At the forty minute mark in the presentation, Cutts said something that was interesting to those of us who deal with spam blogs but has been largely overlooked. When discussing Google’s Webmaster Center, he mentioned that you can report spam through their Webmaster Tools feature and that they “give more weight” to those reports than the ones made through their public form.

In short, if you have access to Google’s Webmaster Tools, which is free and easy to register for, you can use the form in there to file a more meaningful spam report. Best of all, the form is identical to the public one and and should not seem foreign to anyone used to filing spam reports.

This is assumedly because the spam form in the Webmaster Tools is not anonymous, unlike the public one. Google, understandably, gives more significance to reports where they know the party providing the information.

To file the report, simply log into the Webmaster tools dashboard and click the “Report spam in our index” link on the right hand side. You report paid links.

This may resolve many of the claims that Google does not respond (see comments) to spam reports.

All in all, while this is a very simple trick, it might help with the reporting of spam in cases where a DMCA notice is simply not practical.

Note: In a strange coincidence, I found the video on John Pozadzides blog, who will be speaking directly before me at WordCamp Dallas.

However, far too many people learn too late that agreeing to a TOS is not only a binding contract, but that those contracts often force you to waive rights in your work that, otherwise you’d never give up willingly.

So, in the spirit of the DMCA seven series I did previously, I’ve decided to start looking at the TOS agreements of popular sites on the Web and work to find out what rights you give up and what you can do about it.

This week, we’re going to start with video sharing sites, some of the most popular, and controversial sites on the Web for sharing content.

TOS Link: Terms of Use
Rights Granted: “…use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube’s (and its successors’ and affiliates’) business.”
Sub-Licensable: Yes
Revokable: Yes
How to Revoke: Delete Videos
Notes: The scariest thing about YouTube’s license is that YouTube reserves the right to license your videos posted with just about any party they desire. However, that license is revoked by simply deleting your videos from the site. However, the license does not end upon removal of the videos, but rather, “within a commercially reasonable time after you remove or delete your User Videos from the YouTube Service.” What that exactly entails, is unclear.
Conclusions: YouTube certainly claims a wide collection of rights. But they specifically mention the use of use in “any media formats and through any media channels” as well as use for the promotion of the site. Users should take heart at the easy revocation of the license, but should also be warned that the license granted by posting a comment is both perpetual and irrevocable.

TOS Link: Revver Member Agreemente
Rights Granted: “…use, reproduce, modify and adapt (solely to permit Revver to conform and adapt Your Video Content to technical requirements, including without limitation the right to adapt to streaming, downloading, broadcast, mobile, digital, thumbnail, scanning or other technologies), excerpt, publish, transmit, publicly perform, display, reference, store, host, index and cache, in any form, medium or technology now known or later developed, any Video Content, Member Comments or materials You submit to Revver, in whole or in part, whether created by or for You, by any method, and in any and all media, whether currently existing or hereafter developed.”
Sub-Licensable: Yes
Revocable: Yes/No
How to Revoke: Disabling Account or Providing Notification
Notes: Revver’s policies are confusing and difficult to understand for event he most astute in this area. They actually have three licenses, a license to Revver, quoted above, a online commercial license to others (limited to the purposes of the Revver Syndication Network) and an irrevocable non-commercial distribution license that uses Creative Commons’ BY-NC-ND License.
Conclusions: If you discount the mandatory and irrevocable CC license, the Revver License is not that much different from other sites. What is unique is that everything in the Revver license is built around commercial use. This is because Revver puts ads in all videos and shares profits with users. Much of the difference can be found in that.

TOS Link: Google Terms of Service
Rights Granted: “…reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services.”
Sub-Licensable: Yes
Revocable: No
How to Revoke: N/A
Notes: The rights Google takes in the work are relatively narrow and limited only to Google’s “enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services”. Google also hints that the license can be revoked in some cases, but I was unable to find a TOS specific to Google Video to determine how.
Conclusions: Though Google has a bad rap about removing infringing works, their license here is fairly reasonable. Though the license itself is irrevocable, the scope is so narrow that removal of the work would be tantamount to a revocation in most regards. Still, it is worrisome that there is no clear way to terminate the agreement.

