User-generated content

User-generated content (UGC), alternatively known as user-

created content (UCC), is any form of content, such as images,
videos, text, and audio, that has been posted by users on online
platforms such as social media and wikis. It is a product
consumers create to disseminate information about online
products or the firms that market them.[1][2]

User-generated content is used for a wide range of applications,

including problem processing, news, entertainment, customer
engagement, advertising, gossip, research and many more. It is an
example of the democratization of content production and the An example of user-generated content
flattening of traditional media hierarchies. The BBC adopted a in the virtual world Second Life
user-generated content platform for its websites in 2005, and
TIME Magazine named "You" as the Person of the Year in 2006,
referring to the rise in the production of UGC on Web 2.0 platforms.[3][4] CNN also developed a similar
user-generated content platform, known as iReport.[5] There are other examples of news channels
implementing similar protocols, especially in the immediate aftermath of a catastrophe or terrorist attack.[6]
Social media users can provide key eyewitness content and information that may otherwise have been
inaccessible. By 2020 businesses are increasingly leveraging UGC to promote their products, as it is seen
as a cost effective and authentic way to grow a brand's image and sales. Due to new media and technology
affordances, such as low cost and low barriers to entry, the Internet is an easy platform to create and
dispense user-generated content,[7] allowing the dissemination of information at a rapid pace in the wake of
an event.[8]

Contents
Definition
Media pluralism
History
Motivation for creating UGC
Ranking and assessment
Types
Blogs
Websites
Video games
Advertising
Retailers
Educational
Photo sharing
Video sharing
Effect on journalism
Use in marketing
Opportunities
Criticism
Legal problems
Copyright laws
Research
See also
General sources
Citations
External links

Definition
The advent of user-generated content marked a shift among media organizations from creating online
content to providing facilities for amateurs to publish their own content.[2] User-generated content has also
been characterized as citizen media as opposed to the "packaged goods media" of the past century.[9]
Citizen Media is audience-generated feedback and news coverage.[10] People give their reviews and share
stories in the form of user-generated and user-uploaded audio and user-generated video.[11] The former is a
two-way process in contrast to the one-way distribution of the latter. Conversational or two-way media is a
key characteristic of so-called Web 2.0 which encourages the publishing of one's own content and
commenting on other people's content.

The role of the passive audience, therefore, has shifted since the birth of new media, and an ever-growing
number of participatory users are taking advantage of the interactive opportunities, especially on the
Internet to create independent content. Grassroots experimentation then generated an innovation in sounds,
artists, techniques, and associations with audiences which then are being used in mainstream media.[12] The
active, participatory and creative audience is prevailing today with relatively accessible media, tools, and
applications, and its culture is in turn affecting mass media corporations and global audiences.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has defined three central schools
for UGC:[13]

1. Publication requirement: While user-generated content (UGC) could be made by a user

and never published online or elsewhere, we focus here on the work that is published in
some context, be it on a publicly accessible website or on a page on a social networking site
only accessible to a select group of people (e.g., fellow university students). This is a useful
way to exclude email, two-way instant messages, and the like.
2. Creative effort: Creative effort was put into creating the work or adapting existing works to
construct a new one; i.e. users must add their own value to the work. UGC often also has a
collaborative element to it, as is the case with websites that users can edit collaboratively.
For example, merely copying a portion of a television show and posting it to an online video
website (an activity frequently seen on the UGC sites) would not be considered UGC. If a
user uploads his/her photographs, however, expresses his/her thoughts in a blog or creates
a new music video, this could be considered UGC. Yet the minimum amount of creative
effort is hard to define and depends on the context.
3. Creation outside of professional routines and practices: User-generated content is
generally created outside of professional routines and practices. It often does not have an
 institutional or a commercial market context. In extreme cases, UGC may be produced by
non-professionals without the expectation of profit or remuneration. Motivating factors
include connecting with peers, achieving a certain level of fame, notoriety, or prestige, and
the desire to express oneself.

It is important to have an objective before attempting to become part of the UGC/social networking
environment. For example, companies may ask users to post their reviews directly to their Facebook page.
This could end up disastrous if a user makes a comment that steers people away from the product.[14]

Mere copy & paste or hyperlinking could also be seen as user-generated self-expression. The action of
linking to a work or copying a work could in itself motivate the creator, express the taste of the person
linking or copying. Digg.com, StumbleUpon.com, and leaptag.com are good examples of where such
linkage to work happens. The culmination of such linkages could very well identify the tastes of a person in
the community and make that person unique.

User-generated content occurs when a product's customers create and disseminate online ideas about a
product or the firm that markets it. These ideas are often in the form of text but also come in other forms
such as music, photos, or videos. UGC has three key characteristics: (1) The contribution is by users of a
product rather than the firm that sells this product; (2) it is creative in nature and the user adds something
new; (3) it is posted online and generally accessible.

Media pluralism
According to Cisco Systems, in 2016 an average of 96,000 petabytes was transferred monthly over the
Internet, more than twice as many as in 2012.[15] In 2016, the number of active websites surpassed 1
billion, up from approximately 700 million in 2012.[16] This means the content we currently have access to
is more diverse than ever before.

Reaching 1.66 billion daily active users in Q4 2019, Facebook has emerged as the most popular social
media platform globally.[17] Other social media platforms are also dominant at the regional level such as:
Twitter in Japan, Naver in the Republic of Korea, Instagram (owned by Facebook) and LinkedIn (owned
by Microsoft) in Africa, VKontakte (VK) and Odnoklassniki (eng. Classmates) in Russia and other
countries in Central and Eastern Europe, WeChat and QQ in China.

