Exactly who owns that MMS you just made?

YoSpace’s website proclaims that it’s “where reality TV meets mobile” and in terms of publicity if perhaps not revenues, it’s flagship product SeeMeTV has been an outstanding success. But is the rise of User Generated Content really the democratisation of mobile, or just a new Napster?

The idea of user generated content certainly isn’t new – William Burroughs was doing it with words at the same time the surrealists were trying it with photographs and painting. As early as 1920 at a surrealist rally, an unknown artist called Tristan Tzara attempted to create a poem by drawing random words out of a hat. A riot followed soon afterwards.

But for today’s digital consumer, User Generated Content or USG is about instant gratification rather than aesthetics or the act of creation. With a few clicks and button presses, video, audio and text can appear on virtually any multimedia device. Suddenly, we are all our own multimedia node (to paraphrase Nathan Barley), and everyone can dip their toe in for free. And to accompany this very modern resurgence of an older artform, so we seem to have a new challenge for an old problem – copyright law.

The challenges that new forms of media are facing with outdated copyright laws are not new – witness the increasing desperation of music labels represented by the RIAA to hold back the tide of filesharing and superdistribution. There are plenty of legal precedents concerning content rights deals that never foresaw digital media and personalised service, and laws have fallen far behind the march of technology. There is also the imbalance of consumers who have become used to worldwide movie and album launches, whilst countries still decide their own copyright laws.

Which is why SeeMeTV, created by YoSpace for UK operator 3 presents the mobile industry with a quandary – how can copyright and USG on a mass scale coexist?

The latest web phenomenon, YouTube.com, may give us a few clues. It’s a website that has rapidly emerged to become one of the most popular on the web, with more than 70 million daily viewers – and that number is rising fast. The business model is based purely on web advertising, unlike SeeMeTV which is based on the user paying for each clip they view. But it’s an interesting case because the huge success of YouTube.com is starting to generate a lot of unease amongst traditional media companies.

It’s a tough one for the corporations because it’s the same young, tech savvy users that they are all courting that are messing around with their copyrighted content. The issue is that users are adding music and video clips to their own content, unaware that such usage flies in the face of existing copyright laws. For example, see that shaky video clip of your favourite band on stage? Well, that’s probably copyright of the band or record label. Same with the clip of people hurting themselves in stupid ways that’s had a rocking audio track added. Record labels are taking the threat seriously enough that rumours are flying around that the RIAA is thinking about sending cease and desist letters to people who post their own karaoke videos on the web. Now personally I can think of simpler ways to download a music track illegally, but it shows the subtlety of the problem. We are getting used to ‘owning’ virtual content that we can swap between mobile, PC and iPod whenever we want. The downside to this is that nobody is waiting around to read the smallprint about what the law says you can and can’t do with it.

YouTube.com can claim that it’s merely a hosting service, and is not directly responsible for the content – a defence we’ve heard from ISPs when faced with threats from the RIAA. But this article on The Hollywood Reporter Esq. outlines how this may not be effective if the site keeps increasing its audience and, crucially, tries to make more money as a result. This may be one of the reasons that YouTube.com is starting to strike sponsorship deals with brands, as it resolves the problems of income and copyright in a single swoop. And companies will pay a premium to reach the youth market.

So far, SeeMeTV has been more concerned about unsuitable content rather than copyright protected. As with many online community sites, moderators are used to ensure that overly-sexual or profane content doesn’t make it onto the portal. A cynic might translate that to mean “tits are fine, but nothing south of the equator” – the most popular clips are usually girls showing off their assets, and a quick look at rival mobile site Peek-a-Boo TV shows that it’s hard to find clips of anything except tits. FHM readers, eat your hearts out. But if these kinds of user generated clips prove popular – and it seems like every operator is launching or plans to launch their own version – it won’t be long until copyright poses an issue.

This seems to add to the mountain of evidence showing that copyright as it has existed to date just isn’t right for the way we are digesting media now and in the future. Initiatives such as Copyleft are trying to address some of the more arduous creative constraints that traditional laws impose, but for now it looks as though media dinosaurs will try to stave off extinction through threats and lawsuits. Those that want to survive are grasping the new media nettle, and actively working with sites like SeeMeTV and YouTube.com.

Of course, one rather lazy solution is to hide behind legalese terms and conditions and hope that everything will be OK. To answer the question posed in the title of this piece, if you are watching SeeMeTV then 3 UK owns the MMS, regardless of what it’s of, and who made it. In fact, they reserve the right to use it in any way they see fit, especially if it makes them lots of money in the process. It’s nice to see that it’s not just the lawyers who are making money out of this new media confusion.