TOS Link: Blip.TV TOS
Rights Granted: “…to use, reproduce, create derivative works of, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, transfer, transmit, distribute and publish that content for the purposes of displaying that content on Blip.tv and on other Web sites, devices and/or platforms.”
Sub-Licensable: Yes
Revocable: Yes
How to Revoke: Remove Video & Request Permanent Deletion
Notes: Most video sites, in their TOS, let you know that a copy of your video, albeit not one for display, may still be available after you delete your copies of the content. Blip.TV offers you a means to delete even those hidden copies by contacting customer service.
Conclusions: All in all, Blip has a fairly narrow license and even promises not to sell advertising on your content without permission. It also provides control over what formats your work is distributed in “To the extent reasonable and possible.” Their dedication to being an open platform is taken very seriously and reflects well in the relative fairness of their terms.

TOS Link: Terms and Conditions
Rights Granted: “…to use, copy, prepare derivative works of (including without limitation, to rename, edit, shorten, split the videos into different segments, and use the entire video or segments as part of compilations), display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the Website and Metacafe’s (and its successor’s) business, including without limitation to grant access to the Website to third parties to view the User Submission (and derivative works thereof).”
Sub-Licensable: No (transferable)
Revocable: Yes
How to Revoke: Notification
Notes: It is important to note that Metacafe’s Producer and Producer Rewards programs have different licensing requirements. Second, though the license does not specifically say that it is revocable, it does offer a means to terminate the license. Also, the license does not say that the rights granted are sub-licenseable, but that they are only transferable. This means that they can be given to another company, for example, in the event of a buyout, but can not be sub-licensed, such as you licensing your work to another site while retaining their rights.
Conclusions: All totaled, Metacafe has a very reasonable license and is one of the few on the list that does not explicitly require you to grant them the right to sub-license their rights in the work. It also limits its rights to uses “in connection with the Website” and only grants third parties the right to view and use the content for “non-commercial and personal use”.

TOS Link: Terms of Service
Rights Granted: “…reproduce and display Your Content, in whole or in part, and to display, perform, distribute and transmit the same via the features that enable the Website to be accessed both on the Internet and through any other electronic communication media or technology, now known or later developed, and to adjust the format of Your Content as necessary for the purposes of reproduction, display and transmission.”
Sub-Licensable: No
Revocable: ???
How to Revoke: ???
Notes: Dailymotion is the only site that makes no mention of their license to your content being either sub-licenseable or transferable. However, it also makes no mention of how and if the license can be revoked, even though it does so with the the license it grants you regarding its copyrighted work.
Conclusions: Dailymotion’s license, to me, feels incomplete and that worries me. Though the license to use your content is very narrow and would, most likely, be effectively revoked on the deletion of the video, I would feel better if the license would explicitly talk about whether the license is transferable, sub-liceseable and revocable.

TOS Link: Terms of Use
Rights Granted: “…publicly display, publicly perform, distribute, and reproduce the Materials in any manner and in any medium, including, without limitation, through physical copies such as still photos, videos, and CDs, by television by any means, on or via the Internet, including, without limitation, the World Wide Web, and any other two-way transmission control protocol / internet protocol (TCP/IP) based distribution network or similar networks or technologies now known or hereafter to become known….”
Sub-Licensable: Yes
Revocable: No
How to Revoke: N/A
Notes: Break limits users to personal and non-commercial use of the content on the site. It also designates the the license is perpetual, meaning that there is no way to exit it. All of the rights above are assigned to Break and can not be revoked without special agreement.
Conclusions: Break’s license is worrisome to me. Not only does it grab an extreme amount of rights, including specifying some uses that go well above and beyond what one would expect from posing on a video sharing site, but it also states that the rights are perpetual and offers no means to terminate the agreement. It, to me, seems to be an extreme rights grab that is beyond what is actually necessary to run the site.