However, a concentration phenomenon is occurring globally giving the dominance to a few online
platforms that become popular for some unique features they provide, most commonly for the added
privacy they offer users through disappearing messages or end-to-end encryption (e.g. WhatsApp,
Snapchat, Signal, and Telegram), but they have tended to occupy niches and to facilitate the exchanges of
information that remain rather invisible to larger audiences.[18]

Production of freely accessible information has been increasing since 2012. In January 2017, Wikipedia
had more than 43 million articles, almost twice as many as in January 2012. This corresponded to a
progressive diversification of content and increase in contributions in languages other than English. In
2017, less than 12 percent of Wikipedia content was in English, down from 18 percent in 2012.[19]
Graham, Straumann, and Hogan say that increase in the availability and diversity of content has not
radically changed the structures and processes for the production of knowledge. For example, while content
on Africa has dramatically increased, a significant portion of this content has continued to be produced by
contributors operating from North America and Europe, rather than from Africa itself.[20]

History
The massive, multi-volume Oxford English Dictionary was exclusively composed of user-generated
content. In 1857, Richard Chenevix Trench of the London Philological Society sought public contributions
throughout the English-speaking world for the creation of the first edition of the OED.[21] As Simon
Winchester recounts:

So what we're going to do, if I have your agreement that we're going to produce such a
dictionary, is that we're going to send out invitations, were going to send these invitations to
every library, every school, every university, every book shop that we can identify throughout
the English-speaking world... everywhere where English is spoken or read with any degree of
enthusiasm, people will be invited to contribute words. And the point is, the way they do it, the
way they will be asked and instructed to do it, is to read voraciously and whenever they see a
word, whether it's a preposition or a sesquipedalian monster, they are to... if it interests them
and if where they read it, they see it in a sentence that illustrates the way that that word is used,
offers the meaning of the day to that word, then they are to write it on a slip of paper... the top
left-hand side you write the word, the chosen word, the catchword, which in this case is
'twilight'. Then the quotation, the quotation illustrates the meaning of the word. And
underneath it, the citation, where it came from, whether it was printed or whether it was in
manuscript... and then the reference, the volume, the page and so on... and send these slips of
paper, these slips are the key to the making of this dictionary, into the headquarters of the
dictionary.[22]

In the following decades, hundreds of thousands of contributions were sent to the editors.

In the 1990s several electronic bulletin board systems were based on user-generated content. Some of these
systems have been converted into websites, including the film information site IMDb which started as
rec.arts.movies in 1990. With the growth of the World Wide Web the focus moved to websites, several of
which were based on user-generated content, including Wikipedia (2001) and Flickr (2004).

User-generated Internet video was popularized by YouTube, an online video platform founded by Chad
Hurley, Jawed Karim and Steve Chen in April 2005. It enabled the video streaming of MPEG-4 AVC
(H.264) user-generated content from anywhere on the World Wide Web.[23]

The BBC set up a pilot user-generated content team in April 2005 with 3 staff. In the wake of the 7 July
2005 London bombings and the Buncefield oil depot fire, the team was made permanent and was
expanded, reflecting the arrival in the mainstream of the citizen journalist. After the Buncefield disaster the
BBC received over 5,000 photos from viewers. The BBC does not normally pay for content generated by
its viewers.

In 2006 CNN launched CNN iReport, a project designed to bring user-generated news content to CNN. Its
rival Fox News Channel launched its project to bring in user-generated news, similarly titled "uReport".
This was typical of major television news organizations in 2005–2006, who realized, particularly in the
wake of the London 7 July bombings, that citizen journalism could now become a significant part of
broadcast news.[3] Sky News, for example, regularly solicits for photographs and video from its viewers.

User-generated content was featured in Time magazine's 2006 Person of the Year, in which the person of
the year was "you", meaning all of the people who contribute to user-generated media, including YouTube,
Wikipedia and MySpace.[4] A precursor to user-generated content uploaded on YouTube was America's
Funniest Home Videos.[24]

Motivation for creating UGC

The benefits derived from user-generated content for the content host are clear, these include a low-cost
promotion, positive impact on product sales, and fresh content. However, the benefit to the contributor is
less direct. There are various theories behind the motivation for contributing user-generated content,
ranging from altruistic, to social, to materialistic. Due to the high value of user-generated content, many
sites use incentives to encourage their generation. These incentives can be generally categorized into
implicit incentives and explicit incentives. Sometimes, users are also given monetary incentives to
encourage them to create captivating and inspiring UGC.[25]

