Buzzfeed and exploitation of content creators
July 1, 2016 7:24 AM Subscribe
Buzzfeed is currently coming under fire from various creators: Akilah Hughes claims that Buzzfeed plagiarised her videos, Gaby Dunn speaks up against the no-compete clause that led to 2 colleagues being fired for appearing in another websseries (response by Buzzfeed Motion Pictures head Ze Frank), and Kat Blaque talks about the exploitation of intellectual labour from marginalized people for Buzzfeed content.
Seems rather hypocritical, I know Ze Frank through his silly nature voiceover clips and never realized he ran video for BuzzFeed.
posted by furtive at 7:31 AM on July 1, 2016
posted by furtive at 7:31 AM on July 1, 2016
Buzzfeed's business model is based on monetizing thievery and tricks so I never read anything from them, nor should you. The only way for them to fail as a business is for us to stop giving them ad revenue.
posted by koavf at 7:32 AM on July 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by koavf at 7:32 AM on July 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
divabat: "response by Buzzfeed Motion Pictures head Ze Frank"
posted by boo_radley at 7:37 AM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ownership of Content. The work created by you and the collaborative teams you’re a part of while at the company is owned by BuzzFeed. As is standard across tech and media companies, BuzzFeed owns the work that you, our employees, create. It enables us to create a culture where ideas are easily shared and adapted, and where we can use our successes to grow our business and fund new areas of experimentation."And we will negotiate residuals with you"
posted by boo_radley at 7:37 AM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ze Frank as an evil entertainment company boss is still weird to me.
posted by The Devil Tesla at 7:38 AM on July 1, 2016 [46 favorites]
posted by The Devil Tesla at 7:38 AM on July 1, 2016 [46 favorites]
Hughes said she first noticed a problem in 2015 when BuzzFeed ran a series called “Ask an Asian,” where comedian Jenny Yang answers questions as the sole representative of her race.
“I had a series called ‘How Black people Feel About…,’ which is the exact same concept,” she said. “I did mine in 2013; theirs came out in 2015.”
Claiming ownership of the concept of one member of an ethnic group speaking for the group as a whole based on the fact that you did a web series using the idea in 2013 seems like a stretch. To give just one example, Gustavo Arellano started publishing "Ask a Mexican" in the OC Weekly in 2004.
posted by layceepee at 7:44 AM on July 1, 2016 [42 favorites]
“I had a series called ‘How Black people Feel About…,’ which is the exact same concept,” she said. “I did mine in 2013; theirs came out in 2015.”
Claiming ownership of the concept of one member of an ethnic group speaking for the group as a whole based on the fact that you did a web series using the idea in 2013 seems like a stretch. To give just one example, Gustavo Arellano started publishing "Ask a Mexican" in the OC Weekly in 2004.
posted by layceepee at 7:44 AM on July 1, 2016 [42 favorites]
The only way for them to fail as a business is for us to stop giving them ad revenue.
...and given how little money there is in ad revenue these days, the amount of content you have to steal to make any money at all boggles the mind.
Stuff like this is why I'm pretty much down to BBC, Twitter and MeFi for my internet data consumption.
posted by Mooski at 7:44 AM on July 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
...and given how little money there is in ad revenue these days, the amount of content you have to steal to make any money at all boggles the mind.
Stuff like this is why I'm pretty much down to BBC, Twitter and MeFi for my internet data consumption.
posted by Mooski at 7:44 AM on July 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
->layceepee, It's more than just a broad concept issue. It's an issue of of buzzfeed taking the same tone, editing, and feel which is something they absolutely do.
And yeah, I've been reading this unfold and I am SO, SO happy that we're in an age now where these things spread across the net so quickly and stories are able to crop up over and more and more voices are added to the discussion.
I've defended Buzzfeed before here on the blue, several times. People are really quick to laugh at them for the listicles and the faux authenticity or whatever but whoever is in charge of their book stuff (listicles aside) and their longform journalism is seriously doing a fantastic job. Also, Another Round is one of the best podcasts out there and it was created by two women of colour and you should maybe go listen to all of it right now.
So like, think of Buzzfeed as a multi-headed hydra where three of it's heads are good and the some of them are ok and a few others need to be chopped off and regrown. Like, I hope some good comes out of this, like maybe they fire some people in charge and right their wrongs but it's like, I don't know. I remember being really excited when Ze Frank took over their video section but...eugh.
posted by Neronomius at 8:07 AM on July 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
And yeah, I've been reading this unfold and I am SO, SO happy that we're in an age now where these things spread across the net so quickly and stories are able to crop up over and more and more voices are added to the discussion.
I've defended Buzzfeed before here on the blue, several times. People are really quick to laugh at them for the listicles and the faux authenticity or whatever but whoever is in charge of their book stuff (listicles aside) and their longform journalism is seriously doing a fantastic job. Also, Another Round is one of the best podcasts out there and it was created by two women of colour and you should maybe go listen to all of it right now.
