Is Youtube and Vimeo ok

[roxics]

Over the years I've seen a lot of indie filmmakers put their films up on these sites. But I've stay off of them because of language like this in their TOS

Except as otherwise provided herein, any and all comments, suggestions, ideas, graphics, videos, content, data and other information that you transmit to VIMEO through the Services (each, a "Submission") shall remain your sole and exclusive property, and you shall be solely responsible for your Submission and the consequences of posting or publishing it. By submitting your Submission to VIMEO, you hereby grant VIMEO and its affiliates, successors and assigns a worldwide, perpetual, non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free, sub-licensable (through multiple tiers) and transferable license (with a right to create derivative works) to use, copy, transmit or otherwise distribute, perform, modify, incorporate into other works, publicly perform and display your Submission or any portion thereof, in or through any medium, whether now known or hereafter created. VIMEO shall be entitled to unrestricted use of any Submission for any purpose whatsoever, commercial or otherwise, without compensation to the submitter.

So in other words, I still own it, but they can use it any way they want including making money off of it without having to pay me anything in return?

So why do indies even put their films on these sites?

 

[Richard J. Johnson]

Good point. Although I have never heard of either site making money for themselves off of a film. It may happen. If you post your film on Vimeo or Youtube then I would assume you really do not intend to make money from that film. If you can watch the entire film for free why would anyone pay for it?

Posting a short is great promotion. If it is any good.

 

[Kirk Gillock]

Technically sites like YouTube make money from all the videos submitted. Without video content on the site there wouldn't be any visitors and without visitors there wouldn't be any advertising revenue for the site. So when a video becomes popular then that video can bring in a lot of traffic and a lot of $$$ for the site. But the filmmaker will see nothing. Fair? Depends on what the filmmaker wants from the relationship. If they just want to be seen then they'll probably be satisfied. But if they want money then they're going to be sadly disappointed (unless a producer sees their video and wants to pay them to make a full length feature).

Legalese like what you posted is scary but it's just the sacrifice (risk) of getting your work seen. Very few sites have an audience potential like that of YouTube so filmmakers will post their work in hopes that it will get noticed and open some doors. Would it suck if YouTube or Vimeo sold their videos and didn't pay the filmmaker? Sure. But I doubt that will happen and until there's a profit sharing system for web traffic on sites like YouTube then there isn't much filmmakers can do to get their work seen and get paid for it (online).

 

[ConspiracyPenguin]

Stuff like that is scary, but you have to do what you have to do to get your stuff out there. If you can host it yourself with a disclaimer/copyright notice, you're safer, but will it receive the same attention? Probably not.

Weigh the pros and cons.