Commercial photographers and video people are normally required to get releases from any person they film BEFORE they can sell or display their work for money (that’s why you see all those pixilated faces on videos). There are exceptions for ‘crowd shots’ or where a person can not be readily identified. But generally speaking if you film someone you are required to obtain a release before you can show the film commercially. Failure to do so can result in a lawsuit.

If Youtube starts sharing money with posters then wouldn’t Youtube be similarly required to obtain releases? They could certainly be seen as commercial videos. The photographer is getting paid for their work.

It could certainly create some serious legal problems for Google. I can see easily see a situation where someone sees a funny accident or something similar and posting it to youtube without a release. It gets popular; youtube gives the poster some money. The guy, who never signed a release, finds out and files a lawsuit.

I predicted this, and was going to write a Masters thesis about it, but so far haven't been able to find any takers. Anyone out there reading this want to let me into their school?

There’s been a lot of discussion of how to value hot online video properties, like YouTube. There of course are many factors to this, but I propose a simple valuation model by using common web metrics to gauge user engagement. In other words, a simple way to value an online video property is in terms of not only how big its audience is but also how engaged they are (similar to a TV show). The more attention we have, the higher the prospects are for gaining advertisement revenue, and therefore the more valuable the property is.

Using this model we can also gauge what other online video sites might be worth by comparing user engagement relative to that of YouTube.

To read more, go here:

http://www.edwardjthomas.org/?p=10