People Making $$$ By Filming WDW Attractions?

[Bob Saget]

Call me naiive, but I just don't see how this is legal. I watch a lot of YouTube videos. Many are Disney/theme-park related (obviously). There are many YouTube channels which specialize in filming on-ride point-of-view (POV) rides & coasters from theme parks. YouTube puts ads on these videos. These videos get ultra-high view counts, and thus, the person(s) behind said channels are making $$$ off of just filming rides/attractions when they visit a park...and posting them to YouTube.

Like I said, it could be that I'm just naiive, but nothing seems legal about this at all. You can tell these people filming are amateurs, due to the shaky footage, camera clicks sound, and sometimes, even hearing a CM tell them to put camera's away (yet they continue to film nonetheless).

So they're not being paid by Disney, Universal, Six Flags, etc to do this, yet they're making a profit just by filming for a hobby. I just don't get it, but something seems outta whack with this. I wonder what sort of $$$ these YouTubers reel in off of theme park's creations?

 

[wm49rs]

Are you paying to watch these videos on YouTube?

And there are a couple of "official," for lack of a better term, individuals who film the parks (and I assume the rides) with the blessing of Disney. I believe Jeff Lange (sp) is one of them. But as for the random people on YouTube, I don't know.....

 

[wilkeliza]

These videos get ultra-high view counts, and thus, the person(s) behind said channels are making $$$ off of just filming rides/attractions when they visit a park...and posting them to YouTube.

I didn't know that these pages get paid when they have high view counts? I thought Youtube made all the profit off of the videos and no one else.

 

[Sans Souci]

I didn't know that these pages get paid when they have high view counts? I thought Youtube made all the profit off of the videos and no one else.

You can make money if you are You Tube Partner. There are some individuals who make a tidy sum doing that.

 

[Bob Saget]

I didn't know that these pages get paid when they have high view counts? I thought Youtube made all the profit off of the videos and no one else.

The videos have ads pasted on the side, bottom, and sometimes a full ad plays before the video begins loading on some channels. These mean the person who uploaded the video makes a percentage of $$ from ad revenue whenever someone clicks on an ad. YouTube monetization, anyone can do it. And if I uploaded a video of me singing, or something I personally created, that's one thing. But if I go to MK and film a ride-thru of Splash Mtn and am making $$ off of ad's from that video (of something that is entirely Disney's product)...I dunno, doesn't add up from a legal perspective.

*Edit*
And I'm not referring to videos that are Example: "The Smith's Family Vacation to WDW" etc. I'm talking about channels which specialize in on-ride point-of-view's. They simply show you a full ride-thru of attractions.

 

[Bob Saget]

You can make money if you are You Tube Partner. There are some individuals who make a tidy sum doing that.

It used to be only for partners. Now all users have the option to monetize.

 

[MichWolv]

I can't speak to the laws -- I've wondered the same thing. But it likely amounts to free advertising for Disney, and thus they may not mind as long as there isn't literally a charge to watch the content.

 

[wilkeliza]

The videos have ads pasted on the side, bottom, and sometimes a full ad plays before the video begins loading on some channels. These mean the person who uploaded the video makes a percentage of $$ from ad revenue whenever someone clicks on an ad. YouTube monetization, anyone can do it. And if I uploaded a video of me singing, or something I personally created, that's one thing. But if I go to MK and film a ride-thru of Splash Mtn and am making $$ off of ad's from that video (of something that is entirely Disney's product)...I dunno, doesn't add up from a legal perspective.

Ah I didn't know that was the case. Disney probably doesn't think they are loosing too much money off of these videos or there are just so many they can't dispute all of them. I know when it comes to Disney on Broadway videos if it isn't official it is pulled as quickly as they get word. The only time I know of them allowing something to stay up that is not official is when fans film something that the production legally could not (performances that are not televised etc.) then they see the little advertising money they loose as a give to get the coverage.

 

[WDW1974]

Are you paying to watch these videos on YouTube?

And there are a couple of "official," for lack of a better term, individuals who film the parks (and I assume the rides) with the blessing of Disney. I believe Jeff Lange (sp) is one of them. But as for the random people on YouTube, I don't know.....

I have no idea what Jeff's deal is ... and he has no intention of joining this site and 'splaining how he and his other half get away with what they do ... selling Disney properties/copyrights/IPs and profitting off them.

I know it goes against all of Disney's policies and common sense.

Maybe he has something on someone high up?:shrug: ...Or maybe it's a quid pro quo deal ... I have no idea. But it sure doesn't pass the sniff test.

