|
TOGETHER WITH |
|
|
It's Monday and once again, HBO has claimed the dubious honor of releasing the most pirated TV show of the year. Are you among the hooligans who watched House of the Dragon on the down-low in 2024? |
|
Today's News |
🤖 Meta talks up its AI bots 👋 TikTok's North American head of ad sales heads out 😱 Brands steal creators' videos 🍯 LegalEagle walks viewers through his Honey lawsuit
|
|
|
|
BATTLE OF THE BOTS |
|
Meta envisions a future where human creators share the stage with AI content mills |
The reveal: Over the summer, Meta rolled out a new tool that allows U.S. users to create their own AI bots, including characters "based on their interests" and "AI extensions of themselves." The ultimate goal: a future where Meta's 3 billion users can use AI bots to fill Facebook and Instagram with a deluge of generated content. |
Most of the hubbub surrounding that plan died down in the months following the tool's debut—until last week, when Meta's VP of Product for Generative AI, Connor Hayes, revealed to Financial Times that hundreds of thousands of AI characters have already been created (although most have been kept private). |
"We expect these AIs to actually, over time, exist on our platforms, kind of in the same way that accounts do. They'll have bios and profile pictures and be able to generate and share content…" | | | | Connor Hayes |
|
|
The response: Over the last year, platforms like YouTube have taken care to pair the release of AI tools with reassurances that promoting human-made art remains the core goal. Meta's plan to put bots on equal footing with human creators is a major divergence from that approach—and users aren't happy about it. |
In response to Financial Times' report, creators took to Bluesky, X, and Threads to criticize Meta's bots as "creepy" and encourage users to block AI-generated profiles. Other posters—including Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah—directed attention to Meta-created AIs like Liv, "a proud Black queer mama" persona who told Attiah that her "creator team included zero Black people and was predominantly white and male". By Friday, Meta had removed all 28 of the AI personas it released in 2023, citing "a bug that was impacting the ability for people to block those AIs." |
|
🔆 SPONSORED 🔆 |
|
Tickets to the 1 Billion Followers Summit are almost sold out. Have you claimed your spot? |
There's one week to go until the 1 Billion Followers Summit, when thousands of the world's top creators and industry experts will converge for an unparalleled three-day event. |
Tickets to the Summit are almost gone. |
100% of Economy, Technology, and Content Track tickets are sold out—meaning now is the time to snag your Premium or VIP Package. |
The Premium Package provides full access to 100% of track sessions and workshops, plus networking events, the closing ceremony, and Cairokee's live performance.
The VIP Package offers the ultimate Summit experience, with full access to all track sessions, the Speakers Lounge, exclusive networking opportunities, the closing ceremony, and off-summit events—plus valet parking.
|
Top creators like Airrack and Zach King, industry leaders like former VidCon CEO Jim Louderback, and 15,000 others are already preparing for the Summit. Will you join them in Dubai? |
Claim your Summit ticket → |
|
HEADLINES IN BRIEF 📰 |
|
|
|
LAW AND ORDER |
|
Brands are stealing creators' videos and using them in ads. But are they breaking the law? |
The problem: For years now, get-rich-quick gurus have offered wannabe dropshippers the same advice: to sell a product, you need good video ads. Tutorials across YouTube and TikTok explain how to scrape product reviews from customers who bought an item from someone else and posted about it on social media (but never gave consent for dropshippers to use their videos). |
Creators like HopeScope have endured that kind of content theft for years now—and thanks to the rise of short-form video, short-form editing tools, and the ecommerce deluge on TikTok, it's becoming easier than ever for brands to repurpose creator-made content for their own uses. |
The legal question: Poaching creators' content for use in unauthorized advertising is obviously unethical. But is it actually illegal? As the Daily Dot points out, copyright law is still murky when it comes to creators' content. |
The outlet recently spoke to Kylen Chen-Troester and Anna Konstantopoulous, two creators whose videos were (allegedly) snatched by skincare brand Soft Services and self-care brand TheraBox, respectively. Both brands used the creators' content in ads without permission, and both creators were able to get the ads taken down. But could they have taken legal action, too? |
University of Minnesota associate professor Christopher Terry told the Daily Dot that if a brand misuses a creator's identity—and the creator can demonstrate that followers would've falsely thought they were endorsing a product—it could be legally liable. Take Konstantopoulous' case as an example: the creator's borrowed video didn't actually involve TheraBox products, and they had "never partnered with them before." As a result, Konstantopoulous says she "felt like I was endorsing a product that I've never used before." |
Of course, not every instance of content theft will be clear-cut enough for a legal case—but that doesn't mean creators have no other options. YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram all allow people to report ads, and creators can also reach out directly to brands. |
|
WATCH THIS 📺 |
|
LegalEagle's latest video digs into his class action lawsuit against Honey |
The context: Last week, LegalEagle revealed that he was spearheading a class action lawsuit against Honey. Now, the YouTuber-slash-lawyer has posted a new video that walks viewers through the arguments behind that case. |
For anyone unfamiliar with the Honey scandal, here's a quick tldr: On December 21, YouTuber MegaLag uploaded an exposé accusing the coupon-finding browser extension of snatching creators' commissions by replacing their affiliate links with its own at the last second. Multiple creators responded with outrage and disappointment—including LegalEagle, who deemed the alleged scheme an "adpocalypse." |
The video: Now, LegalEagle has explained to viewers exactly why he's suing Honey. The long and short of it is that "every creator and influencer on every platform" is getting "absolutely screwed" whenever the extension (allegedly) takes credit for purchases that should be attributed to an affiliate link. Check out LegalEagle's full video here to find out how and why he plans to put a stop to that system. |
|
Want to introduce your brand to Tubefilter's audience? Sponsor the newsletter. |
|
Was this email forwarded to you? Subscribe here. |
Today's newsletter is from: Emily Burton, Drew Baldwin, Sam Gutelle, and Josh Cohen. |
No comments:
Post a Comment
Keep a civil tongue.