I just read, in regards to scraping, that Google might actually not penalize for this in some regards, in fact, Matt Cutts from Google said if you drop links to yourself in the articles and then they get scraped, you get one-way links back to your site. Many people who scrape generally take the whole article intact, HTML and all...

Just something I read over at WebProNews, man those guys are full of good info at times...PROPS!

Myspace is...well, dead to me :D I'm not saying it couldn't be something really cool, if Murdoch is involved it's bound to be something interesting.

Well if you take into account that the end of calendar and fiscal year for many is approaching, it could be due to that. However the extremely limited range of the survey (media buyers already buying pre-roll ads) really takes a lot of power out of the results how I see it. I don't doubt there will be growth that's a given. But the amazing numbers this survey puts forth are unrealistic to me.

Hi Mike,

You pose an interesting question. Now I'm no lawyer, so take anything I say with a grain of salt and some caution :)

If the footage is on YouTube that means you could reproduce it via the site, meaning you could embed the videos in any pages you want.

In regards to using it in some other video, there's a thing called Derivative work. The US defines that as "A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”."

A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law. To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable.

From the sounds of your project Mike, it falls into fair use and would be considered a derivative work, provided that you have added as much or more footage (my guess). That means, to me, that you could use it and claim fair use and that it's a derivative work.

Now, first I'd suggest finding out who owns the copyright because that could decide if they get angry and try to sue :)

Good luck!

The Holocaust was done 'just because we can'? Not exactly, more because of the megalomania of one highly disturbed mind... and please, Blu-Ray in a toaster? you couldn't make toast and have a disc in there at the same time, it would melt.

All absurdity aside, it's an idea that's obviously working. Like Matt says below, we're talking about it and I'm betting a lot of others are as well. Seems like they're doing quite well already, and they haven't even distributed the ads.

I do agree that 40 minutes of ads is excessive, unless those ads are something interesting and include perhaps clips, summaries, etc from the shows to catch people up or remind them of where they left off last season.

Because we can is exactly the reason to do these sorts of things. That's called innovation and progress... Opening one's mind to the possibilities is how we expand our horizons and achieve the unbelievable and the impossible. That's the human spirit man!

Does it NEED to be done? Well no, if you look at it that way....NO advertising NEEDS to be done. without it we would just go buy only the things we need and not a lot of excess junk that piles up in peoples' homes and then ends up in landfills across the planet having been used maybe once or twice...

That's some seriously cool technology and I would certainly be showing it to everyone I knew. Plus it's fairly well targeted. I mean if you're actually subscribing to Entertainment Weekly, you have a serious interest in Film and TV, ergo, video ads about TV shows....spot on there. You seem to think that people who like to read are mutually exclusive of people who like to watch video for entertainment purposes, I beg to differ :)

Is it the future of video ads? No, probably not, like you said. But because it's never been done before is EXACTLY why someone should. If we all thought your way we'd have never gone to the moon, Europeans wouldn't have accidentally stumbled upon North America, in fact, we'd probably not even have video at all...

I give them props for taking a daring step in a marketing campaign. After all, that's what the creative types are paid for right? To create creative ways to market things?

Well then a true test we need is to take an underperforming product and pit it against a well performing product each with their own videos to see what kind of impact they have... If I were a retailer and had a massive overstock of something I would certainly use video to push it out the door it indeed it works that well.

How can the service improve share? It's not even implemented at Yahoo and won't be for at least 2 years as per their own announcement, that's not including the time it will take the regulatory body to assess the situation and approve it.

Oh I see. You copied and pasted your blog entry here..not very original is it? Honestly, that example you show was a search for "christchurch property video" how hard was that to 'optimize' for a search? I can't see there being ANY competition for that keyword set. I mean, it is QUITE specific.

Do that same search on Google video search...it comes up with DailyMotion, MetaCafe and YouTube...not optimized for them? I mean they only have 81% of the search market, why bother with them right?

Hello Jeroen,

Thanks for the quick reply and the clarification, ReelSEO and our readers appreciate you taking the time to clear that up for us.

Christophor

I don't know what that had to do with anything really. So what if media hasn't commented on poor quality of some videos? And what kind of quality are we talking about? Content? Resolution? Stream quality? I guess if you're not at all specific in your opinions you might argue that there was no contradiction... That's the whole point of being overly vague right? Or was it just to get some backlinks to your blog from ReelSEO?