The Secrets of Youtube Success - by Freddie Wong

[LbSand]

Do you know the moment when Freddy Wong skyrocketed from what he was to who he is? When he did a Call of Duty fan film.

Before that, he was using names of popular video games as the title of his material.

Do you know what that's called? Using someone's intellectual Property without permission. These aren't spoofs, they clearly serve the intellectual property's identifier in the heading of the video.

Have you ever heard of Walk Off The Earth? Did you hear of them BEFORE they covered GOTYE'S Someone That I used to know?

Yeah, me either.

Use whatever word you want for it, but he is using someone's already popular intellectual property to boost his profile. Doesn't matter if he makes money off of it, it's the free sample sitting outside of a bakery: you get sample, you like sample, you walk into the bakery to purchase.

I didn't say I feel it was right or wrong, either. I'll do it.

I honestly don't care about Freddie Wong or what was his rapid success trigger. I'm commenting on the content of the article, which I still believe is a valid plan - make quality content that is shareable, market it to the niche, do it consistantly, and do it for an extended period.

Do you disagree with that statement?

Parody, while a flexible term, is not a violation of IP in its truest form. Whether what Freddie does is an actual parody is debatable. So let's play that out, when Saturday Night Live does a skit based on a movie is that violating the IP rights of the movie's creators? When a blogger writes a scathing review of said movie which gets picked up and passed around, is that violating the film's IP rights? Or when something is placed in the public lexicon does it become able to be commented on? What mediums can commentary be limited to? IP law is an incredibly murky area.

On the specific subject of a call of duty video, tagging content in a search index (including youtube titles) would be a stretch to assign as a challenge to someone's IP. I can create a web page titled "Call of Duty 4 can kiss my a$$". Did I violate their IP rights?

I would also say nothing in that video (I'm assuming first person shooter) is really different from concepts that have been established in FPS games that existed before. As a I said, commentary on a genre. Is it really any different than Scary Movie?

Covering a song and placing it to video isn't protected by that and is something that youtube is inconsistant in protecting. That is a different topic.

I'll couch the above comments with the fact that I wasn't as against SOPA as most people are and I feel that artists / companies should have complete control of their content. When you get into the realm of parody, things just become fuzzy.

 

[Kholi]

This is kind of a silly argument: he made his way by using other people's IP. There's no disputing that, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see it. You're talking about spoofs, fan films are not spoofs. You're taking someone's intellectual property and creating something out of it. If it was just "spoof" then people wouldn't get shut down for doing it. He got away with it.

As far as the content of the article: it's no brainer... nothing in there is enlightening. The most important thing to take away from it is the truth that he lays out several times...

Just because you do what the article says doesn't mean it will work out for you. Gary had a pretty solid point, I agree with him.

 

[LbSand]

It is silly because you are arguing about something that isn't the point of the conversation. Gary's point (as I understand it) was there was nothing usable in the article because Freddie did a parody / created a work derived from someone else's IP. I disagreed. Forrest for trees and all that. If the average person who comes to one of these boards asking how to generate income, views, or whatever from narrative content followed the general themes in that article they would have at least a shot. So why discredit it?

I don't think I disputed anything. I believe I said parody isn't a negative from an IP standpoint (the first amendment agrees with me). There is a distinct difference between derivative works, stealing someone's ip, and parody. I also said it could be debated whether Freddie performed a parody or made a derivative work (IP infringement). I particularly feel the various Mario things they did are shady. The person who decides that is Nintendo. Obviously, they disagree. Again, that wasn't the point.

Who said if you do what the article says it will automatically work?

Just because you throw to the open receiver, it doesn't mean you will win the football game, but it is still pretty much a good idea.

Who said it was enlightening?

The point is that it is simple, but not easy, and not enough people put the required effort in. I would add the caveat about how many people put one short film on youtube and wonder why it didn't go "viral" as a potential indication that maybe it would be enlightening to some.