Conclusions

By in large, most of the video sharing sites have reasonable terms of service that allow you to quickly and easily exit the agreement if you are unhappy with the way the site is treating you and/or your content.

I am hesitant to offer any conclusions on which site is the best simply because, though some sites grab more rights than others, it might be a worthwhile exchange. Many, for example, will be fine with Revver since the site shares revenue and YouTube might be acceptable to others due to its large community.

Personally, for those seeking to make money, I feel that Revver is the strongest. Those seeking to keep as many of their rights as possible, Blip.TV is very strong as is Metacafe. Also, Dailymotion, with a little more clarity, could also be a great site.

In the end, you have to decide for yourself how much risk you are willing to take and what rights you are willing to surrender in your work. It is important to read the terms very carefully and draw your own conclusions.

As for me, I’m moving my videos over to Blip.TV in the coming weeks. Not only do I like their terms, but also their player and general appearance suit me better.

However, that is just my personal decision, I know many will disagree with it.

These sites, many of which have been sued or are operating under the constant threat of being sued, have their very livelihood centered around whether or not they qualify for DMCA safe harbor protection. They have more motivation than any other kind of host to ensure that their DMCA/copyright policies are up to code as even a minor slip up could become a mortal wound in the hands of an aggressive corporate lawyer.

So how do they hold up? Well, let’s take a look at seven of the top sites and find out.

Format: Email
Email Address: copyright at youtube dot com
Location of Policy: Copyright Notices Page
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: Though purchased by Google some time ago, YouTube has operated as its own company and has maintained a separate policy when it comes to DMCA Notices. Overall, their copyright policy is a model for other sites like it. Not only do they provide the link to their policy on every page, but it is a well-written policy with detailed instructions for filing a notice and a link to instructions for filing a counter-notice. They also have a Content Verification Program, which is clearly targeted at large companies, that expedites the sending of multiple notices by giving rightsholders access to an online tool that can remove infringing works. Though such a tool might be ripe for abuse, and has been on some occasions, it is practically a necessity when dealing with large media companies, such as Viacom (see below).
Grade: A-

Format: Email
Email Address: amac at google dot com
Location of Policy: Google’s DMCA Policy
Registered with USCO: No (registered as Google)
Comments: Google’s other video site, Google Video, is definitely a part of the traditional Google structure, including their flawed and excessively difficult DMCA policy. Unfortunately, there is not much that I can say about Google’s policy that has not been said before. As with their other services, their requirement of a handwritten signature not only goes against the intent of the ESIGN Act, but throws up unnecessary and frustrating roadblocks to individuals seeking to file DMCA notices with Google. This may be one of the reasons why infringing material seems to stay up significantly longer on Google Video than other video sharing sites.
Grade: D

Format: Email
Email Address: CR-agent at metacafe dot com
Location of Policy: Copyright Policy
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: Metacafe keeps it simple. Their policy is clean, simple and covers all of the bases. It offers all of the needed information, save details on filing a counter-notice, and is offered as a link at the footer of every single page. The only thing that is exceptional about their policy is that you are directed to send notices to the VP of Content and Marketing, Daniel Sevitt, rather than to either the counsel or their abuse team. Perhaps they do not get as many notices as other video sharing sites. Regardless though, their policy seems to be in order and hits all of the right notes. There is very little not to like about it.
Grade: B+

Format: Email
Email Address: support at break-inc dot com
Location of Policy: Item Seventeen, Terms of Use
Registered with USCO: Yes (outdated)
Comments: Inconsistency is a major problem with Break. Their USCO registration has users email their notices to jeff at jsuto dot com where their terms of service, the most up to date information, has it going to the address above. They’ve also buried their policy deep within their terms of use, literally making it one of the last items covered. Other than the odd location, the policy is complete, providing good instructions on filing a notice and, though it lacks any information on a counter-notice, it seems to follow the letter of the law.
Grade: C

