Who owns your content?

In May, Billy Bragg’s management team removed the artists page from Myspace citing the terms and conditions of the site.
It was suggested that these conditions meant that Myspace could use content
without renumerating the artist.

Now the focus has turned to YouTube, the popular video clip sharing site which encourages
its uses to upload and share video content. The site, which currently has no
revenue channels, states that the uses retain ownership rights. However, YouTube,
and its successor company, retains the right to create derivative work. Users
can circumvent this issue by withdrawing content but this won’t always solve
the problem as YouTube content is constantly distributed knowing that your content
has been taken away is hard to ascertain. Moreover, YouTube’s successor company,
which is bound to have commercial imperatives, will have access to a vast database
of content that they will legitimately be able to use.

At the moment it seems that users, aggregators and consumers are all enjoying
the openness and easy access to content that web 2.0 startups allow. However it
seems likely that this bubble will not last forever. Big business is buying
as many web 2.0 startups as they can. These companies will want results and
although some will rely on advertising revenue streams a some are bound to be
interested in directly profiting from user generated content. This could have
the knock on effect of making users think twice about uploading content, which
in turn could dramatically affect the evolution of that content. Granted money
needs to be made to support the business model of hosting and distributing content,
it takes time money and man power to deliver these services, but creating draconian
rights systems doesn’t seem too prudent for the long term success. It seems
unfortunate that, in a world where everybody can be a producer, the debate over
who owns what and how it can be used will not happen until it becomes an issue.

One approach that seems to make sense is to be completely open about the use
of content and how it can support a company’s revenue stream. Scoopt takes blogs and pictures with the aim of selling
onto mainstream media with a cut going to the producer of the content. Equally,
Panjea, which works much in the same way as YouTube,
will host and distributes user video content. It makes its money by adding an
advert to each video and passing a portion of the revenue onto the uploader.
These models may not be to everybody’s tastes but at least they offer the uploader
financial reward for the use of their content.