July 30, 2009

Nope, I don't see anything wrong.

The people who uploaded the video knew they would not make money from it. In case you're not familiar with YouTube, that's kind of the deal there.

If they are upset with the situation, they can always take it down. They chose to leave it up.

How do YOU propose to share revenue with a million random people?

Actually, I think it would be pretty simple for YouTube to share a percentage of revenues with content creators.

YouTube is nothing without third party contributors.

Sure, the couple didn't upload it to make money. But companies are anyway. It's hypocritical. Sony is essentially saying "We should get paid for our content, but you shouldn't get paid for yours."

Let's not forget that the couple (and millions of others) get FREE hosting for their videos.

I'd consider that the fair compensation - we get free video hosting (bandwidth anyone?), and if the video host can make money somehow, we all benefit because they KEEP THE LIGHTS ON!

Seems a fair trade to me.

Pretty sure the couple could join Amazon's affiliate program and make up to 15% for referring viewers.

https://affiliate-program.amazon.com/gp/associates/promo/buildlinks.html

Some other video hosting sites I know about give the content provider a share of adsense revenue. It would only seem fair that Youtube also give something back to the content provider.

In the above situation it is good that the copyright owner is getting something out of the content the couple put online. It would also makes sense to give something to the content creator as without them Youtube is nothing.

It is fair enough to say Youtube is giving the bandwidth to the contributors and the content viewers but they should give some credit to the people that make Youtube so popular.

Well, the couple not getting money is just a hair difference from what say, Chris Brown gets for having SUNG the song that Apple, Google, the Record Label, his producers/managers/writers get money off of. What does an artist get? Something like 60 cents per song? Is that really THAT much more than getting nothing? Content is just a commodity. And in this situation, Chris Brown and the JK Dance Couple have a lot in common: they're both the tools, not the tool users.

I agree that they aren't entitled to revenue generated through the ads on their video - they posted to YouTube fully aware of the Terms of Service, not to mention having used copyrighted music. That said, there are plenty of ways they can and possibly have capitalized financially on the runaway success of the video.

By becoming national sensations, appearing on national talk shows, etc, I'm sure there are lots of sponsorship opportunities for them. Should they want to leverage their newfound fame for financial gain (though there is no evidence I've seen that they do) there are plenty of brands that would love to be associated with them and would pay them for that right.

They could also make money through merchandise and novelty sales...t-shirts, photos, etc. Finally, appearance fees (think someone wouldn't pay to have them appear at their wedding?)

Seems to me this is the system working just fine for all involved - YouTube hosts and provides the platform and makes money, Chris Brown and Sony provide the music and make money, and 2 people who never set out to be famous or make money have the opportunity to do both.

I've wrote the same thing in our blog the other day. I believe that to many things are a bit fishy.
1. youtube keeps the movie on air.
2. A lot of people making money of it (now Goole can say to their investors - I told you we can actually earn some bucks from Youtube...)
3. You can't EMBED this video to your site! the couple disabled this feature! Why? the answer is in the previous points.
So the question is:Are the couple actually earning some money of it? Was it a realy genuine video? Maybe it began like one but "money finds a way"?

It all seems to planned for me. I've seen better wedding entraces than this one, but there is a reason why I got this to my email like 10 times !
We did some viral campaigns and it sure looks like one. It seems to much constructed from above.
And of course, maybe I'm just cynical and have no believe in luck, faith and good nature etc.

Personally, I don't think they are owed money but do I think they should get a percentage? No doubt about it. Simply because they are the reason additional revenue was generated and what's a 100K, 200K, or 500K, to these big production companies like iTunes, Sony, and Youtube (which I am sure would be a lot to Jill and Kevin).

Now the thing that sucks after the fact, but, if they would of put a link at the end of the video for reception pictures (a site they create with their photos), they could flood it with Affiliate links (as youtube has), and profit from purchases made because of there site.

I don't think it's to late for them to do this. Anyway, best of luck to you J & K. Awesome wedding entrance that will never be forgotten.

yes, from the social intensity detected in all the traditional sharing venues like Facebook, Digg, Twitter, etc. there was not enough organic sharing to support the massive view count (13M in 11 days)

here's the evidence compiled here
http://bit.ly/8K9pW

If I were Chris Brown or any of the other people/companies that profited from this I would send J & K some compensation just out of gratitude.
Unlike Jack Laros I am not cynical (in this case) and I believe you can get lucky sometime. And yes, there may have been better wedding entrances than this but J & K got LUCKY by puttung it on youtube.

The source of the traffic can also affect the overall CTR rate. Organic traffic (the one that comes from search engines) tends to perform well because these visitors were already looking for something, and they tend to click on ads more often. Social media traffic, on the other hand, presents terribly low CTRs because these visitors are tech-savvy and they just ignore ads.

The song was taken down for awhile until they realized that they had a gold mine and then they put it back up. Stupid record executives