The Great Monetization Discussion

[Helequin]

Something else that hasn't been brought up just yet in terms of fair use/art and so on:

In general, in seems like society as a whole considers anything additive (reaction videos, commentary, tutorials) as something that is value added. Original works using existing art as a basis for parts, or completely re-done in the style of are also generally considered legitimate art (cover songs, photo manipulation art starting with a stock photo but having many original elements).

Video is a strange one, because suddenly a new work can be created almost entirely through editing and remixing, with a comparatively small amount of added material. I think society struggles with whether this is art or not, or is it just technical editing?

Obviously, there should be some nuance there. Taking several clips and gluing them together with little thought is probably not going to fulfill most people's idea of significant art. But when the edit gives the entire production its own feel, cadence and story like many of the well made CH videos, that to me is obviously art and a project with added value.

I think there is still a difference in how the law/courts may see a CH compared to a reaction video though in terms of fair use. The reaction video is fairly easy to make, but the main feature and draw to the audience is watching the personality react and not the original work. A CH video's main feature remains the original video content. The editing and art makes it into something new, absolutely, but there may be people who see it a little like claiming a painting in a very nice, custom made frame is a new work.

Editing as it's own art form seems to be something we're still working out. But music remixes and composite photographs are often seen as legitimate art - though they usually also have to use licensed content/pay royalties/etc. for legitimate commercial enterprise.

[Cybertoad]

My thoughts: In category

A:
Youtube, I have a monetized channel And I get paid when I release my material. Some is not always mine. As it is with graphics and such everything can be said copyrighted. But I read up on work and such, and at times will twist and modify to create my own work. ( its business related). But given that view YTubers do what charging here does and many have patrions.

B: I had to recover my account here. But not new even no it shows it. I actually participated in some of the early beta.
But unlike YT, this forum looks at community or it used to. And what is it we are actually sharing ? A place to share? Or a place to buy?

C:
CH's are a work of art. Its that simple. And well all these adult tube sites seldom ever have the quality that you see in the ppl here that produce. Its a work of passion over a work for cash in MV here. But why work for free.

D: I think low buys will attract more viewers. I can rents movie for maybe 4.99 to 12.99 so for me thats a sweet spot.
Also if in subscription ppl are apt to stay longer if its resonable.

Whats reasonable? I have no idea. Just some thoughts.

[lolol2]

To anyone who's on the fence about morality and legality, consider that reaction videos most of which (not all) are extremely low effort, and all of which make real money on youtube, are considered fair use and super duper legal.

I guess copyright works different in every country... for Germany, and I guess most/all EU countries too, the rules are very strict.
The owner of the content can take down or claim the profit for every reaction video with one click, there is no fair use for reactions in the EU copyright law... it's only accepted by most content creator that they don't went that step.

The only reason that porn is still a big piracy topic is that most porn sites/companies are registered in countries who don't give a fuck about copyright.

[samfishercarl]

For those who spend their time saying "I'll never pay to see a Cock Hero" let me explain the charges for making my latest Cock Hero:

- I have to pay a subscription to Adobe
- I had to pay for the videos and music (for ethical reasons)
- I also had to pay for the actresses' voices

PS: Cock hero video can be compared to mods in video games. Indeed, some moders who are passionate people make their work public for free, however some ask for donations to help them. Although they can't commercialise it as they use the files of a sold game.

I think donation is the future for Cock hero. A one time donation on small amounts like 1$ or 2$ via for example the ko-fi platform.

This is what I mean by I don't pay for porn. I mean I don't pay per view, like i wont pay $12.99 to view a video based on a thumbnail. But there are easily 10 creators I would gladly throw much more money that is not tied to specific videos as a donation just because of the pure quality of the content they put out I would like to see keep going. I just haven't seen a way of doing so listed on this site like a patrion or anything of that nature. I mean just for the audition series alone Pseudonym is on the list, I just haven't seen anywhere they or in reality any other high quality creators have linked a donation link. I think I can count the ones who do on two fingers let alone on one hand at any point in my time here.

[samfishercarl]

And I don’t like when authors are told that what they are doing is immoral.

I want to second this sentiment.

