Comment by root_axis | Hacker News Reader

Comment by root_axis | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Just to be clear, I am not opposed to the idea of creators banding together to negotiate collectively in order to get better terms from YouTube - I think if they can build a coalition powerful enough to accomplish this it'd be a good thing and I'd say more power to them!

My point is that YouTube does not employ creators, they offer a free service to creators without any guarantees. I'm also pointing out that YouTube does not want to demonetize videos because demonetizing a video costs YouTube money (they host and stream the video for free, but get no revenue in return) and any changes to YouTube's business operations that would reduce the amount of videos that get demonetized would very obviously benefit YouTube.

> if you're contracted to do a job, the client doesn't usually arbitrarily change the rates it's paying you unless you have some contractual agreement to do so(overtime, paid leave, etc.).

YouTube is not contracting creators to do a job, creators are uploading their content to YouTube at no cost to them, and in exchange, YouTube offers a cut of the ad revenue to the creators if YouTube can successfully monetize the video. Whenever a video is demonetized YouTube loses.

Point taken on that definition, but as tech companies create new markets (e.g. YouTube, Uber, etc.) I think the definition of employee will evolve as well

Perhaps. I'm curious how you might envision a future definition of "employee" that would cause YouTube creators to be considered employees of YouTube.

I feel like there is a line to be drawn somewhere around the points where you start referring to yourself as a "YouTuber" and where other people regularly describe you as one.

More broadly, this same line may exist for any site/company somewhere around the point where whatever awkward construction for "person who regularly posts on site X" or "person who regularly does gig work for company X" starts getting applied to you a lot.

I have no idea how to even begin to define this in legal terms. :)

> I feel like there is a line to be drawn somewhere around the points where you start referring to yourself as a "YouTuber" and where other people regularly describe you as one.

This seems pretty subjective, difficult to measure, and impractical to enforce.

Which is why I said "I have no idea how to define this in legal terms".

I would bet money that something can be nailed down in terms of what percentage of time goes into it, what percentage of total income comes from it, and other hard measures like that, if you feel like surveying a few hundred self-described You-Tubers and a few hundred non-You-Tubers. That sure sounds like work I don't feel like doing, though.

> what percentage of time goes into it

Who would verify the amount of time spent by private individuals recording videos using their own equipment in their own homes?

> what percentage of total income comes from it

Why would that matter? It seems odd that YouTube's employer status would depend on whether or not the would-be employee has other sources of income.

>other hard measures like that

This doesn't seem like a realistic "evolution" of employer status. I'm not saying the definition won't ever evolve but it just doesn't seem practical that a private business which offers a free service to consumers would suddenly become an employer of those consumers based on how they use the service.

I'll also add that turning YouTube into an employer would have problematic consequences for creators, e.g. as an employer, YouTube would be in a position to make editorial demands of creators which would put them right back where they started (create advertiser friendly videos or you don't get paid).

They perform work, their work is reviewed and subjected to standards and they expect return. Both work and compensation are subject to contractual terms.

> They perform work

At their own behest, not through any formal agreement or obligation from YouTube - YouTube only enters the picture after the producer decides to upload their content to YouTube and they don't have to do that.

> Their work is reviewed and subjected to standards and they expect return

Google offers creators a place to upload their videos for free, it does not offer any guarantees regarding returns.

Is this not true of most art?

Yet most galleries can't simply stop asking for payment with admission without also compensating the artist.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com