User-Generated Content

Refers to the increasingly widespread capability for "users" to generate and share their own content, using collaborative publishing platforms like You Tube, rather than consume production from the mass media.

It is used mostly in the field of media, while Crowdsourcing is used as a specific strategy to create innovation and value in commercial projects.

See the related entry on the User-Generated Ecosystem

Critics suggest the whole concept has a corporate bias and propose the alternative of Community-Curated Works

Discussion

a critique of the concept of User

1.

By Scott Carp at http://www.blogherald.com/2006/12/27/death-of-the-user/

"In most cases “users” in Media 2.0 are defined as the “people formerly known as the audience” or the “users” of Web 2.0 applications, including social networking sites like MySpace. The problem is that “users” are defined in opposition to “publishers” — as if people who create “blogs” are still in some lesser, “other” category, below and apart from traditional publishers like, uh, Yahoo.

Well, no. There is a revolution in media because people who create blogs and MySpace pages ARE publishers, and more importantly, they are now on equal footing with the “big,” “traditional” publishers. There has been a leveling of the playing field that renders largely meaningless the distinction between “users” and “publishers” — we’re all publishers now, and we’re all competing for the finite pie of attention. The problem is that the discourse on trends in online media still clings to the language of “us” and “them,” when it is all about the breakdown of that distinction.

Despite my objection to his use of “users,” Fred’s observation about trends in page views is an important one — smaller publishers, i.e. NOT USERS, do likely account for an increasing percentage of all page views. But I think it’s essential to recognize that the difference here is one of SCALE, not KIND. Traditional publishers who use cumbersome, out-dated multi-million dollar content management systems to publish on the web are also “users” of these over-priced systems, but they are publishers first.

It’s time we start adjusting our taxonomy to recognize that the tools do not define the activity or the output or the people doing it. There are large publishers and small publishers. There are people who publish for friends and family, and people who publish for professional colleagues, and people who publish for a (relatively) broad consumer audience. The revolution is that ANYONE can publish to the network and that anyone can leverage the power of the network.

That said, there is one respect in which some publishers are still “users” — when you publish to a platform like MySpace or YouTube, you cede control over the monetization of your publication. As I discussed in my last column, making money is certainly not the objective of everyone who publishes online. But regardless of financial motives, we are all seeking our share of attention — and anyone who publishes anything online is competing for their share.

So it’s time to throw off the mantle of “user” and be proud publishers — otherwise we’re going to get “used.”

2.

User:

“Treat me as a person, not some user, consumer, addict, shallow person defined by your brand or some other form of low life.” — Rishad Tobaccowala

The problem is that the discourse on trends in online media still clings to the language of “us” publishers and “them,” users when it is all about the breakdown of that distinction.

— Death of the User

“User” is software-speak from a block diagram. I’m not just someone who you let create an account on your website." (http://brianna.modernthings.org/article/123/an-alternative-term-for-user-generated-content)

3.

"Using ‘content’ as a noun to describe written and other works of authorship is worth avoiding. That usage adopts a specific attitude towards those works: that they are an interchangeable commodity whose purpose is to fill a box and make money. In effect, it treats the works themselves with disrespect."

— Richard Stallman [1]

Ten Conditions for successfull UGC

From the OhMyNews CEO at http://english.ohmynews.com/ArticleView/article_view.asp?menu=&no=347268&rel_no=1&back_url= :

"Credibility

To deliver correct and non-manipulated facts. Reporters should possess clear motives on contents before the audience.

To be free from copy-right infringements. Contents must be produced by reporters by themselves and not copied from somewhere else without permission.

Responsibility

To create contents with considerations on the needs of the audience and news sources and not only based on the own needs of reporters.

To contribute to improving the quality of the media, which reporters work with, by taking account of the nature of the media (platforms).

Influence

To produce contents recommendable to others. Stories should be worthwhile sharing with others rather than personal diaries.

To ensure the attention of the critical mass who are able to build public opinions. The media (platforms) should become supporters in securing a good number of the audience for valuable contents.

To make repercussions not only in the cyber world but also in real life.

To generate positive impact on the public spheres. Contents helping to resolve issues would be more desirable than simple criticism and raising issues only.

Sustainability

To win recognitions as useful contents among the audience and utilize the recognitions as a foundation for sustainable production of contents.

More desirably, to become marketable and contribute to establishing good and sound business models for the media." (http://english.ohmynews.com/ArticleView/article_view.asp?menu=&no=347268&rel_no=1&back_url=)

Insufficiency of the business model

Yihong-Ding:

""Networking" is not the same as "consuming," however. A common misconception of Web 2.0 is that people produce UGC for others to consume. By contrast, UGC is a medium that introduces the content producer to the public -- i.e, "This guy often produces something interesting/illuminating/fascinating; therefore, we should follow/link/become friends with him."