1. Implicit incentives: These incentives are not based on anything tangible. Social incentives
are the most common form of implicit incentives. These incentives allow the user to feel
good as an active member of the community. These can include the relationship between
users, such as Facebook's friends, or Twitter's followers. Social incentives also include the
ability to connect users with others, as seen on the sites already mentioned as well as sites
like YouTube, Instagram, and Twitter, which allow users to share media from their lives with
others. Users also share the experiences that they have while using a particular
product/service. This will improve the customer experience as they can make informed
decisions in buying a product, which makes them smart buyers. Other common social
incentives are status, badges, or levels within the site, something a user earns when they
reach a certain level of participation which may or may not come with additional privileges.
Yahoo! Answers is an example of this type of social incentive. Another social incentive is
social comparison. Being aware of the user's own ranking or level among the whole
community could affect the behavior as well.[26] Social incentives cost the host site very little
and can catalyze vital growth; however, their very nature requires a sizable existing
community before it can function. Social incentive can also be split into identification and
integration. The identification motivation has strong external standardization and
internalization of behavioral goals, such as social identity, that is, users will follow some
subjective norms and images to constrain and practice their behaviors. The integration has
the strongest external standardization and goal internalization, and the agent often
integrates its actual actions with the subjective norms of the environment, so it has the effect
of self-restraint and self-realization, such as the sense of belonging. Naver Knowledge-iN is
another example of this type of social incentive. It uses a point system to encourage users to
answer more questions by receiving points.[27]
2. Explicit incentives: These incentives refer to tangible rewards. Explicit incentives can be
split into externality and projection. External motivation is more inclined to economic and
material incentives, such as the reward for engaging in a task, which has little internalization
and lacks relevant external norms and constraints. Examples include financial payment,
entry into a contest, a voucher, a coupon, or frequent traveler miles. Direct explicit incentives
are easily understandable by most and have immediate value regardless of the community
size; sites such as the Canadian shopping platform Wishabi and Amazon Mechanical Turk
both use this type of financial incentive in slightly different ways to encourage users
participation. The projective agent has some external norms, but the degree of
internalization is not enough, that is, it has not been fully recognized by the actor. The
drawback to explicit incentives is that they may cause the user to be subject to the
overjustification effect, eventually believing the only reason for participating is for the explicit
incentive. This reduces the influence of the other form of social or altruistic motivation,
making it increasingly costly for the content host to retain long-term contributors.[28]

Ranking and assessment

The distribution of UGC across the Web provides a high volume data source that is accessible for analysis,
and offers utility in enhancing the experiences of end users. Social science research can benefit from having
access to the opinions of a population of users, and use this data to make inferences about their traits.
Applications in information technology seek to mine end user data to support and improve machine-based
processes, such as information retrieval and recommendation. However, processing the high volumes of
data offered by UGC necessitate the ability to automatically sort and filter these data points according to
their value.[29]

Determining the value of user contributions for assessment and ranking can be difficult due to the variation
in the quality and structure of this data. The quality and structure of the data provided by UGC is
application-dependent, and can include items such as tags, reviews, or comments that may or may not be
accompanied by useful metadata. Additionally, the value of this data depends on the specific task for which
it will be utilized and the available features of the application domain. Value can ultimately be defined and
assessed according to whether the application will provide service to a crowd of humans, a single end user,
or a platform designer.[29]

The variation of data and specificity of value has resulted in various approaches and methods for assessing
and ranking UGC. The performance of each method essentially depends on the features and metrics that
are available for analysis. Consequently, it is critical to have an understanding of the task objective and its
relation to how the data is collected, structured, and represented in order to choose the most appropriate
approach to utilizing it. The methods of assessment and ranking can be categorized into two classes:
human-centered and machine-centered. Methods emphasizing human-centered utility consider the ranking
and assessment problem in terms of the users and their interactions with the system, whereas the machine-
centered method considers the problem in terms of machine learning and computation. The various
methods of assessment and ranking can be classified into one of four approaches: community-based, user-
based, designer-based, and hybrid.[29]

Community-based approaches rely on establishing ground truth based on the wisdom of

the crowd regarding the content of interest. The assessments provided by the community of
end users is utilized to directly rank content within the system in human-centered methods.
The machine-centered method applies these community judgments in training algorithms to
automatically assess and rank UGC.
User-based approaches emphasize the differences between individual users so that
ranking and assessment can interactively adapt or be personalized given the particular
requirements of each user. The human-centered approach accentuates interactive interfaces
where the user can define and redefine their preferences as their interests shift. On the other
hand, machine-centered approaches model the individual user according to explicit and
implicit knowledge that is gathered through system interactions.
Designer-based approaches primarily use machine-centered methods to essentially
maximize the diversity of content presented to users in order to avoid constraining the space
of topic selections or perspectives. The diversity of content can be assessed with respect to
various dimensions, such as authorship, topics, sentiments, and named entities.
Hybrid approaches seek to combine methods from the various frameworks in order to
develop a more robust approach for assessing and ranking UGC. Approaches are most
often combined in one of two ways: the crowd-based approach is often used to identify
hyperlocal content for a user-based approach, or a user-based approach is used to maintain
the intent of a designer-based approach.

Key concepts

1. contribution is by users of a product rather than the firm

2. creative in nature and adds something new
3. posted online and generally accessible.

Types
There are many types of user-generated content: Internet forums, where people talk about different topics;
blogs are services where users can post about many topics, product reviews on a supplier website or in
social media; wikis such as Wikipedia and Wikia allow users, sometimes including anonymous users, to
edit the content. Another type of user-generated content are social networking sites like Facebook,
Instagram, Tumblr, Twitter, Snapchat, Twitch, TikTok or VK, where users interact with other people via
chatting, writing messages, posting images or links, and sharing content. Media hosting sites such as
YouTube allow users to post content. Some forms of user-generated content, such as a social commentary
blog, can be considered as a form of citizen journalism.