So like, think of Buzzfeed as a multi-headed hydra where three of it's heads are good and the some of them are ok and a few others need to be chopped off and regrown. Like, I hope some good comes out of this, like maybe they fire some people in charge and right their wrongs but it's like, I don't know. I remember being really excited when Ze Frank took over their video section but...eugh.
posted by Neronomius at 8:07 AM on July 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
I never expected to someday feel like Buzzfeed was worth defending, but I'm not very convinced by these allegations of plagiarism. They all seem like examples where people could easily independently create similar videos. I also don't see any hypocrisy in Ze Frank's statement. On its face I don't see big problems with non-compete and exclusivity restrictions for employment, but maybe video production is special in some way.
Buzzfeed has also done some really great journalism, e.g. the Spies in the Skies analysis of FBI surveillance planes, and things like the Buzzfeed Open Lab and its fellowships seem like a good attempt at creating new, successful forms of journalism.
posted by jjwiseman at 8:14 AM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Buzzfeed has also done some really great journalism, e.g. the Spies in the Skies analysis of FBI surveillance planes, and things like the Buzzfeed Open Lab and its fellowships seem like a good attempt at creating new, successful forms of journalism.
posted by jjwiseman at 8:14 AM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is really too bad; I had just started to see BuzzFeed as a source of investigative journalism that bigger media is too scared to do.
For a large-newspaper journalist, doing an unflattering story on a politician is fraught with danger; it may mean losing access to the politician forever. Buzzfeed doesn't have that problem because they don't have that kind of access in the first place.
posted by splitpeasoup at 8:23 AM on July 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
For a large-newspaper journalist, doing an unflattering story on a politician is fraught with danger; it may mean losing access to the politician forever. Buzzfeed doesn't have that problem because they don't have that kind of access in the first place.
posted by splitpeasoup at 8:23 AM on July 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
The only way for them to fail as a business is for us to stop giving them ad revenue.
Or until some tech billionaire sues them out of existence. In which case there will again be people here saying there's no problem, because this one publisher deserves it.
posted by happyroach at 8:25 AM on July 1, 2016 [20 favorites]
Or until some tech billionaire sues them out of existence. In which case there will again be people here saying there's no problem, because this one publisher deserves it.
posted by happyroach at 8:25 AM on July 1, 2016 [20 favorites]
Non-competes are a bad idea generally, suitable only for a few narrow circumstances (top executives who take their networks with them, key technical personnel with their ideas). The idea that you could be encumbered with one for a weekend job is appalling.
posted by praemunire at 8:26 AM on July 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by praemunire at 8:26 AM on July 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
Buzzfeed has also done some really great journalism, e.g. the Spies in the Skies analysis of FBI surveillance planes, and things like the Buzzfeed Open Lab and its fellowships seem like a good attempt at creating new, successful forms of journalism.
I wonder if those more valid journalism branches of Buzzfeed are underwritten by the viral-focused, theft-driven branches of Buzzfeed, like music labels who support more esoteric artists by also carrying mainstream artists (I've heard such complaints of Mute Records for carrying Paul van Dyk).
posted by filthy light thief at 8:27 AM on July 1, 2016
I wonder if those more valid journalism branches of Buzzfeed are underwritten by the viral-focused, theft-driven branches of Buzzfeed, like music labels who support more esoteric artists by also carrying mainstream artists (I've heard such complaints of Mute Records for carrying Paul van Dyk).
posted by filthy light thief at 8:27 AM on July 1, 2016
Steps to ruining a good creative team:
Step 1: Creative public personality at your company leaves the same place that allowed them to grow, for some reason. (perhaps they felt stifled for some reason we don't know, and wanted to leave the nest?)
Step 2: In anger, create policies that strip creators of their ownership rights and don't let them work on side projects (perhaps, stifling them?)
Step 3: Watch as truly creative people leave, get disillusioned, or not apply to your company anymore. (because they worry that they might feel stifled?)
Step 4: Watch as the rest of your team, rather than making independent creative work, resort to creating derivative near-knockoffs of other works, for some reason. (perhaps because they feel unmotivated to make personal work that won't be emotionally, legally owned by them, thus.. stifling them?)
Step 5: GOTO Step 3, repeat, wonder what's going on. (It's not like your team feels creatively stifled or anything...)
posted by suedehead at 8:31 AM on July 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
Step 1: Creative public personality at your company leaves the same place that allowed them to grow, for some reason. (perhaps they felt stifled for some reason we don't know, and wanted to leave the nest?)
Step 2: In anger, create policies that strip creators of their ownership rights and don't let them work on side projects (perhaps, stifling them?)
