"Ownership" of YouTube content

Post Reply New Topic

Does it seem reasonable for a vlogger to act as if they own any YouTube channel such as their own?
Here are examples of actions that may be part of a pattern that indicates ownership behaviour:

*A vlogger tends to ignore or dispute suggestions or requests concerning formatting of their videos. The vlogger in question may claim, explicitly or implicitly, the right to review suggestions or requests before making a video that is requested.
*A user repeatedly criticises videos by someone else over an extended period of time.
*A user claims that a video by someone else is "uneccesary" without claiming that it is detrimental.
*A vlogger deletes a good-faith video or sets it to private without proper justification. Is repeating this sort of thing after being asked for a rationale a strong indicator of "ownership" behaviour?
*A vlogger responds to other's comments and even comments on their channels with the purpose of discouraging others from commenting any further. The comments may consist of threats and/or insults, even avoiding the topic of their channel altogether. A vlogger may patronise other users and claim they lack the understanding of the topic of their channel they claim is necessary to make good suggestions or good requests.
*A vlogger blocks users without proper justification.

Here are statements of the sort that may be part of the pattern mentioned above:

*"Are you qualified to comment on my channel?" "[Insert other commenter here] is more qualified than you"
*"You obviously lack experience with the topic of my channel"
*"I made the majority of videos about [insert topic here]" (Does this imply that some kind of right or status exists because of that?)
*"I saw your comment, and I appreciate your enthusiasm; however, I am an expert on the subject and will not make the video you suggested" or "I saw your video, and I appreciate your enthusiasm; however, I am an expert on the subject and I think you should take down this video (and redo it). If you have any ideas for videos, please contact ma and I will review it."
*This commenter/vlogger doesn't like your comment" or "This commenter/vlogger doesn't like your video" (Maybe implying ownership by a subset of the YouTube community)
*"Please clear this with [insert subset here] first" such as a booktuber saying "Please clear this with the BookTube community first"
*This video is by a peanut-gallery vlogger" or "This comment is from a peanut-gallery user"
*Unless the video is wrong or has errors, please do not suggest redoing it without my/his/her/our approval" or "Unless the video is wrong or has errors, all suggestions or requests made without my/his/her/our approval will be ignored" or "Please do not make videos without my/his/her/our approval"
*"I don't own the book you cite in your video so I can't confirm what you say in that video"
*"You have never commented on my channel (as a quick search shows)" or "You have never commented on videos about [insert topic here] (as a quick search shows)" or "You have never videos about [insert topic here] (as a quick search shows)"
*"I have spent a lot of time and money on making this video. You are giving it a bad name!"

My view is that a vlogger is perfectly entitled to create whatever videos they wish, make those videos private or delete them, allow or not allow comments, ignore any suggestions made by subscribers, and block any users they wish.

A vlogger should not engage in behaviour which bullies or belittles other users. The rules of basic human decency do still apply.

Vloggers do own their own channels, but do not own communities. If they try to act as a gatekeeper to a community then they are failing the human decency test.

It’s hard to comment further without full context - perhaps some of these remarks would be justified in extreme examples.

At the time of starting this thread, I was wondering if that might be irresponsible. Say it's a crackpot engaging in the behaviours I describe above. Note that no one we have ever seen as a genius was ever seen as a crackpot.

How about posting hoaxes?

Technically they don't belong to the users themselves but to whoever owns YouTube.

I guess that would depend on whether or not YT can ever make up its mind as to whether they're a publisher or a platform, instead of weaseling between the two whenever it's convenient.