Blogs

Blogs are websites created by individuals, groups, and associations. They mostly consist of journal-style
text and enable interaction between a blogger and reader in the form of online comments.[30] Self-hosted
blogs can be created by professional entities such as entrepreneurs and small businesses. Blog hosting
platforms include WordPress, Blogger, and Medium; Typepad is often used by media companies; Weebly is
geared for online shopping. Social networking blogging platforms include Tumblr, LiveJournal, and Sina
Weibo. Among the many blogs on the web, Boing Boing is a group blog with themes including technology
and science fiction; HuffPost blogs include opinions on subjects such as politics, entertainment, and
technology. There are also travel blogs such as Head for Points, Adventurous Kate, and an early form of
The Points Guy.[31]

Websites

Entertainment social media and information sharing websites include Reddit, 9Gag, 4chan, Upworthy and
Newgrounds.[32] Sites like 9Gag allow users to create memes and quick video clips. Sites like Tech in Asia
and Buzzfeed engage readers with professional communities by posting articles with user-generated
comment sections.[33] Other websites include fanfiction sites such as FanFiction.Net; imageboards; artwork
communities like DeviantArt; mobile photos and video sharing sites such as Picasa and Flickr; audio social
networks such as SoundCloud; crowd funding or crowdsourcing sites like Kickstarter, Indiegogo, and
ArtistShare; and customer review sites such as Yelp.

After launching in the mid-2000s, major UGC-based adult websites like Pornhub, YouPorn and xHamster
and became the dominant mode of consumption and distribution of pornographic content on the internet.
The appearance of pornographic content on sites like Wikipedia and Tumblr led moderators and site owners
to institute stricter limits on uploads.[34]

The travel industry, in particular, has begun utilizing user-generated content to show authentic traveler
experiences. Travel-related companies such as The Millennial, Gen Z, and Busabout[35] relaunched their
websites featuring UGC images and social content by their customers posted in real time. TripAdvisor
includes reviews and recommendations by travelers about hotels, restaurants, and activities.

The restaurant industry has also been altered by a review system the places more emphasis on online
reviews and content from peers than traditional media reviews. In 2011 Yelp contained 70% of reviews for
restaurants in the Seattle area compared to Food & Wine Magazine containing less than 5 percent.[36]

Video games
Video games can have fan-made content in the form of mods, fan patches, fan translations or server
emulators.[37] Some games come with level editor programs to aid in their creation. A few massively
multiplayer online games including Star Trek Online, Dota 2, and EverQuest 2 have UGC systems
integrated into the game itself.[38] A metaverse can be a user-generated world, such as Second Life. Second
Life is a 3-D virtual world which provides its users with tools to modify the game world and participate in
an economy, trading user content created via online creation for virtual currency.[39]

Advertising

A popular use of UGC involves collaboration between a brand and a user. An example is the "Elf
Yourself" videos by Jib Jab that come back every year around Christmas. The Jib Jab website lets people
use their photos of friends and family that they have uploaded to make a holiday video to share across the
internet. You cut and paste the faces of the people in the pictures to animated dancing elves.[40]

Some brands are also using UGC images to boost the performance of their paid social ads. For example,
Toyota leveraged UGC for their "Feeling the Streets" Facebook ad campaign and were able to increase
their total ad engagement by 440%.[41]

Retailers

Some bargain hunting websites feature user-generated content, such as eBay, Dealsplus, and FatWallet
which allow users to post, discuss, and control which bargains get promoted within the community.
Because of the dependency of social interaction, these sites fall into the category of social commerce.

Educational

Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia, is one of the largest user-generated content databases in the world.
Platforms such as YouTube have frequently been used as an instructional aide. Organizations such as the
Khan Academy and the Green brothers have used the platform to upload series of videos on topics such as
math, science, and history to help aid viewers master or better understand the basics. Educational podcasts
have also helped in teaching through an audio platform. Personal websites and messaging systems like
Yahoo Messenger have also been used to transmit user-generated educational content. There have also been
web forums where users give advice to each other.

Students can also manipulate digital images or video clips to their advantage and tag them with easy to find
keywords then share them to friends and family worldwide. The category of "student performance content"
has risen in the form of discussion boards and chat logs. Students could write reflective journals and diaries
that may help others.[42] The websites SparkNotes and Shmoop are used to summarize and analyze books
so that they are more accessible to the reader.

Photo sharing

Photo sharing websites are another popular form of UGC. Flickr is a site in which users are able to upload
personal photos they have taken and label them in regards to their "motivation".[43]: 4 6  Flickr not only hosts
images but makes them publicly available for reuse and reuse with modification.[43] Instagram is a social
media platform that allows users to edit, upload and include location information with photos they post.[44]
Panoramio.com and Flickr use metadata, such as GPS coordinates that allows for geographic placement of
images.[45]
Video sharing

Video sharing websites are another popular form of UGC. YouTube allows users to create and upload
videos.

Effect on journalism
The incorporation of user-generated content into mainstream journalism outlets is considered to have begun
in 2005 with the BBC's creation of a user-generated content team, which was expanded and made
permanent in the wake of the July 7, 2005 London bombings.[3] The incorporation of Web 2.0
technologies into news websites allowed user-generated content online to move from more social platforms
such as MySpace, LiveJournal, and personal blogs, into the mainstream of online journalism, in the form of
comments on news articles written by professional journalists, but also through surveys, content sharing,
and other forms of citizen journalism.[46]

Since the mid-2000s, journalists and publishers have had to consider the effects that user-generated content
has had on how news gets published, read, and shared. A 2016 study on publisher business models
suggests that readers of online news sources value articles written both by professional journalists, as well
as users—provided that those users are experts in a field relevant to the content that they create. In response
to this, it is suggested that online news sites must consider themselves not only a source for articles and
other types of journalism but also a platform for engagement and feedback from their communities. The
ongoing engagement with a news site that is possible due to the interactive nature of user-generated content
is considered a source of sustainable revenue for publishers of online journalism going forward.[47]

