Do Jill Peterson And Kevin Heinz Deserve Some Chedda?

Posted by Ad Hustler | Posted in Doing Business | Posted on 31-07-2009

Content ownership and rights are a huge issue online.  The other day I spotlighted a video of a really unique entrance dance at a wedding.  Jill Peterson & Kevin Heinz decided to do this routine at their wedding.  Kevin’s father begged him to throw the video on to youtube so he could show some of his friends that weren’t at the wedding.  After that the rest is history and it became a viral phenomenon.

Google just did a blog post called “I Now Pronounce You Monetized: a YouTube Video Case Study.”  In the case study they highlight the use of their sophisticated content management tools to help rights holders control their content on Youtube.  I suppose a tool like this has a noble cause.  Since the wedding video used Cris Brown’s “Forever” youtube allowed the rights holder of the song to pop ads over the viral video to buy the single.  It was a huge success for Chris Browns team and rightfully so.  They created the song, they should get a cut of the proceeds.

The issue I have is that Jill & Kevin received nothing.  Of course, they don’t own the rights to the song, but they did create the video.  Uploading it to Youtube does forfeit a lot of your rights but I think that Chris Brown should do the right thing and give a cut of whatever is made off the video to Jill & Kevin.  Without them, the extra sales of the single would have never occurred.  Online rights is still a grey area but I think that this particular situation could set a precident for others.

What do you think?

Ad Hustler | Subscribe To Ad Hustler

Comments

  1. What you think Chris Brown is doing with all that extra cash? My guess is buying back Rihanna’s love and hopes she accepts his apology!

    In either case, they deserve something for all this work they did. IDK, maybe they will or something, you never know.

  2. I think they should – it should work in some what of a similar way to AdSense where the “publisher” gets a cut of the revenue for having it display on their creation or production. The more of a success it is, the more times it’s downloaded, watched, forwarded etc… the more revenue for all to share. I’m not sure that most people need an more of an incentive for uploading crazy videos of themselves, but if you can make a $ or two off it, I’m sure you would get more people to participate in the “viral video” phenomenon that is YouTube than otherwise would.

  3. “I think that Chris Brown should do the right thing and give a cut of whatever is made off the video to Jill & Kevin”

    I wouldn’t hold out hope for a piece of trash douchebag that hits women to make a magnanimous gesture like cutting in the video creators.

  4. “One of our main goals at YouTube is to help content creators effectively make money from the distribution of their content online”

    such bullshit. The unique content of the video belongs to
    Jill & Kevin yet they did not get a dime, but Google got paid so it’s all good i guess right?.

  5. Chris needs the PR, he needs to compensate them very publicly

  6. To play Devils Advocate and to voice my personal opinion, Kevin and Jill would’ve never been granted this opportunity without this single by Chris Brown.

    However(!), they could’ve used any fitting song they deemed fit for the entrance, but they still shouldn’t be entitled to ANYTHING. They used the song to THEIR advantage, not the artists.

    But, that’s just my opinion. I’ll see you at ASE.

  7. They’ve been on Good Morning America, their friends and them flew to NY to perform the dance, they could probably snag a few funny appearances at some late summer awards show, they’re the envy of a lot of people who are getting married (shit they stole half of my idea for my ceremony) – they didn’t get money, but they did get some rewards. All that said, copyright law is bullshit and they do deserve some monies –

    btw – divorce intro! http://mashable.com/2009/07/31/unexpected-divorce-intro/

  8. In the real world of creating videos they would have been required to pay him up front before publishing. This is the musicians way to still get the money they are owed, without the video creators having to pay out of pocket.

    They chose to upload the video to a site that doesn’t pay video creators unless you get a publisher account and have some control of the ads.

  9. Like Doyle mentioned, if they were in it for the dosh, they could’da uploaded it to metacafe/revver or another site with some rev share.

    Even then, I think the mp3 ringtone/download aff comm would’ve been marginal (maybe a couple hundred bucks?).

    The big payout (if they chose to do it) would be to sell rights to their romance story as a “TV movie of the week” deal or to push for a book deal.

    Why chase nickels, when you can be rolling in it.

  10. throw ringtone aff link on the description. Problem Solved

  11. At the very least they could pick up the tab for an anniversary party or the couple’s honeymoon. There could be a follow up dance routine with another Chris Brown song!

  12. Youtube has a partnership program with the owners of the accounts that get the most views. The people who made this video should look into it and then get their share from youtube.

  13. I believe the issue is certainly happening & important. Its online has come to mean its free. Lot of deserving people are suffering. Glad to see not all see it that way.

    Rocking man!

Post a comment