4 ms·

You're not the only one with this take on this thread and I'm really trying to understand it... Why do some of you think it is not okay to put YouTube embeds o

by _akhe 2y ago

You're not the only one with this take on this thread and I'm really trying to understand it... Why do some of you think it is not okay to put YouTube embeds on a website???

nickjj 2y ago
> Why do some of you think it is not okay to put YouTube embeds on a website? YouTube embeds are a different story, that is an official YouTube feature which allows folks to embed a YouTube video on a 3rd party website. I have no problem with that. YouTube even allows creators to enable or disable that on a per video basis. I keep it enabled because it's useful and promotes sharing of the original content as it was delivered. I have a problem with a 3rd party site taking a video and making a derivative of it without the consent of the copyright owner. It's violating the license that the video was uploaded under. They even went as far as explicitly claiming copyright ownership on all content on their site (at the time of this comment their footer reads: "© 2024 Stepify - All rights reserved."). I don't like making assumptions but look at how responsive the original poster of this thread was to most comments. They replied to a ton of people, but not this comment. They've also made an explicit decision not to include any way to remedy this issue or even contact them through their website. I'll let you draw your own conclusions from that. I wouldn't have even minded as much if the generated text was good but in this case it was wildly inaccurate and missed all of the details that would have let you follow along without the video. The site's official tagline is "Get a step-by-step tutorial of any video to follow along". If someone sees the text generated they might infer a video was of poor quality because this site claims it can produce a step by step tutorial of ANY video to follow along. That sheds negative light on folks who created the original video.
- _akhe 2y ago
  Yes and to be clear the creator gets the revenue, not this website: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/132596?hl=en-do-i-get-paid,how-do-i-get-paid,how-do-i-earn-revenue,whats-my-revenue-share https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/132596?hl=en-do-i-... > Only YouTube and the video owner will earn revenue from ads on embedded videos. The owner of the site where the video is embedded will not earn a share. Furthermore, the YouTube creator can choose to not let their video be embedded if they wanted that. Do you have a problem with every news website that has a video at the top, then an article describing what happens in the video? How would that violate the licensing? It's unrelated to licensing - they're using the official YouTube embed. YouTube manages the copyright of the embedded content and can even control whether or not the video can be viewed in your country, etc. based on such restrictions. > look at how responsive the original poster of this thread was to most comments but they ignore this request Irrelevant, but I think because it's obvious you're misunderstanding copyright, or because you wrote such a big paragraph with many separate points being made that it's a lot of work to reply to. The copyright in his footer is for his IP, it of course would not apply to the content inside a YouTube embed. And it's not IP theft to summarize a video in what is essentially a blog post.
  - j45 2y ago
    It's really interesting how some folks don't see this as an additional way to drive traffic to the video, when so many channels have a website of their videos. This type of tool could help create much more meaningful blog or website type content to build a mailing list around the community.
    - shortformblog 2y ago
      Who owns the mailing list? Who owns the blog? This random guy who built this tool, or the actual creator who made the content? The problem with this thought process is that the creator has been taken out of the equation without actually talking to them about it, and when that question gets raised, there just seems to be lots of pushback, likely in part because it touches on the primary complication of LLMs (that a whole bunch of copyrighted content is getting siphoned without considering the people who made that information). In this particular case, this is literally taking the information from that content and presenting it in a format the creator did not agree to, lowering the potential value of the video to end users. It is much closer to violating the creator’s copyright than generative AI often is. Instead of pushing back, we need to bring the creators into the discussion to ensure this is something they’re OK with.
      - _akhe 2y ago
        The point of a YouTube embed is to share it on other websites, so this is a ridiculous argument. The YouTube creator of course gets the revenue from embed shares, but why do you think they should own every website it's shared on? That makes no sense nor would it ever happen. The creator isn't taken out of the equation at all - their content is being promoted and they're getting ad revenue for views there (as agreed upon in the YouTube terms). And for the YouTube creator who decided to give their video to YouTube, but doesn't want it shared on third-party sites, YouTube lets them disable embeds. Putting a YouTube embed, summarizing a YouTube video - neither are "violating the creator's copyright" which they already gave to YouTube anyway.
        2y ago

by _akhe 2y ago

You're not the only one with this take on this thread and I'm really trying to understand it... Why do some of you think it is not okay to put YouTube embeds on a website???