Journalists are increasingly sourcing UGC from platforms, such as Facebook and TikTok, as news shifts to
a digital space.[48] This form of crowdsourcing can include using user content to support claims, using
social media platforms to contact witnesses and obtain relevant images and videos for articles.[49]

Use in marketing
The use of user-generated content has been prominent in the efforts of marketing online, especially among
millennials.[50] A good reason for this may be that 86% of consumers say authenticity is important when
deciding which brands they support, and 60% believe user-generated content is not only the most authentic
form of content, but also the most influential when making purchasing decisions.[51]

An increasing number of companies have been employing UGC techniques into their marketing efforts,
such as Starbucks with their "White Cup Contest" campaign where customers competed to create the best
doodle on their cups.[52]

The effectiveness of UGC in marketing has been shown to be significant as well. For instance, the "Share a
Coke" by Coca-Cola campaign in which customers uploaded images of themselves with bottles to social
media attributed to a two percent increase in revenue. Of millennials, UGC can influence purchase
decisions up to fifty-nine percent of the time, and eighty-four percent say that UGC on company websites
has at least some influence on what they buy, typically in a positive way. As a whole, consumers place peer
recommendations and reviews above those of professionals.[53]

User-generated content used in a marketing context has been known to help brands in numerous ways.[54]

It encourages more engagement with its users, and doubles the likeliness that the content
will be shared.
 It builds trust with consumers. With a majority of consumers trusting UGC over brand
provided information,[55] UGC can allow for better brand-consumer relationships.
It provides SEO Value for brands. This in turn means more traffic is driven to the brands
websites and that more content is linked back to the website.
It reassures purchase decisions which will keep customers shopping. With UGC, the
conversion rate increases by as much as 4.6%.
It increases follower count on various social media platforms.
It helps integration with traditional marketing/promotional techniques which in turn
drives more conversions for the companies.
It helps in increasing profit with significant reduction in costs for the company.
It typically low cost promotion since content given by free for firm's customers.

Opportunities
There are many opportunities in user-generated content. The advantage of UGC is that it is a quick, easy
way to reach the masses. Here are some examples:

The companies could use social media for branding, and set up contests for the audience to
submit their own creations.[56]
The consumers and general audience members like to engage. Some have used a
storytelling platform to both share and converse with others.
To raise awareness, whether it be for an organization, company, or event.
Reviews play a major role in a customers decision making.
Gain perspectives from members that one wouldn't otherwise get to engage with.
Personalization of the content put out; 71% of consumers like personalized ads.[57]
Encouraging participation can be weakened by company claims to owning this
content.[58][55]

Criticism
The term "user-generated content" has received some criticism. The criticism to date has addressed issues
of fairness, quality,[59] privacy,[60] the sustainable availability of creative work and effort among legal
issues namely related to intellectual property rights such as copyrights etc.

Some commentators assert that the term "user" implies an illusory or unproductive distinction between
different kinds of "publishers", with the term "users" exclusively used to characterize publishers who
operate on a much smaller scale than traditional mass-media outlets or who operate for free.[61] Such
classification is said to perpetuate an unfair distinction that some argue is diminishing because of the
prevalence and affordability of the means of production and publication. A better response might be to offer
optional expressions that better capture the spirit and nature of such work, such as EGC, Entrepreneurial
Generated Content (see external reference below).

Sometimes creative works made by individuals are lost because there are limited or no ways to precisely
preserve creations when a UGC Web site service closes down. One example of such loss is the closing of
the Disney massively multiplayer online game "VMK". VMK, like most games, has items that are traded
from user to user. Many of these items are rare within the game. Users are able to use these items to create
their own rooms, avatars and pin lanyard. This site shut down at 10 pm CDT on 21 May 2008. There are
ways to preserve the essence, if not the entirety of such work through the users copying text and media to
applications on their personal computers or recording live action or animated scenes using screen capture
software, and then uploading elsewhere. Long before the Web, creative works were simply lost or went out
of publication and disappeared from history unless individuals found ways to keep them in personal
collections.

Another criticized aspect is the vast array of user-generated product and service reviews that can at times be
misleading for consumer on the web. A study conducted at Cornell University found that an estimated 1 to
6 percent of positive user-generated online hotel reviews are fake.[62]

Another concern of platforms that rely heavily on user-generated content, such as Twitter and Facebook, is
how easy it is to find people who holds the same opinions and interests in addition to how well they
facilitate the creation of networks or closed groups.[63] While the strength of these services are that users
can broaden their horizon by sharing their knowledge and connect with other people from around the
world, these platforms also make it very easy to connect with only a restricted sample of people who holds
similar opinions (see Filter bubble).[64]

There is also criticism regarding whether or not those who contribute to a platform should be paid for their
content. In 2015, A group of 18 famous content creators on Vine attempted to negotiate a deal with Vine
representatives to secure a $1.2 million contract for a guaranteed 12 videos a month.[65] This negotiation
was not successful.

