The Great Monetization Discussion

[DildoBaggins]

New user but I've been lurking here for years. Technically not the place for it, but I wanted to throw out a massive amount of appreciation for everyone making content. I'd go through every thread and provide my appreciation there, but that became a whole debacle last time xD.

As someone who's never posted I don't feel right weighing in on how this community should handle charging for works/donations/whatever. That said, I like being able to support people who make stuff I like. Whether that sort of financial support has a place here isn't for me to say.

On the topic of donations, I've found with music (and probably for most hobbies) that it works well enough. The masses may download something for free given the chance, or in the case of a pay-what-you-want model, intentionally input "I will pay zero dollars for this", but surprisingly there are also a ton of people who will throw you a couple bucks, and a few more who will, in my estimation, overpay. I'm talking someone paying $20 for a tape that cost 2 bucks to make and that I normally sell for $5. I myself have thrown a couple extra bucks at music I liked and felt was worth more than the asking price.

I am also highly sympathetic to the ungodly amount of time it takes to become proficient with software, to find material, and to edit it all together. Legality aside for a moment, that sort of effort is worthy of at least a free cup of coffee now and then as far as I'm concerned.

As I try to think about this, I guess I don't know where I stand. There's a definite issue of using copyrighted materials. I've used samples I didn't clear myself, but I also didn't charge and knew if a takedown notice came through that I'd have to take it on the chin, pull it down, and re-release it without the offending sample. I've never run into any trouble, but that doesn't mean I'm not violating someone else's right to control the distribution and use of their IP.

I guess I'm torn between wanting to support those who are producing CH's and also wanting to respect the rights of IP holders.

[noblepaladin]

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.

I think there is a difference between imitating beats in a song, imitating a painting, copying a joke, and using someone else's porn. It would be one thing if I were to try to re-enact a popular porn scene and take six cocks in order to do it. But it's another to simply use the actual porn video with someone else naked on it. There is a reason why the porn star is paid that large paycheck. It's taboo to appear naked on film having sex. It's not like sex is some special thing that nobody else can do. Tons of girls can do it, just that very few want to be in a porno. Basically, 100% of the value is appearing naked, and using that scene in a compilation, PMV, etc is basically taking all the value.

There is something amiss if I use various scenes with a total of 20 different girls getting pounded by 40 different cocks and I think that I am the one that did the hardest work and I am the only one who should be paid. I wouldn't want to be in a court room and have those girls on the other side of the aisle saying they didn't agree to appear naked in my video. I don't think many juries would side with me.

[Leiasolo]

I have no problem with a creator monetizing their work.

There may be legal risks in doing so with the derivative works that CH videos represent. Those risks should be assumed by the creator doing the monetizing, not by the community or by milovana.com. As such, I respectfully request that if you wish to monetize your work, please don't involve milovana.com or the community in your distribution. I suspect advertisement here would be fine though. My recommendation to the admins(if they wish to support such content) is to create a special section of the forums/website for monetized content ads and silo everything in that area. If you get any blowback, you can likely just eliminate that silo.

All of that said, I personally am unlikely to pay for monetized work. Porn with no monetary cost is plentiful, why pay when there's literally a universe full of substitutes. I do not begrudge a creator who wants to monetize, and I greatly appreciate those who have provided content thus far with non-monetary motivations(Whether it be passion, name recognition, etc.). However, that's just me. Others will have different opinions. So to the creators that want to monetize, I say go for it, and let the market dictate. If you're successful, the market has spoken, congratulations. If you're not, the market has spoken, and I'm sorry it didn't work out for you. In the end, you don't need my permission, or approval, or backing. What you need is the entrepreneurial spirit and willingness to take a risk. Explore different models: crowdfunding, donations, ppv streaming, pay to download, streaming site subscription, etc.

[Leiasolo]

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.

I think there is a difference between imitating beats in a song, imitating a painting, copying a joke, and using someone else's porn. It would be one thing if I were to try to re-enact a popular porn scene and take six cocks in order to do it. But it's another to simply use the actual porn video with someone else naked on it. There is a reason why the porn star is paid that large paycheck. It's taboo to appear naked on film having sex. It's not like sex is some special thing that nobody else can do. Tons of girls can do it, just that very few want to be in a porno. Basically, 100% of the value is appearing naked, and using that scene in a compilation, PMV, etc is basically taking all the value.

There is something amiss if I use various scenes with a total of 20 different girls getting pounded by 40 different cocks and I think that I am the one that did the hardest work and I am the only one who should be paid. I wouldn't want to be in a court room and have those girls on the other side of the aisle saying they didn't agree to appear naked in my video. I don't think many juries would side with me.

