After working in tech for long enough, you realize that no one reads anything, even if its absolutely clear in the UI. And they will blame you for it.
I always have a hard time explaining to people carefully writing pagewalls that throwing out 90% of it would actually be more effective...
At the end it boils down to the truth that a Corporation is a hive mind, an intelligent machine ruthlessly optimizing for stock price and profits at the expense of sometimes human values.
What's not immediately clear is that the video (and channel) now shows up in search results. You won't be aware of that unless you either have a clear mental model of the platform, or try to search for the video title yourself (which implies a certain sort of mental model to be present already).
Sure, people only skim and headline-read articles, but because most articles are shit. That doesn't mean people don't ponder at least a bit when faced with a YT upload page. (And the upload through mobile app is probably more common for non-pro [first time, casual, accidental(!?)] youtubers, there the privacy: public field is pretty visible, legible and explicit.
They can mean anything in people's mind, public is that yeah anyone I send the link can see it, but that's not exactly YT's fault, that people don't make the connection, and somehow live in a fantasy world.
And I cannot blame them too much. People are constantly bombarded with misleading messages (e.g. ads), clickbait stuff, terrible UIs, indecipherable contracts, countless pop-up notification and warnings, opt-out and other "dark patterns".
(disclaimer: personally, I read contracts and agreements and it's often pointless and frustrating)
Due to various cognitive biases most people fail to realize just how big and far reaching that public is.
To share an example from my own experience a few years ago. I wrote a blogpost. I love writing blogs and sharing them with The Public. That's why I write it.
In one of them I used an Xkcd comic. My entire audience, anyone I could ever imagine reading it, knows XKCD and loved it.
But then that blog got 100,000 views. Then 200,000. Then it spiraled. Suddenly I was flamed from all sides, called a disgusting human being and all sorts of things. Why? Because I didn't correctly attribute that XKCD comic.
"Yay my friends and their friends and liek 1000 people saw my thing" is a completely different "public" than when THE public sees your thing. Most people imagine the former when they think "Oh I'm uploading this and it's going to be public"
I uploaded my children's dance recital video, as an unlisted video, and earned myself a copyright strike because of the background music.
1) Purpose: to illustrate the efforts of my young children in a non-professional context, not to showcase the audio portion of the recording.
2) Nature: audio + video, with explicit permission to record from the show executive/directors (it was a rehearsal, professionals recorded the actual show) and focus on the visual and physical nature of the unique performance
3) amount: abridged songs, amateurishly cut and remixed
4) effect on potential market: There is no way this is a substitute for any of the original copyrighted audio, and I communicate this intent to youtube by requesting it remain unlisted.
It probably does pass the four factor fair use test, but fighting with the youtube contentid machine is futile, and their system doesn't care about fair use.
- the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
Which is non-commercial.
- the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Which is to none.
There's also a question of if a video containing a bad transfer of a piece of music along with children dancing is "transformative." See Lenz v. Universal Music Corp, where Universal Music got destroyed all the way up to SCOTUS for ignoring Fair Usage when taking down a video of a dancing baby.
Your whole argument seems to be based on some fictional contractual agreement between the dance studio and the music's owners. That isn't relevant to the discussion at all, a parent recorded and distributed, not the dance studio themselves for commercial purposes.
Which seems very close to crosslinking comments with timestamps on fully public videos, with advertising.
But, I mean, this takes away the use case of Youtube as a replacement for America's funniest home videos.
Not that that's a necessary thing for societty, but it is something to think about. The chances that some creep found AFV stimulating is non-zero and advertisers paid that show to have their ads. The only difference here is the openness of the comments, whereas those AFV creeps probably had to communicate in secret.
The whole thing is creepy and awful, but I'm not sure what the best solution is. Perhaps banning comments on those videos.
Not attempt to monetize your family videos. Disable ads on your own videos.[1]
The videos themselves aren't really the issue. It's the context they're presented in.
It doesn't solve the "pedos are looking at my kid" side of things.
It's possible to have family videos private on YouTube and only share them with a small circle of people.
That’s categorically false. Every iCloud user has their own photo library and you cannot create a collaborative one. So all my photos are in mine, all my wife’s are in hers, and we’ve resorted to uploading to a a joint (also paid) Google photos account for sharing with each other and family.
There's a quality downgrade so it's not suitable for sharing archive-quality photos, but for us it's adequately replaced Facebook for sharing photos and videos of our kid, vacations etc
Your family camcorder videos probably weren't made available for checkout at the public library, filed under "young girls doing gymnastics" in the library's card catalog. If they were, I imagine your family and many members of the public would be creeped out or upset.
> but what else do you do here?
Require (or maybe automatically force, if implemented well) those videos to be set to Visiblity: Unlisted. I don't think anyone would be upset with sharing these links with family.