Step 3: Watch as truly creative people leave, get disillusioned, or not apply to your company anymore. (because they worry that they might feel stifled?)
Step 4: Watch as the rest of your team, rather than making independent creative work, resort to creating derivative near-knockoffs of other works, for some reason. (perhaps because they feel unmotivated to make personal work that won't be emotionally, legally owned by them, thus.. stifling them?)
Step 5: GOTO Step 3, repeat, wonder what's going on. (It's not like your team feels creatively stifled or anything...)
posted by suedehead at 8:31 AM on July 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
Filming was easy, but I was discussing something that was very personal to me: Being transgender. I was nervous about this because, at the time, I was so nervous about being outed as a trans person to my employers, ......... long story short: I had to find a new place to live. Buzzfeed paid me nothing and I signed papers ensuring as much.
I'm sorry she had to endure hardship. But. If you think something is a bad idea, because the CONSEQUENCES of your actions have ramifications- don't do it. Or conversely, take responsibility for your choice, and don't blame it on a behemoth who has no legal or moral responsibility about the quality of your life.
posted by LuckyMonkey21 at 8:54 AM on July 1, 2016
I'm sorry she had to endure hardship. But. If you think something is a bad idea, because the CONSEQUENCES of your actions have ramifications- don't do it. Or conversely, take responsibility for your choice, and don't blame it on a behemoth who has no legal or moral responsibility about the quality of your life.
posted by LuckyMonkey21 at 8:54 AM on July 1, 2016
The complaints about non-compete clauses confused me. I have never been offered a salaried job without having to sign a non-compete. I've always done freelance work, and have had things I developed independently, so I have negotiated clarifications and exemptions to make sure that the terms were very clear about what is and isn't work product, even when it's something that's completely, wildly different from my day job.
An employment contract isn't a clickthrough license or something. You should probably read it before you agree to it.
There are way too many common examples of corporate overreach in non-competes and in other areas, but unless I'm missing something really huge, this is not one of them.
posted by ernielundquist at 8:58 AM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
An employment contract isn't a clickthrough license or something. You should probably read it before you agree to it.
There are way too many common examples of corporate overreach in non-competes and in other areas, but unless I'm missing something really huge, this is not one of them.
posted by ernielundquist at 8:58 AM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
The complaints about non-compete clauses confused me. I have never been offered a salaried job without having to sign a non-compete.
That you are upset at others for disliking noncompetes, and not that they are apparently ubiquitous in your field, is backward.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:03 AM on July 1, 2016 [29 favorites]
That you are upset at others for disliking noncompetes, and not that they are apparently ubiquitous in your field, is backward.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:03 AM on July 1, 2016 [29 favorites]
"This is a perpetuation of the oppression that marginalized minorities face and when you factor in Buzzfeed as an idea, it creates a situation where as a person with a voice that’s hardly heard, you feel as though you should be thankful for even having the chance. So you’re willing to work for very little or for free and who gets paid for your story at the end of the day? Cis white men. ...However, he had bought into the idea that we, as marginalized voices, must simply work for free if we ever want to be heard." - Kat Blaque
This really gets to the crux, I think. Straight up exploitation. Just because they're honest about it doesn't make it any more right.
posted by smirkette at 9:21 AM on July 1, 2016
This really gets to the crux, I think. Straight up exploitation. Just because they're honest about it doesn't make it any more right.
posted by smirkette at 9:21 AM on July 1, 2016
I am not "upset" about sufficiently narrowly defined non-compete clauses. It's perfectly reasonable to require salaried employees to sign a contract agreeing not to contribute to projects that directly compete with their work product. Which sounds like it could be the case here.
A lot of non-compete clauses are really, really broad, and I do take issue with those. That is why I don't sign them. I have seen non-competes where you could argue that the company could lay claim to any meals you cook while in their employ, and I have pretty much every time been told I was the first person to even question the terms.
People just signing those things without even reading them is a big reason they have gotten so ridiculous in the first place. If you dislike noncompetes, say something before you sign them.
posted by ernielundquist at 9:25 AM on July 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
A lot of non-compete clauses are really, really broad, and I do take issue with those. That is why I don't sign them. I have seen non-competes where you could argue that the company could lay claim to any meals you cook while in their employ, and I have pretty much every time been told I was the first person to even question the terms.
People just signing those things without even reading them is a big reason they have gotten so ridiculous in the first place. If you dislike noncompetes, say something before you sign them.
posted by ernielundquist at 9:25 AM on July 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
On multiple occasions I have been offered jobs where the potential employer asked me to sign papers stating that they owned any intellectual property I might generate while in their employ, even if its creation were to occur on "my own time" and without the use of company resources. I can imagine that actually signing such a thing would feel like having an enormous leech attached to one's brain, robbing one of all enthusiasm to create beautiful things. This is how the human loses its creative edge, and everything suffers.
posted by Hot Pastrami! at 9:25 AM on July 1, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by Hot Pastrami! at 9:25 AM on July 1, 2016 [17 favorites]
A lot of non-compete clauses are really, really broad, and I do take issue with those. That is why I don't sign them.