This all boils down to whether CH falls under "fair use". Think Weird Al parodies. He's basically "stolen" the music completely and even to a large degree the cadence and rhyming pattern of the lyrics. He's just changed the actual words. He does this for commercial use. In the case of CH, I think the key factors will be:

• whether the beats and the editing are considered "transformative" enough
  • Totally up for argument, can see this going either way
• the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
  • Will vary greatly by the production, some CH videos use tons of source material and only a small portion from each, others just re-cut few source materials using a large percentage of the source material
• the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work
  • Might be able to argue that CH actually acts as marketing for the original source material, but will probably need to back up such a claim with hard data

[Larceny]

This all boils down to whether CH falls under "fair use". Think Weird Al parodies. He's basically "stolen" the music completely and even to a large degree the cadence and rhyming pattern of the lyrics. He's just changed the actual words. He does this for commercial use.

Let me stop you right there. You've gotta slam the brakes on that line of thought.

Firstly, Weird Al doesn't even sample what he parodies. The performance, one of the two key domains of any given recorded musical work, is entirely new. If you commit copyright violation for replicating a music album, you're copying the performance, that's what you're getting sued over.

Secondly, Weird Al doesn't just rely on the fact that his works are fair use to avoid legal repercussions for his parodies. He asks the artists he parodies for permission, and to my reading of his FAQ, he implies he pays out a "rightful share" of the royalties (though he only strictly refers to his own share there). He may or may not need to, as far as I know he's never been sued to it's impossible to know for sure — remember, fair use is a defence against copyright violation torts, it isn't a right that permits the use. If you're relying on fair use, you already have committed copyright violation, the question becomes if your use is defensible as fair use.

There's also zero reason for the "it's free marketing!" argument to ever work out. I'm pretty sure that's probably been tried in the past. "The effect of the use upon the potential market" doesn't mean "does this make the work more marketable or popular", it means "has the violation usurped the original work's market and thus taken all the money that would have otherwise gone to the owner of the original work's copyright". And let's be real, in a scenario where these PMVs were mainstream, the answer would be obviously yes; people are masturbating to the PMVs instead of the original works.

[Helequin]

The above post makes some key points. I wasn't sure if Weird Al did license the material her parodies or not, but it totally makes sense that he does. And a license can just be permission, it doesn't always imply a cash purchase.

The other element here is parody specifically has some special consideration in copyright and fair use laws, especially parody in a comedic form or with elements of social commentary. If a parody is purely for commercial gain, then the protections are less certain. In short, non-precise terms there's recognition parody relies on remaking of the source to work to exist and therefore has more leeway in claiming fair use.

Interestingly, satire does not have these special considerations. While similar, satire can be a stand alone work and does not require original source material.

As for the 'free marketing' argument, yeah it's a messy one. And even if a work is effectively free marketing which adds to the originals sales, it can still violate copyright law. Where this becomes a head trip is, the creation might be illegal and violate copyright law, but potentially have caused no damages or loss to the original owner which can be sued for. I'm sure there's some case history of that sort of thing, but I am not familiar with it.

[gynephilos]

As a creator, I don't want money. It would take exorbitant amount of money to cover true costs, most of which is human work, as in time spent staring the mixer and the video editing software. Handling the money would also be too much work.

On the other hand, I won't pay for porn. Some people will. Sometimes good things come out of monetization, sometimes it's an ugly cash grab. I have to say, though, that one of the best features of Milovana has always been the non-commercial nature of the site and the creators.

[zebbg69]

Think Weird Al parodies. He's basically "stolen" the music completely and even to a large degree the cadence and rhyming pattern of the lyrics. He's just changed the actual words. He does this for commercial use.

Not only does Weird Al (usually) have the permission of the original authors, as others have pointed out, but he also pays them royalties(*) through ASCAP and other music unions. Every single time your favorite musician covers someone else's song (let alone digitally resamples it, parodies it, or mashes it up), they pay royalties (often indirectly, through the performance venue), every time the song is played. The music industry has that worked out through contractual arrangements and a serious legal infrastructure. In fact, once artists sign over their work to ACSAP, they give up their right to stop others from using their material (because that's the whole point, to get your material reused! There are a few technical exceptions...). Think how much friction there would be if every use required individual authorization! That's the bargain: they bulk-authorize other artists to create derivative works, in exchange for having the union aggressively collect royalties.

You can't use examples from the music industry to reason about other industries that don't have this kind of infrastructure. In the CH world, you are stuck dealing with each video work as a one-off negotiation.