Legal problems
The ability for services to accept user-generated content opens up a number of legal concerns, from the
broader sense to specific local laws. In general, knowing who committed the online crime is difficult
because many use pseudonyms or remain anonymous. Sometimes it can be traced back. But in the case of a
public coffee shop, they have no way of pinpointing the exact user. There is also a problem with the issues
surrounding extremely harmful but not legal acts. For example, the posting of content that instigates a
person's suicide. It is a criminal offense if there is proof of "beyond reasonable doubt" but different
situations may produce different outcomes.[66] Depending on the country, there is certain laws that come
with the Web 2.0. In the United States, the "Section 230" exemptions of the Communications Decency Act
state that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker
of any information provided by another information content provider." This clause effectively provides a
general immunity for websites that host user-generated content that is defamatory, deceptive or otherwise
harmful, even if the operator 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.[67]

Copyright laws

Copyright laws also play a factor in relation to user-generated content, as users may use such services to
upload works—particularly videos—that they do not have the sufficient rights to distribute. In many cases,
the use of these materials may be covered by local "fair use" laws, especially if the use of the material
submitted is transformative.[68] Local laws also vary on who is liable for any resulting copyright
infringements caused by user-generated content; in the United States, the Online Copyright Infringement
Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA)—a portion of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), dictates
safe harbor provisions for "online service providers" as defined under the act, which grants immunity from
secondary liability for the copyright-infringing actions of their users, as long as they promptly remove
access to allegedly infringing materials upon the receipt of a notice from a copyright holder or registered
agent, and they do not have actual knowledge that their service is being used for infringing activities.[69][70]
In the UK, the Defamation Act of 1996 says that if a person is not the author, editor or publisher and did
not know about the situation, they are not convicted. Furthermore, ISPs are not considered authors, editors,
or publishers and they cannot have responsibility for people they have no "effective control" over. Just like
the DMCA, once the ISP learns about the content, they must delete it immediately.[66] The European
Union's approach is horizontal by nature, which means that civil and criminal liability issues are addressed
under the Electronic Commerce Directive. Section 4 deals with liability of the ISP while conducting "mere
conduit" services, caching and web hosting services.[71]

Research
A study on YouTube analyzing one of the Video On Demand systems was conducted in 2007. The length
of the video had decreased by two-fold from the non-UGC content but they saw a fast production rate. The
user behavior is what perpetuates the UGC. The act of P2P (Peer-to-Peer) was studied and saw a great
benefit to the system. They also studied the impact of content aliasing, sharing of multiple copies, and
illegal uploads.[72]

A study from York University in Ontario in 2012 conducted research that resulted in a proposed framework
for comparing brand-related UGC and to understand how the strategy used by a company could influence
the brand sentiment across different social media channels including YouTube, Twitter and Facebook. The
three scholars of this study examined two clothing brands, Lulu Lemon and American Apparel. The
difference between these two brands is that Lulu Lemon had a social media following while American
Apparel was the complete opposite with no social media following. Unsurprisingly, Lulu Lemon had much
more positive contributions compared to American Apparel which had less positive contributions. Lulu
Lemon has three times the number of positive contributions, 64 percent vs 22 percent for American
Apparel on Twitter while on Facebook and YouTube, they had roughly an equal number of contributions.
This proves that social media can influence how a brand is perceived, usually in a more positive light.[73] A
study by Dhar and Chang, published in 2007, found that the volume of blogs posted on a music album was
positively correlated with future sales of that album.[74]

See also
Carr-Benkler wager
Cognitive Surplus
Collective intelligence
Communal marketing
Consumer generated marketing
Creative Commons
Crowdsourcing
Customer engagement
Fan art
Fan fiction
Modding
Networked information economy
Participatory culture
Participatory design
Prosumer
User-generated TV
User innovation
 Web 2.0

General sources
  This article incorporates text from a free content work. Licensed under CC BY SA 3.0 IGO License
statement/permission (http://www.unesco.org/ulis/cgi-bin/ulis.pl?catno=261065&set=005B2A1A4F_2_135
&gp=1&lin=1&ll=1). Text taken from World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development
Global Report 2017/2018 (http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0026/002610/261065e.pdf), 202, University
of Oxford, UNESCO.