It sounds like you are privileged to have that luxury. Here's how it went when I tried not to sign a non-compete for I job I had landed at a motion-graphics company:
Me: "I'm not really comfortable signing this non-compete as is and would prefer to renegotiate the terms."
Them: "The terms are non-negotiable. If you don't sign this we will go with someone else. Thanks!"
And there goes my income.
It is a fantasy to assume that most employees in todays job market have the leverage to renegotiate terms of employment to better suit them. It is now standard operating procedure for most companies to have broad non-competes and some (like the company I currently work for) actually wave your right to a trial and compel you to use a third-party arbiter of their choosing should a legal situation arise.
Don't like it? Tough shit...we'll hire someone else who isn't a nail that we can't hammer down.
That's how it works in most cases for most people.
posted by jnnla at 9:33 AM on July 1, 2016 [28 favorites]
It sounds like you are privileged to have that luxury. Here's how it went when I tried not to sign a non-compete for I job I had landed at a motion-graphics company:
Me: "I'm not really comfortable signing this non-compete as is and would prefer to renegotiate the terms."
Them: "The terms are non-negotiable. If you don't sign this we will go with someone else. Thanks!"
And there goes my income.
It is a fantasy to assume that most employees in todays job market have the leverage to renegotiate terms of employment to better suit them. It is now standard operating procedure for most companies to have broad non-competes and some (like the company I currently work for) actually wave your right to a trial and compel you to use a third-party arbiter of their choosing should a legal situation arise.
Don't like it? Tough shit...we'll hire someone else who isn't a nail that we can't hammer down.
That's how it works in most cases for most people.
posted by jnnla at 9:33 AM on July 1, 2016 [28 favorites]
I have negotiated clarifications and exemptions to make sure that the terms were very clear about what is and isn't work product, even when it's something that's completely, wildly different from my day job.
An employment contract isn't a clickthrough license or something. You should probably read it before you agree to it.
How lovely for you, to have the ability and the capacity to negotiate. Perhaps you might try considering whether that is universally the case.
posted by praemunire at 9:55 AM on July 1, 2016 [16 favorites]
An employment contract isn't a clickthrough license or something. You should probably read it before you agree to it.
How lovely for you, to have the ability and the capacity to negotiate. Perhaps you might try considering whether that is universally the case.
posted by praemunire at 9:55 AM on July 1, 2016 [16 favorites]
I have found, in my 30 years as a contractor, that companies who won't negotiate non-competes are generally not companies I want to do work for. Especially for companies that pay shit to begin with, as is the case with most web content. I own a creative company, I work for multiple clients at any given point, I'm not about to sign anything that gives my rights to a single client. That said, I'm negotiating from a position of strength, in that I have no problem walking away...because I've spent a lifetime having my own attorney vet every contract, and as such, I've never ended up losing rights I should have kept.
That said, I've long ago given up working for "New" media or industry "disruptors", because as a rule, they don't pay anything near what they should, and they all seem to think that you should be thrilled to give them your time and talent for nothing more than exposure. Dude, I don't give a rat's ass about exposure, I need to pay my mortgage.
If everyone would stop signing these obscene contracts, they would go away...but then I've long argued fruitlessly that creatives should unionize.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 9:57 AM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
That said, I've long ago given up working for "New" media or industry "disruptors", because as a rule, they don't pay anything near what they should, and they all seem to think that you should be thrilled to give them your time and talent for nothing more than exposure. Dude, I don't give a rat's ass about exposure, I need to pay my mortgage.
If everyone would stop signing these obscene contracts, they would go away...but then I've long argued fruitlessly that creatives should unionize.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 9:57 AM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm not assuming my experiences are universal by any means, but I have been told every single time that I was the first person to even question the terms of my contract. I've gotten pushback, I have always been able to narrow the terms of my contract to only include work that could be considered competitive, because I've always done freelance work and it's been important to me to protect that. I also point out that overly broad non-competes are unenforceable.
But my main thing is that I don't think this is an example of an overly broad non-compete. It sounds to me like the project they worked on could arguably be considered competitive.
posted by ernielundquist at 10:08 AM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
But my main thing is that I don't think this is an example of an overly broad non-compete. It sounds to me like the project they worked on could arguably be considered competitive.
posted by ernielundquist at 10:08 AM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Ze is making the freelance model sound more appealing all the time. Buzzfeed can't survive without content. If their content providers become not just freelancers but collectively organized freelancers, they could wield some leverage.
posted by prepmonkey at 10:12 AM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by prepmonkey at 10:12 AM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I can't be alone in being deflated at finding out Ze has anything to do with Buzzfeed. I was totally unaware of this.
posted by You Should See the Other Guy at 11:02 AM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by You Should See the Other Guy at 11:02 AM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Full disclosure: My husband is an Open Lab fellow so I am predisposed to like Buzzfeed these days.
