Why YouTube Needs the Rights to Your Video

erlichson writes "There has been a lot of controversy over the YouTube terms of service. Why are consumers surprised? Fundamentally, YouTube's business model requires that they get the rights to redistribute your content. This note analyzes an alternative publishing model available to consumers that doesn't require granting a license to your content, but the trade-off is that you won't get the same level of distribution."

Comments

The license is retractable

[bagofbeans]

Per licence in OP, "The foregoing license granted by you terminates once you remove or delete a User Submission from the YouTube Website.". So a user just has to remove the material to retract the license...

Re:Minors

[nullforce]

Minors can enter into contracts; however, they can exit or void most contracts while they remain under the age of maturity. http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/can- a-minor-contract.html

OT: deviantArt

[kn0tw0rk]

As an artist that has put up stuff on dA, I'd like to say that originally I was loathe to put 'content' up there, but as I thought about wether I wanted exposure or to retain complete control/ownership I decided that I'd rather get exposure. But I have chosen which works I wanted to put up there, which is primarily my older works, and have several recent pieces that I wont put up as I feel they are superior to my earlier ones.

And its not like dA have total ownership of the pieces I've put up, IIRC they have a limited license to cover themselves legally, and I can still put up the pictures on another site if I choose. One day when I decide to upgrade my membership there so I can sell prints, dA will still only have a limited license and I could still sell prints at local markets/fairs.

Maybe I'm going about this wrong, as I'm not 100% sure of what is the right way to do this, so if anyone from the /. gallery wants to comment, feel free.