The primary motive behind creating content is not for consuming, but to gain an impression from the public or a niche community for the end-purpose of networking. The UGC contributors on today's Web generally gain nothing except attention. Content is not king, attention is. This is the secret to a successful Web 2.0 business and is why some such businesses succeed and others fail.

In turn, then, a successful Web 2.0 business is not the one that works hard to improve the efficiency of UGC consumption. By contrast, it is the one that leverages the opportunity for successful interpersonal networking.

But this type of attention-first, content-second, UGC-grounded Web-2.0 business model is unlikely to sustain through the Web's evolution. The critical argument against such a model is it doesn't produce enough value. Attention's value is shallow because it is a secondary productive force that helps to produce capital but doesn't produce capital itself. The greatest contribution of Web 2.0 is that it liberates humans from geographic restrictions. Its limitation, however, is that Web 2.0 does not provide ways for the liberated Web users to produce exchangeable commercial value. Web 2.0 itself cannot overcome this limitation. To resolve it, we look forward to the next evolutionary stage of the Web." (http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=542&doc_id=171590&)

Legal issues

From the Wikipedia:

"Liability Of Websites That Allow UGC: Websites are generally immune under U.S. law from liability if user generated content is defamatory, deceptive or otherwise harmful. The website is immune even if it knows that the third-party content is harmful and refuses to take it down. An exception to this general rule may exist if a website promises to take down the content and then fails to do so.[9]

Copyright Dilemma: Imagine a video of you having fun with your friends in the popular rhythms of Michael Jackson or Madonna, for instance. A good example of possible copyright infringement occurs when people post such material into online services like YouTube for everyone to see. Therefore, UGC can consist of partly or completely copyright protected material and it can be distributed online without a permission from the original right holder.

Internet Service Providers Liability: In the context of third party copyright violations, it is important to consider the liability issues between the content provider and the Internet service provider (ISP). In the legal literacy scholars[10] have established two distinct models of liability as regards to ISP. These can be divided into "publishing information doctrine" and "storing information doctrine". According to the former view, ISP controls or at least has the ability to control the content published by using their services. In other words, ISP acts as a host and has the editorial control to take down and monitor content posted online. In order to establish secondary liability it is pivotal to evaluate the level of control practiced by the ISP. The latter view, on the other hand, applies to situations in where ISP acts as a mere host provider lacking any editorial role to the content posted online. Even though ISP might have awareness of the content run by using their services, it has no possibility to monitor or modify information.

In general, there are some differences in legislation between the US approach on ISP liability and the EU approach. In the US, the ISP liability is regulated under the DMCA which deals only with copyright issues. Section 512 stipulates so-called Safe Harbor provisions under which ISP can in certain detailed conditions escape liability. For example, ISP's are required to adopt a special take down policy,[11] which allows individuals to respond to alleged copyright violations. The EU approach is horizontal[12] by nature which means that civil and criminal liability issues are addressed under the Directive 2000/31/EC of the E-Commerce. Sections 4 deals with liability of the ISP while conducting "mere conduit" services, caching and web hosting services.[13]

Content Providers Liability: The question of direct liability of the content provider might arise when uploading and downloading material in the Internet. Prior to UGC, direct liability issues have been tackled in so-called file sharing cases.[14] This technology, much like in UGC, allows unauthorized reproduction and dissemination of information and the fundamental question of liability is determined according to copyright exceptions.

Copyright Exceptions: In certain cases use of copyright protected material can be allowed without a permission from the original right holder. In the US, the notion of fair use doctrine is used to determine whether the use of copyright protected material is allowed or not.

Within this assessment the courts must focus on following list of non-exhaustive factors:

• The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

• The nature of the copyrighted work;

• The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

• The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

In the EU level, the possibility to allow copyright exceptions is tackled by the article 5 of the so-called Copyright Directive, also known as the Information Society Directive. Article 5 of the Copyright Directive stipulates an exhaustive list of optional defenses which are subjected to the classical Berne three-step test. The list of optional defenses is conditional to members states implementation but these include use of copyright protected material for private use, education purposes, quotations and parody among others.

In general, unauthorized use of copyright protected material in the context of UGC might be allowed if it falls under the fair use doctrine or can be justified according to the list set out in the Copyright Directive. The fundamental difference between the US and the EU system is the more lenient case-by-case assessment practiced by US courts in relation to a more rigid system in the EU level." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User-generated_content)

More Information

1. Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User-generated_content
2. Overview of 2006 UGC developments in the Guardian, at http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/page/0,,1939196,00.html
3. John Batelle introduces the different logic of packaged media vs. conversational media, at http://battellemedia.com/archives/003160.php
4. See the related concept of Crowdsourcing
5. OECD Study on the Participative Web and User Generated Content [2]