Citations
1. Krumm, John; Davies, Nigel; Narayanaswami, Chandra (October 2008). "User-Generated
Content". IEEE Pervasive Computing. 7 (4): 10–11. doi:10.1109/MPRV.2008.85 (https://doi.o
rg/10.1109%2FMPRV.2008.85). ISSN 1558-2590 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1558-
2590).
2. Berthon, Pierre; Pitt, Leyland; Kietzmann, Jan; McCarthy, Ian P. (August 2015). "CGIP:
Managing Consumer-Generated Intellectual Property" (http://summit.sfu.ca/item/18172).
California Management Review. 57 (4): 43–62. doi:10.1525/cmr.2015.57.4.43 (https://doi.or
g/10.1525%2Fcmr.2015.57.4.43). ISSN 0008-1256 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0008-125
6). S2CID 12234496 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:12234496).
3. "The BBC May be the First Mainstream Industrial Medium to Adopt User-Generated
Content" (http://www.historyofinformation.com/expanded.php?id=2364). BBC News. 4 July
2006. Retrieved 2 April 2017.
4. Lev Grossman (13 December 2006). "You – Yes, You – Are TIME's Person of the Year" (htt
p://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1570810,00.html). Time. Retrieved
20 December 2012.
5. iReport (http://www.cnn.com/CNNI/Programs/ireport/)
6. Rauchfleisch, Adrian; Artho, Xenia; Metag, Julia; Post, Senja; Schäfer, Mike S. (July 2017).
"How journalists verify user-generated content during terrorist crises. Analyzing Twitter
communication during the Brussels attacks" (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F205630511771788
8). Social Media + Society. 3 (3): 205630511771788. doi:10.1177/2056305117717888 (http
s://doi.org/10.1177%2F2056305117717888). ISSN 2056-3051 (https://www.worldcat.org/iss
n/2056-3051).
7. Schivinski, Bruno; Muntinga, Daan G.; Pontes, Halley M.; Lukasik, Przemyslaw (10 February
2019). "Influencing COBRAs: the effects of brand equity on the consumer's propensity to
engage with brand-related content on social media" (https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/26176/3/2617
6.pdf) (PDF). Journal of Strategic Marketing. 29: 1–23.
doi:10.1080/0965254X.2019.1572641 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F0965254X.2019.157264
1). ISSN 0965-254X (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0965-254X). S2CID 169721474 (https://a
pi.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:169721474).
8. Klausen, Jytte (9 December 2014). "Tweeting theJihad: Social Media Networks of Western
Foreign Fighters in Syria and Iraq". Studies in Conflict & Terrorism. 38 (1): 1–22.
doi:10.1080/1057610x.2014.974948 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F1057610x.2014.974948).
hdl:10192/28992 (https://hdl.handle.net/10192%2F28992). ISSN 1057-610X (https://www.w
orldcat.org/issn/1057-610X). S2CID 145585333 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:1
45585333).
9. Battelle, John (5 December 2006). "Packaged Goods Media vs. Conversational Media, Part
One (Updated)" (http://battellemedia.com/archives/2006/12/packaged_goods_media_vs_co
nversational_media_part_one_updated). Retrieved 23 August 2011.
10. Pavlik, John V.; McIntosh, Shawn (2014). Converging Media (4 ed.). Oxford University
Press. p. 20. ISBN 9780199342303.
11. "Principles for User Generated Content Services" (http://ugcprinciples.com/).
UGCprinciples.com. Retrieved 24 November 2014.
12. Jenkins, Henry (SODA), "Convergence Culture", New York University Press, New York
13. "Working Party on the Information Economy – Participative Web: User-Created Content" (htt
p://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/57/14/38393115.pdf) (PDF). Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development.
14. "IAB Status Platform Report" (http://www.iab.net/media/file/2008_ugc_platform.pdf) (PDF).
IAB.NET.
15. Cisco Systems. 201. The Zettabyte Era: Trends and Analysis.
16. Internet Live Stats. 2017. Total number of websites.
17. TechCrunch. 2020. Facebook hits 2.5B users in Q4 but shares sink from slow profits.
TechCrunch. Available at https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/29/facebook-earnings-q4-2019/.
Accessed 18 February 2020.
18. World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development Global Report 2017/2018
(http://www.unesco.org/ulis/cgi-bin/ulis.pl?catno=261065&set=005B2B7D1D_3_314&gp=1
&lin=1&ll=1). UNESCO. 2018. p. 202.
19. Wikimedia Foundation. 2017. Wikipedia Statistics. Available at
https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm.
20. Graham, Mark; Staumann, Ralph K.; Hogan, Bernie (2015). Digital Divisions of Labor and
Informational Magnetism: Mapping Participation in Wikipedia. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers 105 (6): 1158–1178.
21. tvochannel (8 June 2012), Simon Winchester on His Book The Meaning of Everything (http
s://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3SmOsbLays), archived (https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/y
outube/20211219/c3SmOsbLays) from the original on 19 December 2021, retrieved
1 August 2017
22. "Transcript: Simon Winchester on his book The Meaning of Everything - Jul 23, 2005" (http
s://www.tvo.org//transcript/883597/video/archive/big-ideas/simon-winchester-on-his-book-th
e-meaning-of-everything). TVO.org.
23. Matthew, Crick (2016). Power, Surveillance, and Culture in YouTube™'s Digital Sphere (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=y-FmCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA36). IGI Global. pp. 36–7.
ISBN 9781466698567.
24. Pavlik, John (2014). Converging Media (4 ed.). New York, New York: Oxford University
Press. p. 140. ISBN 9780199342303.
25. Toluna:"Mixing Financial, Social and Fun Incentives for Social Voting" (https://web.archive.o
rg/web/20110709193004/http://www.toluna-group.com/files/en/Whitepapers/Web%20Incenti
ves%20Whitepaper.pdf) (PDF). Archived from the original (http://www.toluna-group.com/file
s/en/Whitepapers/Web%20Incentives%20Whitepaper.pdf) (PDF) on 9 July 2011. Retrieved
3 March 2010.
26. Chen, Yan; Harper, F. Maxwell; Konstan, Joseph; Li, Sherry Xin (September 2010). "Social
Comparisons and Contributions to Online Communities: A Field Experiment on MovieLens"
(https://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2007/1155/). American Economic Review. 100 (4):
