Top

news

Stories

 

YouTube Stars Fight Back

Machinima and Maker Studios, two of YouTube's most high-profile networks, have come under fire from their own talent

YouTube Stars Fight Back

The video titled "Thank you, I will miss you guys" is barely more than a minute long — all one shaky, handheld shot trained on the face of then–21-year-old Ben Vacas.

Vacas, known online as Braindeadly, has big brown eyes, a fauxhawk, a stubbly goatee and a British accent, discernible as he tells his 40,000 YouTube subscribers goodbye.

"I woke up today hoping to make a video, but I went into a call with Machinima this evening and they said that my contract is completely enforceable. I can't get out of it," Vacas tells the camera. "They said I am with them for the rest of my life — that I am with them forever.

ILLUSTRATION BY JESSE LENZ
Machinima has attracted millions in capital by appealing to so-called "lost boys,"untouched by traditional advertising.
Machinima has attracted millions in capital by appealing to so-called "lost boys,"untouched by traditional advertising.

"If I'm locked down to Machinima for the rest of my life and I've got no freedom, then I don't want to make videos anymore," he says quietly.

The screen fades to black.

The video closes with a written message: "I'm really sorry guys, but I am completely powerless. If this is the last thing I say, please don't make the same mistake as I did and always read before you sign something."

Vacas gained prominence online as a top-ranked hunter in World of Warcraft, a video game he has played for more than seven years. He began making YouTube videos last year, mostly of him joking around with other players and commenting on World of Warcraft and other games.

It wasn't long before Machinima, a multichannel YouTube network that specializes in video game content, came calling. The network offered him a partnership: It would put ads on his videos, and he would get a cut of the revenue generated from those ads. It sounded pretty good to Vacas, and in November 2011 he signed a contract with the company.

But the devil was in the details: After signing with Machinima, he learned that the company would own the rights to whatever videos he posts on YouTube for the rest of his life and beyond, "in perpetuity, throughout the universe, in all forms of media now known or hereafter devised." Not only that, but his contract with the network was open-ended. There was no point at which it was set to expire.

Over the last two years, YouTube has quietly transformed from the province of amateurs to an increasingly cutthroat ecosystem where everyone — stars, networks, advertisers — is competing for views, viewers and view time.

Big money is at stake. That's because YouTube, with the backing of its parent company, Google, is pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into a campaign to compete with traditional television — and it's betting that multichannel networks like Machinima will be the key to its success.

Armed with venture capital, these networks are scooping up talent, offering young creators modest compensation in return for the ability to sell ads on their videos. The more channels a network can bring under its umbrella, the more eyeballs it can promise advertisers, and the richer it becomes.

But a recent string of high-profile disputes is prompting comparisons between YouTube networks and the exploitative Hollywood studios of the 1930s and '40s: Both convinced young and naive talent with little leverage to sign contracts that leave them at a disadvantage. For networks, that means contracts that bind creators to them indefinitely, demand rights to their content in perpetuity and take large ownership stakes in any resulting businesses.

Internet and intellectual-property lawyers say that a rash of public disputes between networks and their talent suggests a serious problem in the emerging industry. Although two of the largest networks, Machinima and Maker Studios — both based in L.A., both darlings of venture capitalists — have been accused of some of the worst practices, investors remain undeterred.

In November, while Maker Studios was in the middle of a public dispute with its highest-profile star, Time Warner was raising $36 million in venture-capital funds on behalf of the network. In May, just weeks after Ben Vacas posted his emotional video, Machinima closed a round of fundraising, led by Google, worth $35 million.

The question, then, is: Can networks like Machinima and Maker sustain their rapid growth if the creators on whose backs they built their businesses revolt?

"I'd always wanted to be a filmmaker," says Hugh Hancock, the man generally acknowledged as the godfather of the art form "machinima," when reached by phone at his home in Edinburgh, Scotland. "The issue was, back then in 1996, it was before the digital video revolution, it was before 3-D animation was in any way affordable, so I'd always given it up as a pipe dream."

Everything changed with the release of Quake in June 1996.

The 28-level, first-person-shooter game was one of the first games in which developers opened up the video game's code and gave it to players — saying, in effect, make your own games with this technology. Players could repurpose Quake's characters and settings to create original stories, then render them in 3-D animation.

At first these films were called "Quake movies," but as creators began using other games, they were dubbed "machinima" — a misspelled portmanteau of "machine" and "cinema." A small, devoted community developed around the art form.

1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
5
 
6
 
All
 
Next Page »
 
My Voice Nation Help
19 comments
starjonestown
starjonestown

This is Hilarious!  Web slaves...  

Only issue here is that this article is out-of-date.  Most of the VC action has already moved on, at least the smart money.  Google's own supposed channel "investment"  was actually structured like old record-company deals in that their 'artists' had to pay back the parent's seed money.  It's easy to get scammed and these crappy web content producers pay their talent sh*t.    

Cable television money dwarfs this backwater junk.  

Machinima may have $35m...  Even a 5th rate cable brand like Spike makes that look like a children's sandbox.  

SimonFraser4
SimonFraser4

The YouTube network bubble is going to burst. Just as the dot-com bubble burst 12 years ago. If you believe the hype, then you'll be in the bubble when it bursts. Signing a contract because of all the money you think it will bring you IS believing the hype.

YouTube networks are middle men. Middle men only offer lubricant. Which is nice and all, but not necessary.

