Show Posts
1
General - Stock Video / Buy Stock Footage - Upload to YouTube - Make Money. Is it legit way? Priority?
« 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.
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.