But honestly? This seems like a lot of nothing. The Kat Blaque piece is like "oh I worked for free and some bad things happened, but now I am powerful!" Okay? Yeah, don't do diversity work for free. Start a campaign like designers and really push *no one* to work for free. Likewise the noncompetes and intellectual property papers. I am hardly the most privileged person in existence, but I have negotiated my noncompetes etc., and they are unenforceable in California anyways. This is pretty standard in design: studios want your work and many people have freelance clients. If they won't make some exceptions, ask for more money!
The Gaby Dunn piece points out she didn't read her contracts, and I think that is really the point here. When I was just starting out in content work, I didn't read my contracts either, and I just managed to not get caught when I contravened them. Then I got older, had more to protect, and started negotiating them. Fortunately by then, I had more skills people wanted, so they were more likely to negotiate.
So young women of the world, instead of taking from this that Buzzfeed Is Terrible, I encourage you to instead think I Am Powerful; They Want Me; I Must Negotiate.
posted by dame at 11:04 AM on July 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
But honestly? This seems like a lot of nothing. The Kat Blaque piece is like "oh I worked for free and some bad things happened, but now I am powerful!" Okay? Yeah, don't do diversity work for free. Start a campaign like designers and really push *no one* to work for free. Likewise the noncompetes and intellectual property papers. I am hardly the most privileged person in existence, but I have negotiated my noncompetes etc., and they are unenforceable in California anyways. This is pretty standard in design: studios want your work and many people have freelance clients. If they won't make some exceptions, ask for more money!
The Gaby Dunn piece points out she didn't read her contracts, and I think that is really the point here. When I was just starting out in content work, I didn't read my contracts either, and I just managed to not get caught when I contravened them. Then I got older, had more to protect, and started negotiating them. Fortunately by then, I had more skills people wanted, so they were more likely to negotiate.
So young women of the world, instead of taking from this that Buzzfeed Is Terrible, I encourage you to instead think I Am Powerful; They Want Me; I Must Negotiate.
posted by dame at 11:04 AM on July 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
So when can we get a micropayment scheme, so we can pay for journalism at an affordable rate?
Maybe the model should be broadband providers pay content providers who join affiliated networks of some sort for bookeeping's sake. Broadband providers are like cable companies and provide different sets of channels? Through regulation, broadband providers must also allow access to certain registered non-profit sites as well?
Hmm, actually, I see lots of problems with this model.
So... how can we pay content providers given that ads don't work?
posted by latkes at 11:06 AM on July 1, 2016
Maybe the model should be broadband providers pay content providers who join affiliated networks of some sort for bookeeping's sake. Broadband providers are like cable companies and provide different sets of channels? Through regulation, broadband providers must also allow access to certain registered non-profit sites as well?
Hmm, actually, I see lots of problems with this model.
So... how can we pay content providers given that ads don't work?
posted by latkes at 11:06 AM on July 1, 2016
I'm particularly fascinated at how blatant their thievery wrt Kenji Lopez-Alt has been. He has a fairly distinct style when it comes to recipe design/structure.
From a BuzzFeed editor in response: Each producer at BuzzFeed Video conceptualizes, brainstorms, writes, directs, acts in, and edits their own videos. Any similarities, while unintentional, are unfortunate casualties of creating in the same space.
Aka "We aren't going to do a thing about it because we're getting paid for it".
posted by CrystalDave at 11:21 AM on July 1, 2016
From a BuzzFeed editor in response: Each producer at BuzzFeed Video conceptualizes, brainstorms, writes, directs, acts in, and edits their own videos. Any similarities, while unintentional, are unfortunate casualties of creating in the same space.
Aka "We aren't going to do a thing about it because we're getting paid for it".
posted by CrystalDave at 11:21 AM on July 1, 2016
same: the terms are not negotiable.
at best, one time I wrote in ink in the margin, "I do not agree to this paragraph", initialed and dated. HR never said anything. probably never even noticed.
I'm really glad I never had to sit across the table from a paid-by-my-employer-mediator and defend it.
posted by j_curiouser at 11:34 AM on July 1, 2016
at best, one time I wrote in ink in the margin, "I do not agree to this paragraph", initialed and dated. HR never said anything. probably never even noticed.
I'm really glad I never had to sit across the table from a paid-by-my-employer-mediator and defend it.
posted by j_curiouser at 11:34 AM on July 1, 2016
I wonder if those more valid journalism branches of Buzzfeed are underwritten by the viral-focused, theft-driven branches of Buzzfeed
I'd be very surprised if they aren't really.