Third I fully support creators, and tbh everyone on this site or any other who is consuming their content doesn't have a leg to stand on to call them immoral, they are creating it I am the one busting a nut too it, if I thought them immoral what am I? I personally just don't want a CnD of the site or a takedown, Book Guy's MEGA libraries and such being targeted in the past gave me a bit of a pause that a user on this site was targeting the community back then and with the anti porn groups and such that are going after this side of the internet scattershot these days it always has me on edge going to a pay per view as those groups use that as a way of convincing studios and big companies to squash a site like this on their behalf. and to be completely transparent, personally I don't like paying per view because depending on the charge it looks suspicious as fuck to my SO on credit statement, porn sites they are ok with but PPV Porn charge lines could be anything from any site, any video or a camgirl site due to the anonymous nature of the charge line, the latter of which she is not ok with because she draws the line there.

[Andrus]

Would I pay for quality content? Yes

and...

Do I think the content here is quality? Yes, absolutely. Some of it is amazing.

but...

Is the quality content here partly based on illegally copied material? Yes

however...

Do I believe in intellectual property laws? No. Mostly not.

Honestly, I think paid content attracts legal attention that this community doesn't really want.

[Alex69]

Wow, 5 pages full of big chunks of text! I will read them carefully... when I feel more motivated (lol). I'm kidding, I've already read some of them.

My take on this: Voluntary donations are the way to go. That's my opinion.
Keep this interesting debate going!

[Larceny]

I just don’t like when authors are piled on in some of those threads. I don’t like when some people say they have no respect for work of CH authors. And I don’t like when authors are told that what they are doing is immoral.

I just want to discuss this briefly because I didn't see anyone else using the term "immoral" in that other thread, the Razorblade Mermaid thread. Maybe this wasn't a response to what I said, and if it wasn't, fair, I've jumped the gun; but I feel given the statement it's worth me clarifying just in case it was.

I don't think Supermassive's actions were immoral. My responses to Supermassive were focused on their decision regarding how to inform consumers of their commercial product — that was criticism. But there's nothing about Supermassive's actions that were immoral. Even in the context of assuming that their use of copyrighted works is not fair use (it isn't really immediately important, but I don't think any CH I've seen really rises to the level of being permitted by fair use), even if we assume that copyright violation is illegal, I don't think it's immoral. Hell, one day I might make my own PMV of some description, I acknowledge it'd almost certainly be an act of copyright violation, but I wouldn't do it if I considered it immoral.

I just don't consider violating copyright to be an immoral act in this context, of individuals remixing pornography for either free release or at most extremely limited commercial exploitation. If someone was making oodles of cash and actually significantly usurping the market of the original works, sure, but that's not what's going on here. In my opinion.

What was immoral was the actions of another user, promoting the idea that individuals should sell their belongings to purchase pornography if they could not afford it already. This isn't something Supermassive promoted, this was the action of someone else, and that's what I was referring to as immoral; that person wasn't an author of a creative work under discussion.

Pseudo, if I was the cause of any sort of distress for you, all I can do is offer you an unreserved apology. The creation of your art, Supermassive's art, and the sale of that art; none of this is in any way immoral. No matter what any law or court says.

[Pseudonym]

I appreciate the clerification @Larceny. I guess half of the issues is caused by misunderstanding. I didn't helped it by not including enough context. The immoral thing is something I've seen mentioned here couple of times over the years and something I was told privately. So I'm mixing my own piled up frustrations and taking it on other people who have nothing to do with it. I didn't meant to target you or anyone else and I appologize.

[JakofClubs]

Right now, CH videos have a shot at a fair use defense

No! That's an urban legend!
[/quote]

17 U.S.C. § 107

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.[/list]

Charging money for a CH video absolutely affects factor #1. Using small clips from many works may be more favorable under #3.

[Cybertoad]

Why Porn is immoral or not? Is with in the viewer.
But that said, what makes something Immoral?

If the store near me owners, lives a life I do not like. I can
Ignore it and keep shopping. Or Take my business elsewhere.

Charging for something, is not coercion.
If so what is the issue, you cant jerk off unless you pay?
Well there is trillions of videos that will accomplish that take.

That said, plagiarizing another work. Should result in a low charge.
I think that artist would have less and issue if the charge was not like that
of paid movie. Unless it was original content.

[A Ghoul Editor]

And I don’t like when authors are told that what they are doing is immoral.

I want to second this sentiment.

Third I fully support creators, and tbh everyone on this site or any other who is consuming their content doesn't have a leg to stand on to call them immoral, they are creating it I am the one busting a nut too it, if I thought them immoral what am I?

Watching porn is already immoral. But violating intellectual property law while watching porn is doubly immoral, your soul goes to the 10th circle of hell (that's from Dante's Inferno b-side, for the uncultured), where Lars Ulrich walks in on you while you're edging, and cums in your soda, forever.