The fact that the music industry evolved this privately-based infrastructure just shows that there is huge demand for derivative works among all parties--creators, audience, and derivative-creators. It's a very expensive infrastructure though, so it can only take shape where the revenue stream is nice & juicy. Cock Hero too is nice & juicy but not in the revenue stream.

(*) Little footnote here: It's complicated. If he changes the song enough, it's a different song and not subject to royalties. Lots of lawyers here, again very complex and expensive infrastructure which is why CH/porn does not have it.

[spaisin]

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.

Dunno if I'm actually implied here, but I felt that. So, I started drafting a proper response, but the topic covers so much ground that I'll condense it to couple points.

As I think we're off-topic, spoiler - carry on if not interested

Spoiler: show

"Fake"; they're very real, they couldn't be harmful if they weren't.
"Anti-art/artist"; not really; Anti-rights, absolutely.

No, it's not just hypebole.

Patent 'rights' ban me from creating certain shapes of steel and selling them. Whether or not I know the library that describes the forbidden patterns. This is the simplest case, but the same principle applies all the way down to copyright. The "right" is merely a limitation on my rights, and yours, based on a piece of data somewhere.

"Narrow"; no. Operating from a lower starting point. Basically carefully examining the claim that these laws are necessary. The main question being, "how would the world work without these laws?" "Surprisingly similar" is what I'd guess.

What would we lose if not for IP?
Nothing in the category "Necessary". Any necessary thing would be created for its actual value, and the "duplication" of it would be left for those best suited for it. All the Necessary things being made by the people who produce the "most superlative" versions of it? Yes please.

Not a whole lot in the category "Popular arts". Funding for things would shift, but if things are actually popular, they'll be getting the attention required for funding. (If not, that's the same marketing problem as currently, not solved by IP rights.)

Not a whole lot in the category of "unpopular arts"; most things in this category are not getting funding as is, due to being unpopular. None of the hobbyists would be affected in any way.


On the other side, some practicalities:
Patents: A major monopolization factor. Large players in a given field are leaving each other alone as no army of lawyers could sort out their cross-dependencies. But if any new player appears, the established players have the ability to offer them a deal: "Either we buy you and your IP, or we take you to court until you're bankrupt. How does a dollar sound?"
And a major dis-optimization factor; if you're the only one with the rights to make a drug, you can charge what you like. Need an "electric-ink-display" for your "what-not-gadget"? ... yeah, no, you'll have to wait 25 years, as we're not giving you the right to use one. Why? That's not a limiting factor in our 'right', so, that's why.

Copyright: massive amounts of effort (comp sci, processing power, police, lawyer) spent on policing what are essentially "small crooks", destroying plenty of possibilities for secure public file-sharing (mega's historical struggle), demanding centralized controls for p2p social media platforms just to enable takedowns, etc, etc.

[yaspfa]

I see a lot of comparisons to the music industry where the entire discussion seems to be focused on the video material being used.

Don't forget that most (all?) CH have (copyrighted) music in them as well, so we're not just talking about the licensing of the porn being used, but you'll have to pay the music artists as well. Don't forget that the original Guitar Hero (where the whole idea originated anyway) also has a lot of licensed music, and the royalties on those songs aren't cheap.

As for fair use in for instance reaction/review youtube videos, this is using short snippets of the original material, but most of the content is 'original' as in, the maker of the video talking with their own background. So perhaps 90% of such a video would be 'original' and 10% would be copyrighted clips. Most CHs do not even manage to get 10% 'own creation' in the form of title screens or transitions screens, the rest is copyrighted.

You would not be allowed to publish a 90 minutes movie by hacking up and gluing together 30 second clips from 180 different movies. And most CH movies use far longer clips from far fewer videos.

[indyc]

Though I got my "Milovana start" on CHs, my perspective will come primarily from the webtease department. They joy I have received from certain CH projects definitely warrants my donation.

I keep hearing people talking about some large projects taking 100 hours to make, Trials of the Succubi has put me well over 2000 hours at this point and counting. Granted, a big chunk of that time is spent cleaning up the code to fit Milovana limits or discussing with people who actually know how to program.

I originally started the project thinking that it could make a decent Patreon considering how much effort and ridiculous amount of content I was going to put in each new release. However, though I don't know what diogaoo makes, I have never seen a single creator's income manage much at all from purely Milovana content. To all those who talk about donations being the best for everyone - It does not appear to be so for the creator side. Ritewriter created something exceptional with Evil Stepmommy, continued to update it, and didn't get a single donation and has since given up the donation system.

