Why don’t you write about this. (Or study the actual cultural landscape a bit more).

Some of the comment responses have been interesting — especially Mary’s, which suggests that work on YouTube is already licensed under a fairly permissive license.

I took a harder look at YouTube and the only hint about licensing is in the footer, where there’s a copyright notice that reads “© 2008 YouTube, LLC”. I presume this applies to the design of the site and not the content, but it’s a slim distinction since again, there is no explicit mention about the license of the individual works, whether under the “YouTube License” or some other scheme.

To my point, the reason why I think it would be useful for YouTube to embrace the CC licensing scheme is because of the signal it would send to people — hopefully to help them think more critically about licensing and reuse permissions, and to be more aware of alternative permissive-licensing options.

It is true that government works *performed by the government* (again, contractor work is harder to generalize about) are in the public domain, but as Carl pointed out, the noncopyright disclaimer acts as a chilling effect, making people worry about whether they can or cannot use something, and then, likely, will choose not to out of fear.

If the Obama administration took a progressive stance on demarking works as in the public domain, I think that would be a great service to the burgeoning remix culture. If it went further and requested that YouTube make it plain what the license of its videos were, I think that would also serve the interests of the CC community.

It’s hard to say whether YouTube will seize the opportunity this time, but indeed I hope they do.

I just graduated from UCLAW, but obviously you’re the legal expert here, my question is: Is that enough? TED videos also have the CC logo in the beginning. As long as President Elect Obama writes “CC” or “public domain” (either like TED does it or using the annotations functions like me) on the weekly addresses, wouldn’t that be enough?

The link to what I did is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMZLTJZ5VGc. I wanted to add the cool CC logo but I wouldnt past and copy the logo into it.

I just graduated from UCLAW, but obviously you’re the legal expert here, my question is: Is that enough? TED videos also have the CC logo in the beginning. As long as President Elect Obama writes “CC” or “public domain” (either like TED does it or using the annotations functions like me) on the weekly addresses, wouldn’t that be enough?

The link to what I did is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMZLTJZ5VGc. I wanted to add the cool CC logo but I wouldnt past and copy the logo into it.

Even if so that doesn’t address the bigger issue — YouTube’s refusal to even make CC an option. I’ve also had conversations about this with people there and gotten the same “we’ll take that under consideration” non-answers. It’s one reason why I advise people to use services like Blip.

Too bad Obama’s folks don’t do the obvious thing and post that weekly chat to other services — including the ones that support CC.

Hence, just use another platform that offers the features you like, be it better quality than the sh*tty Utube quality or be it CC rights by default.

Done, problem solved. Next!

The May 2007 license said this:
However, by submitting the User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube’s (and its successor’s) business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the YouTube Website a non-exclusive license to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display and perform such User Submissions as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service. The foregoing license granted by you terminates once you remove or delete a User Submission from the YouTube Website.

But the current section 6, part C says this:
C. For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions. However, by submitting User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube’s (and its successors’ and affiliates’) business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the YouTube Website a non-exclusive license to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such User Submissions as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service. The above licenses granted by you in User Videos terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you remove or delete your User Videos from the YouTube Service. You understand and agree, however, that YouTube may retain, but not display, distribute, or perform, server copies of User Submissions that have been removed or deleted. The above licenses granted by you in User Comments are perpetual and irrevocable.
……….

It’s an interesting thing, as it is a commercial reuse license, in my interpretation, given to Youtube and the greater community, as long as the submitter of the work owns the copyright to the work. The earlier license allowed for remixing by other users, however, but the newer license is less liberal in that direction.

YT does not allow users to submit more granular control over this licensing as CC licenses would, but from a reuse standpoint, its the most liberal thing out there that I know of on an upload site such as YT.

In March 2006 I talked with Steve Chen and their head of marketing at the time about their commercial reuse license and asked why they didn’t consider using Creative Commons. They both didn’t seem very open to the idea. However, time has passed, and they might be willing to reconsider.

mary