What happens when your video goes viral?

Revids

Active member
maxresdefault.jpg


I saw that a Rumble video by @cheezgzy went viral about a week ago called 'Cat watches in disbelief as two rats fight each other'.

So far on Rumble's YouTube channel it has over half a million views (which it gained in only 4 days). This got me thinking, what exactly happens when a video goes viral.
I decided to type the title into Google search and see what results I get. It obviously goes to the usual places, MSN, yahoo etc but I wanted to see if any other places picked up on it. This video seems to have spread far and wide very quickly.

The main ones that caught my eye were, Daily Mail, The Sun, Daily Star.
Some of these have no watermarks on the video, have their own logo, have 'Jam Press' or 'CEN'. I'm just wondering what this means with regards to Rumble selling the licencing, or if news outlets have taken the video and used it without permission? There's a lot of other news websites, like this one, that have used this video, but they've embedded the video directly from the uploaders own Facebook page. Does that mean none of those views will be monetised? If so, does that mean it's best not to upload any videos directly to your own Facebook page?

One person on twitter has ripped the video and uploaded it directly on their account and it's had nearly a million views! Is this something Rumble challenges and removes as I assume all these views will have no monetary value either?

Some people on Youtube have edited the video and uploaded it onto their channels, like this one, with frame grabs, zooms, cuts, other editing. Will this still be picked up and claimed by Rumble, or will the editing mean it gets missed? Another one on a channel called Hasini News has reuploaded the video with a blurred background edited in. Will Rumble still pickup and claim this one also? Another example here (with reduced quality on the video) and a lot of Portugese websites are linking to this video.

Of course it's ended up on reddit, hasn't had a lot of views, but again has been uploaded directly and not linked through Rumble. Do these posts get challenged or removed? It appeared here too, but looks like the moderators of that subreddit removed it, yet it's still accessible through a google search, which seems odd.

Even Ozzyman has reviewed the video on his website, but unfortunately, he's used frame grabs from the uploaders Facebook page and he hasn't linked to the original video on Rumble's Youtube channel, he's linked to the Hasini News channel mentioned above 🤦‍♂️

I'm just very interested what happens when a video like this gets so much attention from across the internet, how it's protected by Rumble and how the monetisation of it is maximised.

Any input from the uploader, rumble staff or anyone else who knows any information on this type of thing is much appreciated (y)
 

DavidMcNab

Trustworthy Member
Very good info!!
I google search some of mine, but I can't do them all. You can send the link to Rumble and they chase down the revenue in some cases.
 

sloggervlogger

Well-known member
View attachment 985

I saw that a Rumble video by @cheezgzy went viral about a week ago called 'Cat watches in disbelief as two rats fight each other'.

So far on Rumble's YouTube channel it has over half a million views (which it gained in only 4 days). This got me thinking, what exactly happens when a video goes viral.
I decided to type the title into Google search and see what results I get. It obviously goes to the usual places, MSN, yahoo etc but I wanted to see if any other places picked up on it. This video seems to have spread far and wide very quickly.

The main ones that caught my eye were, Daily Mail, The Sun, Daily Star.
Some of these have no watermarks on the video, have their own logo, have 'Jam Press' or 'CEN'. I'm just wondering what this means with regards to Rumble selling the licencing, or if news outlets have taken the video and used it without permission? There's a lot of other news websites, like this one, that have used this video, but they've embedded the video directly from the uploaders own Facebook page. Does that mean none of those views will be monetised? If so, does that mean it's best not to upload any videos directly to your own Facebook page?

One person on twitter has ripped the video and uploaded it directly on their account and it's had nearly a million views! Is this something Rumble challenges and removes as I assume all these views will have no monetary value either?

Some people on Youtube have edited the video and uploaded it onto their channels, like this one, with frame grabs, zooms, cuts, other editing. Will this still be picked up and claimed by Rumble, or will the editing mean it gets missed? Another one on a channel called Hasini News has reuploaded the video with a blurred background edited in. Will Rumble still pickup and claim this one also? Another example here (with reduced quality on the video) and a lot of Portugese websites are linking to this video.

