Or, is there a bigger picture here?
The video director Twitterverse fell into an uproar over the past few days with the sudden takedown of many videos for copyright infringement.
Some background info, for those who mostly watch cat videos on YouTube (it's ok, we all do):
Vimeo has become a haven for creatives to showcase their work, thanks to a pristine player, advanced control over where your video gets shared or embedded, and a community of active directors and other artists. There's no advertising; instead it's largely sustained through Vimeo Plus, Pro and Business accounts which give you added features, added storage space and other things which may be necessities depending on your needs.
Do Directors Have the Right to Show Their Works?
Music video directors mostly do Work For Hire, which is a simple, yet loaded term which essentially means: Directors have no ownership or other rights to the content they create. They've been hired, they do the work, they move on.
Before the Internet, directors almost always retained the right to show their work on what was called a Director's Showreel, which would be used for sales purposes in getting new directing jobs. It was a safe careveout since the only way to see one was to call a rep and request a reel; It was an expensive and time consuming process since it usually involved a Beta SP tape. And it's now archaic, since the internet made the physical Showreel as pointless as a DVD or a CD or a 3/4" tape.
In a way, Vimeo has become the modern Director's Showreel, something the site has seemingly encouraged. As opposed to YouTube, where you can upload anything for any reason, Vimeo's upload recommendations require the uploader to have some creative connection to the making of the video (and, have the necessary copyrights and approvals, of course).
So, What Happened?
Many directors who had videos on Vimeo with apparently no problems for years — garnering lots of views, lots of comments and even official Vimeo Staff Picks — suddenly found some of their videos removed for copyright infringement.
It'd take some serious blinders to not assume this is related to the 2009 EMI Labels lawsuit against Vimeo, stating that . And strangely, the original lawsuit was triggered by lipdubs, but now seems to have gathered steam to cover much, much more. The takeway could be that Vimeo might need to play by the same rules as YouTube — in terms of licensing and takedowns — which could be a sign that Vimeo can no longer be viewed as just an giant online Showreel, or a niche outlet, but something capable of moving the needle and making everyone money.
Except the directors, but that's a different editorial...