Collaborate with other content creators, keep making content and keep improving your abilities and your content. And when you enter into a contract with someone who offers you lubricant, remember that they work FOR YOU. You are the client, you are the source of the product. They are the service provider. Therefore, YOU call the shots. If a contract doesn't meet with your approval, don't sign the contract. Otherwise, you're in the bubble.

crmartell
crmartell

I'm an ex-machinima director, who had one of those "perpetuity contracts". Coincidentally I said many of the same things in my video as appearing in this article. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOPEYYm_Z-0 The situation looks really dark, but I do have a solution, if the community would just embrace it. Anyone interested should check out my video. 

edohiguma
edohiguma

So basically Vacas signed the contract and read the fine print afterwards. And that with Machinima, which has been known to be itchy, at best, for a while. Good gods. One of the first things I learned in my life was not to do that. Always read everything. Always.

As for this: "Can networks like Machinima and Maker sustain their rapid growth if the creators on whose backs they built their businesses revolt?"

Simple answer is no. Even without the creator revolt unlimited growth is impossible.

krystaBlade
krystaBlade

I just started a YouTube Channel and in less than two months it has over 1500 Subs so I just do not understand why you need an Network Anyway???

HaasGaming
HaasGaming

@krystaBlade Varied reasons. With gaming it is a pretty simple one; licensing. You can't monetize most gaming content (Exceptions exist; e.g. the popular game called Minecraft) without licensing and specific networks provide this. There's a lot more to it though. 

cobrachoppergirl
cobrachoppergirl

This guy is an idiot.  All he has to do is ignore the contract and release videos uner a new pseudonym anonymously.   F your contract.  Contracts can be broken and better yet... ignored.   The US government does it all the time...   just ask the Native Americans... how binding contracts are.

Style101
Style101

Crazy how about working with Blip.tv or Maybe Openfilm.com or they just as evil 

310kidd
310kidd

I think these users would do great creating their own Live content on sites like Stickam.com. It will be a way to get closer to fans and answer questions on the spot. Maybe even find new ways to fangate new users.

invadermak97
invadermak97

I would have been starting my youtube channel in a few days, but this is disheartening and has caused me to reconsider even trying.

HaasGaming
HaasGaming

@invadermak97 Keep in mind these are, in large part, anomalies. I've been partnered with a network (Maker Studios, part of TheGameStation) for a good year now without any complaints thus far. I wouldn't let these problems dissuade you from starting something if you really want it, just be careful - in everything you do - what you sign up for. That being said, it's a lot of work so be prepared to spend a lot of time and you'll need quite a bit of patience! 

chilltowntv
chilltowntv

Agree with you also, @kati.morton  I'm just starting my channel and it's an overwhelming thing to do in general. This definitely is a lot of food for thought...

kati.morton
kati.morton

Thank you for writing this article. It's very interesting for a smaller Youtube creator like myself to see what is going on with MCN's at Youtube...

ryanthomaswoods
ryanthomaswoods

@kati.morton Completely agree with you kati! It was so informative for us as smaller youtube creator's to know what to expect as well as give us an inside look at what is going on.

networkfree
networkfree

From what I can tell, these networks are realizing that their business models are flawed in that they do not own any of the content or the distribution. Even while "owning" a creator's YouTube channel, the networks are actually just renting the channel from YouTube. It's a flawed model when the intent is to add another layer to YouTube's business model. See: Zynga + Facebook.

richardstarr
richardstarr

This also reminds me of the type of contracts still prevalent in the comic book industry.  Greats like Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko have had their work attributed to Stan Lee who acted as the front man for Marvel comics.  Newsflash, the editor of a masterpiece is not the artist and I've never seen any evidence that Lee was anything other than an editor.

In any case, the work from the geniuses of the past have become the "property" of Marvel comics continuing industry "practice" of DC comics who took Superman from Siegel and Schuster when they thought they were only selling the individual STORY instead of the CHARACTER.

The creation of Image comics gave independent creators a venue to produce comics and still retain the rights while giving the company distributing them a fair share.  They need something like this in the YouTube world to help keep the "suits" from stealing from yet another generation.

The open ended contracts and options still exist, to a lesser extent, in the music industry.  You have the rappers getting rich not from their own music, but from the artists they sign, following the pattern of exploitation that they were often the victims of. 

chvyvele
chvyvele

@richardstarr Stan Lee wrote and edited the comic books for all of the characters that he is credited for creating. Steve Ditko and Jack Kirby were artists who helped shaped the story and the characters, but Lee was often the one to create the stories and dialogue. Ditko and Kirby are almost always given credit for co-creating characters.

richardstarr
richardstarr like.author.displayName 1 Like

@chvyvele @richardstarr  

No, Stan Lee is given credit for stuff he did not do.  If you read Jack Kirby's book you will have a better grasp of this.  Too much credit is often assigned to the wrong people.  I'm not say Stan had zero contributions, but for something like the Fantastic Four he would say, "Give me a superhero story based on the 4 elements (fire,water,earth,air) and Jack created the Fantastic Four.  Lee would then modify some of the script Jack created, but did not come up with the story himself.  The credit he takes, now that so many are dead and unable to gainsay him, is far more than he deserves.

 Take a look at the output Lee did after Jack left, and look at what Jack continued to do from that point on at DC.  Kirby was a genius, Lee was a hanger on.  Without the real artists, Lee created nothing.  Credit was only begrudgingly given at times, often after law suits.  Kirby signed away much of his rights to recover his artwork.  Actually, only a portion of it, which was rightfully his.

If there was any justice Kirby would have ended up owning Marvel, but that was not to be.

 
Loading...