Of course it's ended up on reddit, hasn't had a lot of views, but again has been uploaded directly and not linked through Rumble. Do these posts get challenged or removed? It appeared here too, but looks like the moderators of that subreddit removed it, yet it's still accessible through a google search, which seems odd.

Even Ozzyman has reviewed the video on his website, but unfortunately, he's used frame grabs from the uploaders Facebook page and he hasn't linked to the original video on Rumble's Youtube channel, he's linked to the Hasini News channel mentioned above 🤦‍♂️

I'm just very interested what happens when a video like this gets so much attention from across the internet, how it's protected by Rumble and how the monetisation of it is maximised.

Any input from the uploader, rumble staff or anyone else who knows any information on this type of thing is much appreciated (y)
To be brutally honest from my experience in most cases you won't see a penny from those that just took the video. Either because they are in a country where you can't get to them, companies like daily mail, the sun are too big they just seem to take what they want without ramifications. My own experience as the daily mail still owes me for a video (not with Rumble), I haven't received a penny from the sun from a stolen video that was with Rumble. GIF files and other videos don't get chased as it's just too much for a company to handle. I've tried out all licence agencies that are available and it's pretty much the same with all of them that they are unable to do anything. I was only lucky once. A new employee to a licenced company made it her mission to go after stolen videos, this even included gifts. I still had to do all the base work and point her in the right direction. She couldn't do anything about private people sharing the GIF files but I found lots of companies that also shared them from other people on social media. I gave her all the links and she worked like a piranha :). She wrote one letter after another and what was great she included me in all those emails so I could see what she would write to those companies and it worked, they paid! Even now after many years I still see a gif somewhere, I give her the URL and she goes after them. I'm dreading her leaving the company lol. Anyway, that case is really really rare, mostly as I said you don't see a penny from people/companies that want to steal your videos.
 

Revids

Active member
To be brutally honest from my experience in most cases you won't see a penny from those that just took the video.
That's really disappointing to hear.

companies like daily mail, the sun are too big they just seem to take what they want without ramifications.
That's crazy! If anything, being this big should make them more aware of copyright law than smaller companies. Just because they will have a legal team doesn't mean they can take whatever video footage they like, reupload it to their platform, watermark it and profit from it. I don't see how they would have a leg to stand on if Rumble challenged it on a legal basis?

A new employee to a licenced company made it her mission to go after stolen videos, this even included gifts...I gave her all the links and she worked like a piranha :). She wrote one letter after another and what was great she included me in all those emails so I could see what she would write to those companies and it worked, they paid! Even now after many years I still see a gif somewhere, I give her the URL and she goes after them.
This is what I would have thought Rumble would do, as your example proves that it's worth doing. I thought they'd have specific people for protecting the viral videos (Obviously they can't do this for all videos that go on their YouTube channel) to maximise it's monetisation and chasing the ones who do steal it for compensation. For example, if we say a 'viral' video is one that gets half a million views and upwards, in the last 6 months from the Rumble Viral YouTube channel there's been 4 videos and I think the rats fighting video would be the only one that newspapers would be interested in as the other 3 were quite generic pet videos rather than something very unusual to see.
So 1 video in 6 months, I don't think that's an overwhelming amount and therefore deserves spending some extra effort on protecting it and going after those that are stealing it. Maybe Rumble are doing this, but we would only know this if they commented on it specifically. Maybe some input from @chrisrumble or @Mario would be helpful for this topic.

Speaking of gifs, my first video I uploaded to Rumble randomly ended up on imgur as a gif and got half a million views! That was unexpected.

I haven't received a penny from the sun from a stolen video that was with Rumble.
It would be interesting to know what attempts had been made to recover compensation for this stolen video and if legal proceedings had taken place and if so what the outcome was, as The Sun is a UK based company and I'm sure the UK has a strong legal basis for copyright law. Surely it would cost them significantly more to be taken to court over the use of the video, than to just pay the licencing fees. I suppose this isn't enough motivation if no-one actually follows through with legal action, which is why I think it's a necessary step to protect the uploaders rights and to help set a precedent, hopefully stopping it happening over and over again.
 