nickjj 2y ago

> Why do some of you think it is not okay to put YouTube embeds on a website? YouTube embeds are a different story, that is an official YouTube feature which allows folks to embed a YouTube video on a 3rd party website. I have no problem with that. YouTube even allows creators to enable or disable that on a per video basis. I keep it enabled because it's useful and promotes sharing of the original content as it was delivered. I have a problem with a 3rd party site taking a video and making a derivative of it without the consent of the copyright owner. It's violating the license that the video was uploaded under. They even went as far as explicitly claiming copyright ownership on all content on their site (at the time of this comment their footer reads: "© 2024 Stepify - All rights reserved."). I don't like making assumptions but look at how responsive the original poster of this thread was to most comments. They replied to a ton of people, but not this comment. They've also made an explicit decision not to include any way to remedy this issue or even contact them through their website. I'll let you draw your own conclusions from that. I wouldn't have even minded as much if the generated text was good but in this case it was wildly inaccurate and missed all of the details that would have let you follow along without the video. The site's official tagline is "Get a step-by-step tutorial of any video to follow along". If someone sees the text generated they might infer a video was of poor quality because this site claims it can produce a step by step tutorial of ANY video to follow along. That sheds negative light on folks who created the original video.

_akhe 2y ago
Yes and to be clear the creator gets the revenue, not this website: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/132596?hl=en-do-i-get-paid,how-do-i-get-paid,how-do-i-earn-revenue,whats-my-revenue-share https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/132596?hl=en-do-i-... > Only YouTube and the video owner will earn revenue from ads on embedded videos. The owner of the site where the video is embedded will not earn a share. Furthermore, the YouTube creator can choose to not let their video be embedded if they wanted that. Do you have a problem with every news website that has a video at the top, then an article describing what happens in the video? How would that violate the licensing? It's unrelated to licensing - they're using the official YouTube embed. YouTube manages the copyright of the embedded content and can even control whether or not the video can be viewed in your country, etc. based on such restrictions. > look at how responsive the original poster of this thread was to most comments but they ignore this request Irrelevant, but I think because it's obvious you're misunderstanding copyright, or because you wrote such a big paragraph with many separate points being made that it's a lot of work to reply to. The copyright in his footer is for his IP, it of course would not apply to the content inside a YouTube embed. And it's not IP theft to summarize a video in what is essentially a blog post.
- j45 2y ago
  It's really interesting how some folks don't see this as an additional way to drive traffic to the video, when so many channels have a website of their videos. This type of tool could help create much more meaningful blog or website type content to build a mailing list around the community.
  - shortformblog 2y ago
    Who owns the mailing list? Who owns the blog? This random guy who built this tool, or the actual creator who made the content? The problem with this thought process is that the creator has been taken out of the equation without actually talking to them about it, and when that question gets raised, there just seems to be lots of pushback, likely in part because it touches on the primary complication of LLMs (that a whole bunch of copyrighted content is getting siphoned without considering the people who made that information). In this particular case, this is literally taking the information from that content and presenting it in a format the creator did not agree to, lowering the potential value of the video to end users. It is much closer to violating the creator’s copyright than generative AI often is. Instead of pushing back, we need to bring the creators into the discussion to ensure this is something they’re OK with.
    - _akhe 2y ago
      The point of a YouTube embed is to share it on other websites, so this is a ridiculous argument. The YouTube creator of course gets the revenue from embed shares, but why do you think they should own every website it's shared on? That makes no sense nor would it ever happen. The creator isn't taken out of the equation at all - their content is being promoted and they're getting ad revenue for views there (as agreed upon in the YouTube terms). And for the YouTube creator who decided to give their video to YouTube, but doesn't want it shared on third-party sites, YouTube lets them disable embeds. Putting a YouTube embed, summarizing a YouTube video - neither are "violating the creator's copyright" which they already gave to YouTube anyway.
      - 2y ago