Format: Email
Email Address: US-notification at dailymotion dot com
Location of Policy: Copyright Notification Policy
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: As a French site, Dailymotion is not necessarily bound by the DMCA. That is why it is so interesting that they do so and do it very closely, putting their policy proudly at the footer of every page. Their copyright policy is straight to the point, covering all of the basics, though omitting information about a counter-notice, and offering an easy email address to send in complaints too. Strangely missing from the Web version of their policy is any physical address, however, a glance at the USCO registration shows why, their physical address is in Paris and their fax number is also international. All in all, they took what could have been a difficult copyright situation and made it very simple. However, with the rules for notice and takedown the in EU being so relaxed, one might say that Dailymotion is actually setting the bar too high. However, I would argue they strike a good balance, using a system that should already be familiar with most American rightsholders while protecting their users from frivolous complaints.
Grade: B

Format: Email
Email Address: copyrightnotice at ifilm dot com
Location of Policy: Copyright Compliance Policy
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: Having already looked at YouTube’s DMCA policy, we now get to look at how this Viacom-owned video sharing site follows the law itself. The policy itself is robust to a fault. Clearly written by attorneys it is the lengthiest of the DMCA policies in this section and can best be described as wordy. However, it is very complete, containing detailed information on filing a notice, counter notice and a lengthy policy for dealing with repeat infringers. Though weak in organization and hard to read, it more than gets the job done. Viacom is also generous enough to place the link to the policy on every page in the footer, and offer all of the major forms of contact to reach the host, email, fax and postal mail. However, not much in this policy goes above and beyond what is required by the law itself. It gets the job done, but other than its convenient location, does not do a great deal to help copyright holders out.
Grade: B-

Format: Email/Form
Email Address: steven at revver dot com
Location of Policy: Copyright Information
Registered with USCO: Yes
Comments: Revver’s DMCA policy is so short that, on first read, you think you missed it. It’s a few short sentences about how Revver supports copyright all followed by an invitation and address to postal mail your DMCA complaint in. There is no instruction on filing a notice, no email address, no fax, no counter-notice information, just a lengthy explanation about Creative Commons Licensing, fair use and remix culture. Important information, to be certain, but not helpful to someone seeking to stop non-transformative use of their work. With a little more digging, you find you can use their contact form to send a DMCA notice, but it is not a form designed for the purpose, instead, it is just a regular email form, the same used to send help requests and feedback. To find more practical information, you have to look at their USCO filing, which has their email address and fax number. Does this policy follow the law? Probably. But it seems openly hostile toward copyright notices and gives me an overall uncooperative feeling.
Grade: C-

Conclusions

Compared to the social news sites, the video sharing sites are a breath of fresh air. It is clear that the difficult legal climate they operate in has, for the most part, pushed them to follow the DMCA very closely and encouraged them to work with copyright holders in good faith.

Of the seven reviewed, none failed, Google was the only “D” and the others were varying degrees of acceptable.

One interesting twist in this evaluation was that Youtube’s DMCA policy is much more forward-thinking than the policy on Viacom’s iFilm site. Though Viacom’s policy is more than complete, its complexity and lack of rightsholder-friendly tools put it far behind YouTube. As a rightsholder, I would much rather work with YouTube.

Though YouTube as well as sites like it might have their DMCA safe harbor protections called into question for other reasons, there is little doubt on most of these sites, save Google Video, comply with the intent of the law and have good, ethical practices for working with copyright holders.

After seeing how poorly other sites perform in this area, any problems or complaints I have about their policies is mere nitpicks.

What the Ratings Mean

A – A complete policy that goes well above and beyond what is required. Often shows real innovation.
B – A solid policy that is well-thought out and is very complete. Shows consideration for submitters and users.
C – An average policy, follows the law to the letter but doesn’t go out of its way to help those submitting a notice or its users.
D – A policy that, while mostly complete, still raises severe ethical and/or legal questions.
F – An incomplete policy that fails to follow the DMCA or local laws in a severe way.

Pluses or minuses are used to indicate how the where a host fits in relationship to other hosts in that that tier.

Up Next: Blog Hosting Companies (Note: I know that the blog hosting article was scheduled to run this week, it will be running next week instead. I am sorry for the confusion but I am working to compile more information for the blog hosting article.)