Will the media's fear of virals be its Downfall

Why are hard-up media companies turning their backs on the free publicity of online virals?

Take ITV's recent run-in with the web following the broadcast of an inappropriate Facebook comment about David Cameron during the first leaders debate (see it here). ITV went into a right old flap trying to get videos taken down, claiming "copyright infringement" when the watching world knew the real reason was red-faced embarrassment. After all, what damage could really be done to ITV's revenue or even it's credibility (stop chuckling at the back!) by letting 19 seconds of footage 'go viral'.

And then yesterday we hear that Constantin Film, the studio behind Downfall - a critically acclaimed movie which depicts the final days of Adolf Hitler - has flexed its legal muscles and insisted YouTube remove all spoof videos which have overlaid fresh subtitles onto the German language original. Over the course of time Hitler has been portrayed complaining about everything from his newspapers not arriving to the delays to the iPad.

Copyright

It is no exaggeration to say millions of web users will have seen one of the film's most dramatic scenes as Hitler, holed up in his bunker, learns that the game is up and the allied forces are almost upon him.

Of course, the subtitles have invariably told a far more irreverent story, but I do not see how this viral trend's widespread appeal has dented the film company's profits or caused it any damage, which would surely be the minimum grounds for a credible defence of copyright. If anything it has created the kind of publicity the company could not buy.

I appreciate copyright law requires companies to actively defend their intellectual property, but surely this merely flags a need for a clearer distinction between breach for the purposes of a non-conflicting use and a misuse that would prove damaging to a company's own ability to make money from its content. 

It might not be on-message, or in keeping with the seriousness of the film - and I appreciate people close to a project such as Downfall might not see where a sense of humour would fit in to their own promotional activity - but could something so popular really do them any harm?

Would anybody watching the rest of the film really get to the bunker scene and shout out in the cinema, or in their own living room "...oh this bit is hilarious, I've seen it before and he really kicks off about his iPhone...", before bemoaning the fact that it didn't seem as funny this time around.

Ultimately it is about fears resulting from a lack of control. That and short-sightedness. Perhaps Constantin Film didn't want on their conscience a spoof version which caused genuine offence (it's not hard to imagine, after all, how Hitler could be put to use offending large swathes of the population). Maybe ITV.com really was worried about dropping the 'C-bomb' on young children watching on YouTube.

Or maybe they just don't really get it.

Comments

[Peter Martin]

Today YouTube, tomorrow...

[GS]

Maybe it does ruin that scene in the film? Some satire sticks in your brain. When French and Saunders spoofed House of Elliot it was difficult to watch the original with a straight face after that. Or what about Lenny Henry's spoofs of Thriller and the Prince Purple Rain video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_9xz556ufk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgUYjezdY9k