Last edited:

sloggervlogger

Well-known member
@Mario @chrisrumble Rumble staff input would be extremely valuable to this discussion please.
Rumble did sue the Daily Mail ( Case ) ,
I did follow it , but it didn't all make much sense to me with all the legal jargon.
This was the outcome: "ORDER DISMISSING ENTIRE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE {{46}} by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT this entire action and all claims asserted herein are dismissed with prejudice against all Defendants. Each party shall bear its own attorneys' fees, costs and expenses incurred herein. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. "

They dismissed the case, I believe. Not sure why. I think big companies like the sun and daily mail are untouchable.

I don't know what action they took with my video that the sun stole. Like you, I thought as a UK based company it should be easy to get the money from them, but there is probably much more to it, than we can imagine and definitely not as easy.

Chris tried to help and wrote in the forum:

"Thanks for bringing this to our attention. We try our best all the time. First I want to point out that litigating every infringement is extremely costly and doesn't always get the result we are looking for, especially in different countries.

Your infringement has come across my desk, and I've personally looked at it multiple times. The decision not to litigate "yet", is an internal one for various reasons, cost and location are the highest ones on the list. For example, the laws in the US are much more favorable than the laws in the UK for suing on copyright infringement. And because of this, we are seeing much more stealing in the UK than in the US, unfortunately.

But as one of the users said above, Rumble loses out too when someone steals, so we are in it together and we will do our best to protect the content. The time may come to litigate your infringement, or might not. I hope you will continue to have faith that we are doing our best and we will make the right decision. I've also gone ahead and tried one more thing to try and bring it to a resolution. Lets see if it works. "

Unfortunatly nothing worked and I haven't heard anything else about it.

imgur, yep lots on there of mine as well. Not sure what Rumble has done or can do with those. I've pretty much given up hope of ever seeing any return on those. Would be great if Rumble could do the same as the employee I talked about in my earlier post and go after companies that use our videos as gifs. I think it is probably very time-consuming which they probably don't have, but I certainly would be willing to do my part in locating those, but only if I knew I wouldn't waste my time again and I see a return.
It looks like it happens so regular and having so many videos like Rumble has, they are just powerless to fight them all. So we all lose out.
 

Revids

Active member
They dismissed the case, I believe. Not sure why. I think big companies like the sun and daily mail are untouchable.
On December 17, 2018, the Parties in the above-captioned action filed a Stipulation for Dismissal of Entire Action With Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), pursuant and subject to the terms of a Confidential Settlement Agreement between them.
This sounds like Rumble and the Daily Mail came to a settlement agreement to end the court case so it didn't continue any further, which to me would mean that the Daily Mail decided to pay up before they lost in court and had to pay even more. I could be wrong, but only Rumble would be able to confirm this.

I came across this too which suggests there may still be legal actions ongoing between Rumble and the Daily Mail as it was only updated a week or so ago.

I think it is probably very time-consuming which they probably don't have, but I certainly would be willing to do my part in locating those, but only if I knew I wouldn't waste my time again and I see a return.
It looks like it happens so regular and having so many videos like Rumble has, they are just powerless to fight them all. So we all lose out.
Again I think that if a video gets 500k views and up, it deserves more time and effort in protecting it, no-one could reasonably expect Rumble to keep an eye on and protect every video they publish in this way, that just wouldn't be feasible for any company who deal in this many videos. I'm sure any creator that has seen their video go viral would be more than willing to do some leg work in locating the companies who have stolen it. I only spent about 30 minutes writing the initial post and came across quite a lot, so it's definitely worth doing from the creator's point of view. I'm interested to hear Rumble's side, but I'm obviously not expecting them to be able to reveal intricate details about the legal cases they've been involved in, but any communication on this subject would be helpful and hopefully give creators some confidence that extra work does happen behind the scenes to protect the highly viewed videos (like the example in my original post) and put pressure on companies for compensation where necessary.
 
Top