I'm not really able to evaluate whether they're stealing people's ideas. I have a real problem with non-competes in general though.
posted by atoxyl at 11:56 AM on July 1, 2016
I'd be very surprised if they aren't really.
I'm not really able to evaluate whether they're stealing people's ideas. I have a real problem with non-competes in general though.
posted by atoxyl at 11:56 AM on July 1, 2016
Sounds like a limp-wristed way to bring back the Studio system where actors and actresses were tied to the studios. Young actors are told over and over again, say yes to everything, write for yourself, don't expect anyone to write for you and get your ass out there.
This seems like the complete opposite of what our new media performers should be hitching their wagon to, especially if Buzzfeed is getting the taint of plagiarism.
They think this is going to keep their talent from jumping ship if they take off like the next Lonely Island buts its going to have the opposite effect, they are just too greedy and stupid to treat their talent better and see that.
posted by MiltonRandKalman at 12:35 PM on July 1, 2016
This seems like the complete opposite of what our new media performers should be hitching their wagon to, especially if Buzzfeed is getting the taint of plagiarism.
They think this is going to keep their talent from jumping ship if they take off like the next Lonely Island buts its going to have the opposite effect, they are just too greedy and stupid to treat their talent better and see that.
posted by MiltonRandKalman at 12:35 PM on July 1, 2016
If everyone would stop signing these obscene contracts, they would go away...but then I've long argued fruitlessly that creatives should unionize.
Imagining that they would go away merely if everyone stopped signing them (instead of wondering why folks are coerced into signing them to start with) could be one good reason that they will never go away.
posted by blucevalo at 1:56 PM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Imagining that they would go away merely if everyone stopped signing them (instead of wondering why folks are coerced into signing them to start with) could be one good reason that they will never go away.
posted by blucevalo at 1:56 PM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
The Independent weighs in, for more details about Buzzfeed recipe-theft.
posted by CrystalDave at 2:18 PM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by CrystalDave at 2:18 PM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
There are way too many common examples of corporate overreach in non-competes and in other areas, but unless I'm missing something really huge, this is not one of them.
I think working in a creative industry is different from other industries. It's common for writers, for instance, to be publishing books and also to be publishing magazine pieces in a variety of places, though not to publish the same work in different venues. The functioning of non-compete clauses in this environment seems kind of complicated to me—who says what competing work is? Is it entirely at the discretion of, in this case, Buzzfeed? In this case, they seem to have fired two actors for working on a project that was similar to something they were planning to do in the future. That feels a little bit like when my kids are fighting over the best living room chair, and one says, "You're in my chair!" and the other one says "You weren't sitting in it!" and the first one says, "I was about to!"
"Work for hire" is also common, meaning that what you create belongs to the person you work for—I have some writing that I signed away like this at various times, in at least one case being told, "This is just, you know, a thing our lawyers make us do," and I regret it, even though nobody has gone on to make a zillion bucks from my work or anything like that—but it's not a great argument for declaring work "work for hire" and letting someone else own it that "it didn't hurt me because it didn't turn out to be worth much in the marketplace."
That said, I am very familiar with the phenomenon of trying to get marginalized people to work for you for free—the trans person who was asked to "consult" at Buzzfeed for instance. I've been asked a time or two to vet manuscripts to see if they handled trans issues OK, and I actually put in a big chunk of time reviewing a chapter for the most recent revision of Our Bodies, Ourselves, which I was excited to be asked to do but after I'd read the chapter and spent quite a bit of time writing up my comments, I felt uncomfortable with how much time and energy I'd invested. Some of my critiques were things the writers and editors ought to have educated themselves on. For instance, I explained to them that "Native Americans have a word that means..." is akin to saying, "Europeans have a word that means..." Which tribe? I asked them. What language? What's your source?
Anyway, my point is I gave away my expertise for free and ended up not feeling all that great about it.
Some of the arguments presented here seem weak to me, though. The idea that the two videos on introverts make the same Netflix joke, for instance. It's a really obvious "binge-watching streaming video" joke. Last winter, I wrote a gay romance novella on a whim, and I had a joke in there that I thought was entirely original and kind of clever. A few weeks after I'd finished my first draft, I read Midnight Cowboy, a novel published in 1965—fifty years ago and coincidentally the year I was born.
My "original" joke appeared in the novel's opening scene.
The first introversion video opens with a joke about it being necessary because there are only 60,000 introversion tumblr sites. In an environment like that, similar videos and similar jokes are going to be all over the place. That said, widespread content appropriation is one reason that, when I come across an interesting link, I try to hunt it down and pass along the original rather than another website going, "Look at this cool thing this person is doing over here." And I'm certainly not willing to say, "Oh, nonsense, Buzzfeed isn't actively stealing ideas from a black woman" because I've been around awhile and I am not inclined to give white people the benefit of the doubt on this kind of thing.