 

[wdwfan22]

Disney has said before that each situation is evaluated on a case-by-case basis and if they feel something violates there intellectual property rights they have options to protect it.

 

[Kramerica]

There are Youtube partners who make videos about guns and weaponry. Should Glock and Remington worry about paying these guys? There are people who review video games.. Should EA or Valve worry about it? There are guys who post videos of new cell phones on the market. Should Apple or Motorola get involved?

I think you're over analyzing it. These certain people have a knack for producing certain videos. This creates high traffic. Youtube notices this and decides to reward this guy for his efforts and to keep the videos coming. The partner gets money for doing something they enjoy. Youtube gets to profit off the people who want to advertise. And a lot of the time, the company or product that is focused on in the video gets free advertisement. If you ask me, it's one of the few things out there that is truly win win for everyone. Lets not mess with it.

 

[marni1971]

YouTube will also add commercials if it detects copyrighted audio. So in effect you have ads to pay for using this.

 

[El-Fuego]

I would imagine it would be a simple matter for Disney lawyers to approach YouTube with a lawsuit if they had a real problem so as other posters have said perhaps they're okay with it and see it as free publicity.

 

[SyracuseOrange]

Ah I didn't know that was the case. Disney probably doesn't think they are loosing too much money off of these videos or there are just so many they can't dispute all of them. I know when it comes to Disney on Broadway videos if it isn't official it is pulled as quickly as they get word. The only time I know of them allowing something to stay up that is not official is when fans film something that the production legally could not (performances that are not televised etc.) then they see the little advertising money they loose as a give to get the coverage.

Disney on Broadway isn't quite the same thing, though. If someone is considering going to see Mary Poppins but can just watch it on YouTube for free, they (might) become less likely to purchase a ticket.

I doubt many people thinking of planning a trip to WDW would decide not to, and just sit at home watching POV videos instead. (Sure, many people DO watch these POV videos, but not as a replacement.)

Disney has more to lose with theatrical productions being placed on YouTube.

 

[MickeyPeace]

I have no idea what Jeff's deal is ... and he has no intention of joining this site and 'splaining how he and his other half get away with what they do ... selling Disney properties/copyrights/IPs and profitting off them.

I know it goes against all of Disney's policies and common sense.

Maybe he has something on someone high up?:shrug: ...Or maybe it's a quid pro quo deal ... I have no idea. But it sure doesn't pass the sniff test.

And how does someone charge $400 to walk a few guests through the park on a private tour and not share the profits with Disney. Yet Disney allows it?

 

[Cold71]

I am a YouTube partner myself, not on a very big scale though. It is actually against the partner agreement to attempt to make money off of things you don't own. I feel like these videos would fall in to this category. Granted they own the video but they are clearly taping something they do not own. I feel like if Disney wanted to apply pressure on this issue they could but I'm sure they feel the way social networking works today it probably helps their bottom line more then it hurts it.

 

[bruiser659]

What do you think of people like Lou Mongellow charging for a tour of WDW,or his so-called guide books and more?

 

[ddbowdoin]

I am a YouTube partner myself, not on a very big scale though. It is actually against the partner agreement to attempt to make money off of things you don't own. I feel like these videos would fall in to this category. Granted they own the video but they are clearly taping something they do not own. I feel like if Disney wanted to apply pressure on this issue they could but I'm sure they feel the way social networking works today it probably helps their bottom line more then it hurts it.

I'd add in that there should be some format of commentary added to the video, an opinion or if the video is edited into segments. I'd agree that a 100% pure ride video from start to finish is entering that realm... but honestly, free advertizing for Disney so win / win for both parties.

 

[draybook]

I'm pretty sure that it only applies to attractions/shows that strictly forbid videotaping. This is what was told to us at US/IoA. They said that only certain attractions forbid videotaping because not all of them fall under the intellectual laws/rules. Of course this was from a regular employee but it makes sense since not all rides and/or attractions forbid it.

 

[wilkeliza]

Disney on Broadway isn't quite the same thing, though. If someone is considering going to see Mary Poppins but can just watch it on YouTube for free, they (might) become less likely to purchase a ticket.

I doubt many people thinking of planning a trip to WDW would decide not to, and just sit at home watching POV videos instead. (Sure, many people DO watch these POV videos, but not as a replacement.)

Disney has more to lose with theatrical productions being placed on YouTube.

That is what I was trying to say. I guess I didn't put it into the clearest words.