• Light/Dark
  • Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

YouTube says it won’t negotiate with the YouTubers Union

Seneset

Seneset

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,072
Limbus Patrum
Volimar said:
There are content creators. Not everyone is Logan Paul. If TV and movie writers, actors, and directors get to have a guild, why shouldn't the people behind Youtube channels? Some of these channels employ a dozen people or more who spend a great deal of time and effort creating content. And right now Youtube can act fairly arbitrarily in deciding to demonetize or remove videos. They should get to have some protections.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The problem is not that they shouldn't or couldn't have one but rather the guild or union is literally in no position of power to do anything. I'd assume legally youtubers are closer to independent contractors - freelancers than any type of traditional labor. In the US, I have no doubt this has already been investigated when Google first started sending out 1099-MISC forms and the IRS saw people making either the majority or a large sum of their money from youtube. I don't much EU law, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's similar (correct me if I'm wrong).

If the Feds are saying they're not employees how can this be anything but an uphill and most likely loosing battle?
 
Volimar

Volimar

volunteer forum janitor
Member
Oct 25, 2017
38,317
Seneset said:
The problem is not that they shouldn't or couldn't have one but rather the guild or union is literally in no position of power to do anything. I'd assume legally youtubers are closer to independent contractors - freelancers than any type of traditional labor. In the US, I have no doubt this has already been investigated when Google first started sending out 1099-MISC forms and the IRS saw people making either the majority or a large sum of their money from youtube. I don't much EU law, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's similar (correct me if I'm wrong).

If the Feds are saying they're not employees how can this be anything but an uphill and most likely loosing battle?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


For sure. My post was mostly at the snickering "content creators" posts.
 
Razgriz417

Razgriz417

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,105
Omegasquash said:
There should be. If content creators started putting their stuff elsewhere, the masses would go.

It can't be one or two...it has to be a lot. AVGN flirted with it and it didn't seem to go over very well, IIRC.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
too cost prohibitive, as mentioned Google still loses money on YT, good luck trying to launch an alternative, let alone pay content creators
 

Mr. Robot

Member
Oct 30, 2017
499
I wish them luck, but i dont see how this could work out for them, they aren't employees, and they choose to be on youtube, not the other way around.

Even as much as they would like to be seen as YT content creators, they are just "YT users" to them.
 
thewienke

thewienke

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,928
Unlike Hollywood and their content, the barrier of entry for new YouTube channels is incredibly small so the likelihood of scabs seems pretty huge. There's nothing to physically stop non guild members from making their own channels with very little money and YouTube creators aren't beholden to a larger system of "elites" to create order like Hollywood.

I also can't imagine unionizing content creators that are absolutely physically decentralized unlike Hollywood, New York, Atlanta, and Vancouver.

It's not that I don't support their efforts. The logistics just seem damning from the outset.
 
Syriel

Syriel

Banned
Dec 13, 2017
11,088
The problem with a "YouTuber Union" is that the creators are basically management. YouTube is just an exhibitor.

If you want to compare to Hollywood, YouTube is the equivalent of the theater chains and every content creator is an individual, competing studio.

The few that sell direct to YouTube end up on Red.

Everyone else gets a standard revenue split for their finished product. Often times those finished products don't even cover costs for YT. A handful do extremely well for YT and the creator.

The challenge with YouTube is that you can't just be a creator. If you think of yourself as just a video editor, you're not going to make it. You have to take on the role of studio head, do marketing, do PR, oversee production, etc.
 
Omegasquash

Omegasquash

Member
Oct 31, 2017
6,160
enzo_gt

enzo_gt

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,299
abellwillring said:
It might be their way to earn a living but it isn't their job. Youtube isn't their boss at least. I'm not a pro-company kind of person usually but I am in this case.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
What century is this?

Since when do you need a boss to have a job?

Can't imagine how out of touch you gotta be to mock people who make a living off of content creation/instagram when it's been a multimillion dollar industry for a decade, and shows no signs of going anywhere. If anything, it's decently recession-proof as well.
 
abellwillring

abellwillring

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,916
Austin, TX
enzo_gt said:
What century is this?

Since when do you need a boss to have a job?

Can't imagine how out of touch you gotta be to mock people who make a living off of content creation/instagram when it's been a multimillion dollar industry for a decade, and shows no signs of going anywhere. If anything, it's decently recession-proof as well.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There's a difference between a job and a profession. A job is something given to you by someone else. If you don't have an employer, you don't have a "job." But it's all beside the point -- Youtube is not these people's employer by any stretch of the imagination and they really have absolutely zero ground to stand on.
 
Nacho

Nacho

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,108
NYC
WascallyWabbit said:
Huh, that's interesting. What's the precedent for unions formed around users of a platform as opposed to actual workers?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's pretty disingenuous to believe that the top 'users' of a video content platform aren't specifically working to make the site money. I'd even say any person or company that makes a living through YouTube contebt...They're essentially contracted employees but would never be viewed that way by YouTube and have no rights similar to them. It's not like Facebook where you're just a user using the site as a tool and giving nothing of value other than data and being served ads. These people aren't just a customer. A union is great idea .
 

Coyote Zamora

alt account
Banned
Jul 19, 2019
766
Volimar said:
There are content creators. Not everyone is Logan Paul. If TV and movie writers, actors, and directors get to have a guild, why shouldn't the people behind Youtube channels? Some of these channels employ a dozen people or more who spend a great deal of time and effort creating content. And right now Youtube can act fairly arbitrarily in deciding to demonetize or remove videos. They should get to have some protections.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
They don't work for YouTube.

They have zero legs to stand on, they make money at the whim and graciousness of Google which they agreed to when they signed up. Monetization is just an incentive they get to use the platform. If they don't like how they're being treated I'm sure they will be invited to go elsewhere. I don't even think they own the content on YouTube.

They have even less bargaining power than ride share drivers.
 
WascallyWabbit

WascallyWabbit

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,397
Nacho said:
It's pretty disingenuous to believe that the top 'users' of a video content platform aren't specifically working to make the site money. I'd even say any person or company that makes a living through YouTube contebt...They're essentially contracted employees but would never be viewed that way by YouTube and have no rights similar to them. It's not like Facebook where you're just a user using the site as a tool and giving nothing of value other than data and being served ads. These people aren't just a customer. A union is great idea .
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

But that's what I'm asking, in terms of precedent I'm not sure what other cases historically there have been of a customer/user and a content provider and revenue generator. Youtube has gotten to a point where they're THE streaming medium, with no competitors even close, as others in this thread have pointed out.

It seems to me it's almost like website creators unionizing against AWS or a web-hosting service.

I'm not arguing the morality of it, they should do what they can with whatever leverage they can muster but it just seems like real shaky ground to stand on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.