[A Ghoul Editor]

See... what this forum really needs is mandatory viewing of Kirby Ferguson's "Everything is a Remix", before you're allowed to post an opinion about Cock Hero videos and PMVs, and intellectual property law.



tl;dw?
Basically, more art than you probably realize, is a remix.
Is that ok? Do you like it? Should these artists make money and how?
These are all interesting questions but they can't really be discussed until people understand the basic reality that:
1. Remixed art is and has always been ubiquitous.
2. Intellectual property law is fake, and to the degree that it hinders the creation of art, it is also morally bankrupt.

[CantoFan123]

Hey Pseudonym, I'm a huge fan of your work! Thank you for all the hours of effort.

Look, talk is cheap. You should ignore it. Let the people supporting you speak with their dollars.

If you are making enough money to justify continuing work on Replay, then listen to that signal. If you aren't making enough money, listen to that signal too.

But don't waste your time listening to randos on the internet.

You've already taken a huge leap by creating CH replay! Very few people have the courage to take that step without knowing what's on the other side.

Now you need to take a step back and look at the results. Are you happy with your creative side? Are you happy with the financial side? What is your best guess for how the financial side will change in the future? These are all you need to look at to decide whether to continue.

No one here can give you any better information.

[Helequin]

At risk of the point moving away from should creators here be able to monetize or not, something I want to say about intellectual property (IP) laws.

I've seen a few posts now suggesting that IP laws are fake, anti-art (or anti-small creator) and there mostly for the benefit of the large producers. IMHO, this is a very, very narrow view of things and ignores a lot of what's going on.

First off, IP laws aren't just copyright but also patent, industrial design, trademark and trade secrets. Many small designers, inventors and university research teams are absolutely reliant on IP law to get any credit or reward for their work. Without it, works of many types are extremely easy to copy or reverse engineer and produce (art among those works).

Likewise for artists, IP laws are what can stop others from simply copying your work and redistributing it, something which has become far easier to do in digital mediums.

Now yes, there are countless flaws to how these IP laws are actually implemented, enforced and used. As with most things legal, the side with the larger cash reserves and better lawyers has an advantage. Some entities will find ways around these laws or flout them openly, to the detriment of small artists. IP laws need work, no doubt. But I can pretty much guarantee individual artists and creators would be in a much worse place if they didn't exist at all.

All that said, IP law and opinion still struggle with remixes a lot. Yes, of course all art is built on what came before it and repeats the same ideas and themes over and over. We tend to think of an artist who looks at reference while creating differently to an artist who traces another work while creating differently to an artist who includes some part of another work as the base for their own. The distinction can quickly get fuzzy as to what is copying and what is original.

Even so, there is a difference between inspired by and copied/included. If, for example, I go and shoot some trope-filled, run of the mill porn video it's not an original idea no. But I still had to go out and create the work, employ models, videographers, editors and so on. Someone had to write the unoriginal, garbage script. Maybe you could even call the writing a 'copy' or so brain dead it doesn't count as art, but there was still original work done by the models and videographers to act and film the thing. It may not be very good art and it may not have evoked much thought, but it did go through a creation process.

Copying or including existing source work is different. There is no creation process to obtain that work because it was already made by someone else. The new creation begins with what is done from there, in how those existing works are collected, arranged and expanded on. There is no question to me remixing in this way can be original art, as original as any other art at least. But the creators of the original work should absolutely be credited in some form (not necessarily financially, but at very least with a listing of the original works in some form of credits).

Swinging back to be more on topic, I definitely think creators should be including opening or end credits for the scenes used in their creations, doubly so for those who wish to ask for donations or monetize. It's the decent thing to do, and it also helps with the 'CH is just free advertising' argument (which is extremely difficult to prove or disprove either way).

Yes, art absolutely repeats the same ideas over and over. But IMHO original art is not about having some never thought of before, universally original idea so much as it is a new, original expression (no matter how poor or uninspired it may be) of the ideas it contains. Copyright law is, in theory, meant to protect the expression of an artists work, not the ideas within it.

For CH creators, that means that the original expressions (videos) they draw on are protected and technically require permission to use. It would also mean that the creator's exact remix and edit of those works into a new video would also be protected. Honestly, as a basis for system that seems very fair.

The problems are often with how extraordinarily unwilling copyright holders are to allow their works to be used in the creation of new, derivative work. This is certainly sad and limits the potential of creators and artists, but it is no so much the copyright law at fault as the attitudes of the copyright holders.

So, new, totally realistic and workable plan :
Start a porn studio to shoot high quality, ethically made content which is willing to license that content for use in other creations in return for credit and the advertising value of those creations.