In a press release today, Sony and Google announced a partnership that will put Sony’s videos on Google. Notably, Google Video is referenced by name only once in the press release - is this intentional (hinting toward GooTube) or do they feel that use of Google Video is implied? /end rumour

Also interesting is this bit:

SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT and Google will also work together to create a groundbreaking new service that will allow music fans to access user-created music video content featuring certain material from SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT’s library of recorded music, while at the same time respecting the rights of artists and copyright holders.

They’ll be monetizing via AdSense (it’s referenced earlier in the press release). It’s great to see that user-generated content is being taken more seriously however I’m curious as to where this leaves YouTube now that Google has gotten to Sony first. Obviously if Google buys YouTube out, they’re in the clear, but if not that’ll leave the community at YouTube hanging.

Edit: TechCrunch notes that a similar deal with YouTube was announced today, and that the WSJ and NYTimes are reporting that an acquisition could be announced as early as today.

YouTube also announced deals with CBS and Vivendi Universal. As I noted in a previous post, CBS used to be buddies with Google Video (they sold content, notably Survivor, on the service) so this is shaping up to be a very interesting weekend for internet video.

MasterNewMedia.org has an article talking about ownership of media in the age of the participatory culture.

This is a fantastic area of debate, and one that has become more and more confusing to follow as the participatory culture, where “You” Make Media, has been embraced. The article cites parts of licenses in sites such as YouTube.com where they reference their ability to use your work all over.

For me, this isn’t the interesting side of the debate. I think we’re going to see some interesting legal battles in the future, surrounding around who is the actual owner of a work if many people contribute to it. One would at first thing this is a concern that Open Source software would have figured out, but they aren’t commercialized so it’s not an area they need to worry about too much (when it comes around to splitting up the payments).

Video podcasts such as Ze Frank’s theshow are based heavily on user-created content (for example the recent mashups of the “Ray” song - Ze fans know what I mean). Ze makes money from ads in theshow. Put two and two together - there may come a time where disgruntled fans ask for something in return.

I can’t see this happening in the immediate future but I have no doubt that time will come unless groundrules are laid out now, establishing who owns what. Is it the creator (almost always yes if it’s commercial, but not always if the entity is community-driven)? Is it the most active fan?

Who knows?

Not me. Not quite yet anyway.