It's great to see this getting talked about, since in some ways the internet is a new frontier. But it's always been difficult for people who do creative work to stand up for themselves individually. "Don't work for free!" writers are told. But most writers are commodities in a glutted market. This is why people sign crappy contracts like the ones I've signed, and the one Gaby Dunn signed. The internet makes it easier to talk about these things, as someone noted up-thread, but it also makes borrowing and theft that much easier.
In conclusion, I just have no idea.
posted by not that girl at 2:26 PM on July 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
I think working in a creative industry is different from other industries. It's common for writers, for instance, to be publishing books and also to be publishing magazine pieces in a variety of places, though not to publish the same work in different venues. The functioning of non-compete clauses in this environment seems kind of complicated to me—who says what competing work is? Is it entirely at the discretion of, in this case, Buzzfeed? In this case, they seem to have fired two actors for working on a project that was similar to something they were planning to do in the future. That feels a little bit like when my kids are fighting over the best living room chair, and one says, "You're in my chair!" and the other one says "You weren't sitting in it!" and the first one says, "I was about to!"
"Work for hire" is also common, meaning that what you create belongs to the person you work for—I have some writing that I signed away like this at various times, in at least one case being told, "This is just, you know, a thing our lawyers make us do," and I regret it, even though nobody has gone on to make a zillion bucks from my work or anything like that—but it's not a great argument for declaring work "work for hire" and letting someone else own it that "it didn't hurt me because it didn't turn out to be worth much in the marketplace."
That said, I am very familiar with the phenomenon of trying to get marginalized people to work for you for free—the trans person who was asked to "consult" at Buzzfeed for instance. I've been asked a time or two to vet manuscripts to see if they handled trans issues OK, and I actually put in a big chunk of time reviewing a chapter for the most recent revision of Our Bodies, Ourselves, which I was excited to be asked to do but after I'd read the chapter and spent quite a bit of time writing up my comments, I felt uncomfortable with how much time and energy I'd invested. Some of my critiques were things the writers and editors ought to have educated themselves on. For instance, I explained to them that "Native Americans have a word that means..." is akin to saying, "Europeans have a word that means..." Which tribe? I asked them. What language? What's your source?
Anyway, my point is I gave away my expertise for free and ended up not feeling all that great about it.
Some of the arguments presented here seem weak to me, though. The idea that the two videos on introverts make the same Netflix joke, for instance. It's a really obvious "binge-watching streaming video" joke. Last winter, I wrote a gay romance novella on a whim, and I had a joke in there that I thought was entirely original and kind of clever. A few weeks after I'd finished my first draft, I read Midnight Cowboy, a novel published in 1965—fifty years ago and coincidentally the year I was born.
My "original" joke appeared in the novel's opening scene.
The first introversion video opens with a joke about it being necessary because there are only 60,000 introversion tumblr sites. In an environment like that, similar videos and similar jokes are going to be all over the place. That said, widespread content appropriation is one reason that, when I come across an interesting link, I try to hunt it down and pass along the original rather than another website going, "Look at this cool thing this person is doing over here." And I'm certainly not willing to say, "Oh, nonsense, Buzzfeed isn't actively stealing ideas from a black woman" because I've been around awhile and I am not inclined to give white people the benefit of the doubt on this kind of thing.
It's great to see this getting talked about, since in some ways the internet is a new frontier. But it's always been difficult for people who do creative work to stand up for themselves individually. "Don't work for free!" writers are told. But most writers are commodities in a glutted market. This is why people sign crappy contracts like the ones I've signed, and the one Gaby Dunn signed. The internet makes it easier to talk about these things, as someone noted up-thread, but it also makes borrowing and theft that much easier.
In conclusion, I just have no idea.
posted by not that girl at 2:26 PM on July 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
How much are these complaints specific to Buzzfeed, and how much are these complaints more of a reflection on the industry (content/media creation, creative IP etc) itself?
Non-competes are common, as many here have pointed out. The idea of starting out with less negotiating power (and thus signing over more rights/control as a newbie when contracting with a larger corporation), and then growing one's influence and being able to negotiate better deals over time.... is also a pretty common and expected trajectory.
So how much of this is really and especially Buzzfeed-specific?
posted by aielen at 2:40 PM on July 1, 2016
Non-competes are common, as many here have pointed out. The idea of starting out with less negotiating power (and thus signing over more rights/control as a newbie when contracting with a larger corporation), and then growing one's influence and being able to negotiate better deals over time.... is also a pretty common and expected trajectory.
