seems a nice fellow and good musician, he buys licenses on stock sites, adds melody and keeps organized his channel. He even openly tells in some of video descriptions where he bought the clip and from who. I typed a few keywords in search and quickly found dozens of my videos on similar channels. Many don't bother even replacing sound. All channels are monetized and get paid through YouTube partner program per 10k views or per promo click. Many clips with estimate return of 400-6000 usd

I am not a Copyright maniac and I am glad that people enjoy my vids, but I felt that I am loosing something. Many of my nature clips are loops or easy-to-loop and by purpose static, I aimed them as backgrounds for SPA or similar Zen-like atmosphere usage. Many of my clips contain relaxing sound which eases things for youtubers. But for any salon or spa it's easier to play YouTube on-line and be covered. The topic is ambiguous. Stock agencies see platforms like YouTube as big market and grant to buyers full right for re-distribution hiding behind the concept of new interpretation of original material or maybe even not hiding as I see that many of artworks including photos, music and vectors are not undergoing any creative change at all and re-sold as it is on such sites as Etsy, Redbubble, YouTube and many other sites. Pond5 has wide license allowance and promises full protection and assistance for buyers in cases of copyright disputes, SS rounds corners and is more on buyer's side than on creator's. It's pretty understandable - buyers bring money, creators are just a renewable source.

What is clear.
-Stock Agencies are cool and keen to provide for such open re-distribution.
-Platforms and markets are OK until copyright ownership is claimed

What is not clear.
- If I upload the same video to YouTube what will happen? The guy is covered by license . Who has the priority?
- If I upload to YouTube prior uploading to stock and the guy uploads after me having the license form stock to do so, will YouTube accept his upload?

Why don't just cool off and let good people who don't steal but purchase our stock material make some money? Am I overreacting?
I am concerned not about the fact that they make money but about the way the do it. It's like one more middle-man on top on another, they are not final consumers and not fair creative minds using stock material in work needs but sneaky straightforward businessmen.

What do you think guys? Should we protect our market and take the battle on new grounds. Would preventive methods as uploading prior to YouTube make any difference? Or just accept new reality with other sides of over-lasting sexual intercourse we all are going through since agencies reviewed their attitude toward content creators.

« Reply #1 on: February 08, 2021, 08:43 »
Some examples just to illustrate the topic:

The musician who contacted me at first place and his channel , link to one of my my clips to illustrate master's music - . In his channel he must have 50+ of my clips. He at least bought videos and at least added something to them, his own music.

Another example , this guy did nothing except expanding the loop to 10 hours, sounds and colors untouched - . He re-distributes 10+ of my clips

And many, many other examples across Youtube.

« Reply #2 on: February 08, 2021, 10:12 »
I'm just curious what mic are you using?

« Reply #3 on: February 08, 2021, 10:43 »
Rode shotgun mic ntg4+

« Reply #4 on: February 08, 2021, 10:47 »
for this case an extended license is actually necessary? He sells the product (video) whose real value is the video.

« Reply #5 on: February 08, 2021, 11:36 »
for this case an extended license is actually necessary? He sells the product (video) whose real value is the video.
He doesn't sell the video. They all are like movie cinema, collecting ticket fee per view, views interact with platform adds and transformed into cents and dollars

« Reply #6 on: February 08, 2021, 12:07 »
There is another way of think this:
upload your video in youtube and use music from someone.
creating an audience to artist is the flaw of microstock sites but the key to success for any artist.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #7 on: February 08, 2021, 12:29 »
There is another way of think this:
upload your video in youtube and use music from someone.
creating an audience to artist is the flaw of microstock sites but the key to success for any artist.

Good point, I think someone has to have a number of subscriptions/viewers before they can go commercial, but then with good offerings, the money could add up. Some people make a living at YouTube, I don't think I'd want to be trying that personally, but someone with the time and skills, like Banana Republic, why not do that. As I often ask but seldom if ever happens.

When you do the project and start your channel and upload a bunch of videos, please come back and tell us how it worked out?

I'd seriously like to see how someone starting and trying makes out with YouTube videos. These pleasing backgrounds sound like a nice calm niche.

Sep 21, 2017
3 1/3 years = 200,000 a year * maybe $4,000
I didn't see any ads, so pretty nice deal for him if he has a bunch of videos, licensed and made into pleasing backgrounds.

All you need to do...

To be accepted into the YouTube Partners Program, you must:

    Have at least 1,000 subscribers
    Reach 4,000 valid public watch hours in the past 12 months
    Sign and agree to the terms and conditions
    Have an AdSense account
    Get reviewed and approved

Read more and it seems valid and up to date. Someone with ads could make more.

« Reply #8 on: February 09, 2021, 08:00 »
100% legit, as long as they have purchased the proper license. Anyone with a proper license can upload to YouTube and monetize.


  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #9 on: February 09, 2021, 08:16 »
All seems above board to me. I think the portion of people buying our content who aren't making any money (or at least saving money) as a result of how they're using it is going to be very minimal (even if its indirectly)... and the fact they're making money from our content is what keeps them coming back for more. Obvioulsy the less that revenue relies on their contribution, the more lazy it comes across as (i.e. one image in a magazine vs what you're describing)... but as long as they're within the license terms then I think it's all good.



Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
Last post September 07, 2010, 16:02
by MikLav
10 Replies
Last post February 28, 2015, 02:30
by Hobostocker
17 Replies
Last post December 18, 2018, 19:28
by stockshots
4 Replies
Last post April 23, 2019, 05:51
by helloitsme
0 Replies
Last post May 12, 2020, 16:57
by cristianstorto


Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results


3100 Posing Cards Bundle