Sure, what Milo creators make is not 100% new content but I argue that the experience of their creation is often 100% unique. Without more financial or vocal support than they currently get, I honestly believe we are missing out on potential works of art. It's simply not worth it for creators to make something truly special.

Making a tease/something unique was more fun than I expected but it sure isn't THAT much fun compared to other hobbies. Without monetization for even a small fraction of my time, I don't have much reason to execute all the ideas for projects I have.

My next prototype game has been in beta testing with a select few and I do plan to monetize it in a unique system. My current plan is that while the game will be fully free, Patreon members can "commission" future content of the free game by a single month of membership. After the content it is added, it is up to them to maintain their membership or not.

Thanks to all the creators out there! There are some of you I should have reached out to long ago.

[Helequin]

Donations are definitely...inconsistent. There are certainly success stories out there in the world of mainstream creators (think the game Dwarf Fortress), but they don't bring stability or any guarantee.

The idea of having a donation/commission compensate the creator for making a certain amount of content, which is then made part of the larger, free creation is a really interesting one. Hopefully it will be successful. It may have a shot of bridging that gap between allowing creators to get something for their work but not turn it into an entirely commercial enterprise with unlicensed content.

Another common system I actually haven't seen brought up here yet is monetizing early access. So, donations allow for getting the content 1 month, 2 months or whatever it is earlier than the free public release.

All that said, no matter how much I believe creators deserve credit and compensation for their work I also think there has to be some separation between passion project and business endeavor. The two can overlap for sure, but anything I would only do if it makes me money is no longer a passion project or hobby IMHO. At the same time, it's very easy to have passion projects we simply can't afford to get to because we need to pay the bills which doesn't leave enough time/money/energy for that project. There's a difference between I will only do this to make money and I would love to do this, maybe I will make some money.

I'm honestly not surprised some of these projects clock into the 100s and 1000s of hours. And as a hobby or artistic endeavor it is probably very nice for creators to not have to worry about all the requirements that setting up a business takes. At the same time, this does make me wonder about something. This is meant as a thought experiment for creators to consider.

At the point where you are pushing 1000s of hours into this work, why not consider going all in either as a passion or a business? The overhead to produce high quality photography or video is the lowest it's ever been. What could you create if you learned photography/videography or worked with local talent either professional or amateur? What possibilities open up by having the opportunity to shoot the exact content you want and the rights to that content?

Many practical considerations to the above questions of course, especially in anything pornographic (record keeping). But I honestly believe they are worth considering given the huge amounts of time creators are already investing. There is a lot of very good amateur talent out there, eager to create and learn. Collaborating on projects and making those connections can be the hard part.

[desertfox]

I haven't written anything here yet and I guess it's because I don't have any strong opinions on it. The one thing I do know though is that opening the door to a marketplace in a community never does well. I've seen it a bunch of times, the last ones I saw was the oculusnsfw and vamscenes reddits. They are just scrolling advertisements now and there is zero discussion. Vamscenes is more relevant here because it would start the same, enthusiasts doing intense and hard work, then welcoming them rightfully getting donations and pay for the really great work they do, a very easy thing to do. The monetization I've seen on the site so far has all come from creators that go above and beyond and have put out a ton of free stuff already, it's super easy to encourage an help them out because they deserve it.

Where communities can go downhill though is that the low quality vultures start in spam posting junk for the same price as work from a top rate and known creator. The moderation gets out of control, every week is a new super long thread with people bitching about low effort paywall content filling up the forum, and before you know it the forum is a wall of crap with no discussion what so ever.

I don't see it coming to that here though, it feels too niche for it to be an issue. And really what I want is to see the top creators here running paterons or some other thing to the degree of success I see some of the renpy authors putting in. I think the big stoppers is just the use of copyright as people have debated.

Honestly i'm not surprised the porn studios don't offer up their content for cheap in bulk. I know in the like 2000's I a guy that worked for some guy ripping porn videos off dvds. The owner would buy the rights to distribute them for dirt cheap and then rip and put them up on sites and charge a lot for access and was making money hand over first. I am going to guess that since companies like mindgeek made their fortune by stealing content and offering it for free via streaming they maybe don't want to hand it out like they used to.

Still I do feel like the rate porn studios churn content that the value of scenes must drop exponentially as time passes, so why not resell the rights, would really open the door for people to reuse the content in a lot of other ways.

[zebbg69]

Still I do feel like the rate porn studios churn content that the value of scenes must drop exponentially as time passes, so why not resell the rights, would really open the door for people to reuse the content in a lot of other ways.

+1

[throwawayacct]

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

The gist of it all right here.

Start as a place for people to exchange money for content, and a target will appear on this site very quickly.