So how much of this is really and especially Buzzfeed-specific?
posted by aielen at 2:40 PM on July 1, 2016
I miss the Ze Frank who said, "Don't swim upstream, baby. The future was right where you were."
posted by aedison at 2:56 PM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by aedison at 2:56 PM on July 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
A few months back on Metafilter there was an article by Gaby Dunn about the difficulties of being "Youtube famous" and broke. I posted some dismissive comments about how she'd always annoyed me in her Buzzfeed videos and I referred to her as "that lesbian stoner lady." Since then I've actually become a big fan of Just Between Us, the web series/advice show that Dunn does with another former Buzzfeed staffer, Allison Raskin. The stuff that annoyed me about Dunn on Buzzfeed still annoys me a little. (She's the kind of feminist who has a mug that says "male tears"... because sexism is OK when women do it I guess.) But I now feel like I've gotten to know her a lot better and she's like 85% delightful. (Allison will always be my fave, though.)
As I was making my way through their videos and enjoying them, I started to feel bad about what I'd written here. But the thread was long-dead, so there was no taking it back. Well, here's my chance to take it back! Gaby Dunn is not an "annoying lesbian stoner lady." She is a funny, charming and only occasionally annoying bisexual stoner lady.
And Buzzfeed still sucks.
posted by Ursula Hitler at 2:59 PM on July 1, 2016
As I was making my way through their videos and enjoying them, I started to feel bad about what I'd written here. But the thread was long-dead, so there was no taking it back. Well, here's my chance to take it back! Gaby Dunn is not an "annoying lesbian stoner lady." She is a funny, charming and only occasionally annoying bisexual stoner lady.
And Buzzfeed still sucks.
posted by Ursula Hitler at 2:59 PM on July 1, 2016
->layceepee, It's more than just a broad concept issue. It's an issue of of buzzfeed taking the same tone, editing, and feel which is something they absolutely do.
I find this somewhat ironic and lowkey hilarious when this same community of web content producers was up in arms as hell about the finebros react situation, in which a content producer actually tried to say "we came up with this concept and style, don't steal it".
So is it only bad when a company no one likes does it? Because that does seem like somewhat apt of a comparison...
posted by emptythought at 3:27 PM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I find this somewhat ironic and lowkey hilarious when this same community of web content producers was up in arms as hell about the finebros react situation, in which a content producer actually tried to say "we came up with this concept and style, don't steal it".
So is it only bad when a company no one likes does it? Because that does seem like somewhat apt of a comparison...
posted by emptythought at 3:27 PM on July 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I just went and deleted buzzfeed from my ipad/rss feed.
I cannot in good conscience support a company that continues to exploit others that way. I should have done it a long time ago. Buzzfeed has been doing this for a very long time. They have stole content from reddit posts and other sites. I didn't make much of a mess about that at the time but stealing whole videos from content creators is just low.
posted by 81818181818181818181 at 5:07 PM on July 1, 2016
I cannot in good conscience support a company that continues to exploit others that way. I should have done it a long time ago. Buzzfeed has been doing this for a very long time. They have stole content from reddit posts and other sites. I didn't make much of a mess about that at the time but stealing whole videos from content creators is just low.
posted by 81818181818181818181 at 5:07 PM on July 1, 2016
I wonder if those more valid journalism branches of Buzzfeed are underwritten by the viral-focused, theft-driven branches of Buzzfeed
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that that's basically their business model. And it's frustrating, because some of the investigative journalism they're doing is really, really important--case in point, another important investigation of egregious sexual (and other) misconduct in science/academia that they published this week. They've been killing it at this beat for the last year or so--doing much better work than the official higher-ed press, which may have something to do with deep enough pockets to resist the threat of lawsuits. I want them to exist and prosper so they can keep doing this kind of work, but I'd like to see them find a way to do so that didn't involve clickbait and shady appropriation of other people's content.
posted by karayel at 7:45 PM on July 1, 2016
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that that's basically their business model. And it's frustrating, because some of the investigative journalism they're doing is really, really important--case in point, another important investigation of egregious sexual (and other) misconduct in science/academia that they published this week. They've been killing it at this beat for the last year or so--doing much better work than the official higher-ed press, which may have something to do with deep enough pockets to resist the threat of lawsuits. I want them to exist and prosper so they can keep doing this kind of work, but I'd like to see them find a way to do so that didn't involve clickbait and shady appropriation of other people's content.
posted by karayel at 7:45 PM on July 1, 2016
Kat Blaque's piece as a YouTube video
Akilah Hughes shows more examples of Buzzfeed lifting content
posted by divabat at 12:00 AM on July 3, 2016
Akilah Hughes shows more examples of Buzzfeed lifting content
posted by divabat at 12:00 AM on July 3, 2016
« Older Reality is too full | "He sent me Christmas cards up until I went to... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by latkes at 7:28 AM on July 1, 2016 [3 favorites]