1358–1398. doi:10.1257/aer.100.4.1358 (https://doi.org/10.1257%2Faer.100.4.1358).
ISSN 0002-8282 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0002-8282).
27. Nam, Kevin Kyung; Ackerman, Mark S.; Adamic, Lada A. (2009). "Questions in, knowledge
in?: a study of naver's question answering community" (http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1
518701.1518821). Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems - CHI 09. Chi '09. Boston, MA, USA: ACM Press: 779–788.
doi:10.1145/1518701.1518821 (https://doi.org/10.1145%2F1518701.1518821). ISBN 978-1-
60558-246-7. S2CID 466470 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:466470).
28. HOPLA Online:"User-generated Content Moderation: Shaping Brand Trust and
Recognition" (https://hopla.online/blog/user-generated-content-moderation-brand-trust/).
Retrieved 3 March 2010.
29. Momeni, E.; Cardie, C.; Diakopoulos, N. (2016). "A Survey on Assessment and Ranking
Methodologies for User-Generated Content on the Web". ACM Computing Surveys. 48 (3):
41. doi:10.1145/2811282 (https://doi.org/10.1145%2F2811282). S2CID 6302315 (https://api.
semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:6302315).
30. Godwin-Jones, Robert (May 2003). "Blogs and Wikis: Environments for online collaboration"
(https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/25195/07_02_emerging.pdf)
(PDF). Language Learning & Technology. 7 (2): 12–16.
31. Street, Francesca (27 June 2017). "World's top 10 travel influencers, according to Forbes" (h
ttps://www.cnn.com/travel/article/forbes-travel-top-influencers/index.html). CNN. Retrieved
30 April 2019.
32. "How Ray Chan started 9GAG, and a career in fun" (http://www.meldmagazine.com.au/201
2/07/9-gag-ray-chan/). Meld Magazine - Melbourne's international student news website. 24
July 2012. Retrieved 3 January 2016.
33. "Tech in Asia - Connecting Asia's startup ecosystem" (https://www.techinasia.com/user-gene
rated-content-media-indonesia-ugc). techinasia.com. Retrieved 3 January 2016.
34. York, Jillian C. (27 March 2021). "Silicon Valley's puritanical war on sex" (https://www.salon.
com/2021/03/27/silicon-valleys-puritanical-war-on-sex/). Salon.com. Retrieved 27 March
2021.
35. "Busabout Goes 99% UGC to Drive Website Discovery & Bookings" (https://stackla.com/cas
e-studies/busabout-goes-ugc-to-drive-website-disovery-and-bookings/). Stackla - User-
Generated Content Marketing. 3 April 2018. Retrieved 9 April 2018.
36. Handbook of media economics. Volume 1B. Anderson, Simon P.,, Waldfogel, Joel, 1962-,
Strömberg, David. Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 28 January 2016. ISBN 978-0-444-63691-
1. OCLC 932322941 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/932322941).
37. You're in charge! - From vital patches to game cancellations, players are often intimately
involved. (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-11-02-youre-in-charge) by Christian
Donlan on Eurogamer "Supreme Commander fans released Forged Alliance Forever and
gave the game the online client it could otherwise only dream of. I haven't played it much,
but I still got a tear in my eye when I read about the extents these coders had gone to.
There's nothing quite so wonderful to witness as love, and this is surely love of the very
purest order. [...] SupCom guys resurrect a series whose publisher had just gone under."
(2013-11-02)
38. Jagneaux, David (18 August 2014). "The 5 Best User Generated Content Systems in
MMOs" (http://www.mmorpg.com/showFeature.cfm/loadFeature/8818). MMORPG.com.
Cyber Creations Inc. Retrieved 19 August 2014.
39. Andrew Lavalee Now, Virtual Fashion Second Life Designers Make Real Money Creating
Clothes For Simulation Game's Players, The Wall Street Journal (https://www.wsj.com/articl
es/SB115888412923570768), 22 September 2006
40. Marrs, Megan. "UGC 101" (http://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2014/04/28/user-generated-
content#.). wordstream. Megan Marrs. Retrieved 24 November 2014.
41. "Toyota boosts Facebook Ads engagement by 440% | Stackla - User-Generated Content
Marketing" (https://stackla.com/case-studies/toyota-boosts-facebook-ads-440-percent/).
Stackla - User-Generated Content Marketing. Retrieved 9 April 2018.
42. Lee, Mark J. W.; McLoughlin, Catherine (October 2007). "Teaching and Learning in the Web
2.0 Era: Empowering Students through Learner-Generated Content" (https://web.archive.org/
web/20080207113943/http://itdl.org/Journal/Oct_07/article02.htm). International Journal of
Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. Archived from the original (http://itdl.org/Jou
rnal/Oct_07/article02.htm) on 7 February 2008. Retrieved 27 May 2018.
43. Shirky, Clay (2008). Here Comes Everybody. The Penguin Press.
44. Manikonda, Lydia Hu, Yuheng Kambhampati, Subbarao (29 October 2014). Analyzing User
Activities, Demographics, Social Network Structure and User-Generated Content on
Instagram. OCLC 1106208719 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1106208719).
45. European Handbook of Crowdsourced Geographic Information - Chapter 21 Discussing the
Potential of Crowdsourced Geographic Information for Urban Areas Monitoring Using the
Panoramio Initiative: A Case Study in Rome, Italy (http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv3t5r09).
Ubiquity Press. 2016. ISBN 978-1-909188-79-2. JSTOR j.ctv3t5r09 (https://www.jstor.org/sta
ble/j.ctv3t5r09). Retrieved 21 September 2021.
46. Thurman, Neil (1 February 2008). "Forums for citizen journalists? Adoption of user-
generated content initiatives by online news media" (http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/119/2/thur
man_forums.pdf) (PDF). New Media & Society. 10 (1): 139–157.
doi:10.1177/1461444807085325 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1461444807085325).
S2CID 516873 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:516873).
47. Zeng, Michael A.; Dennstedt, Bianca; Koller, Hans (6 November 2016). "Democratizing
Journalism – How User-Generated Content and User Communities Affect Publishers'
Business Models". Creativity and Innovation Management. 25 (5): 536–551.
doi:10.1111/caim.12199 (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fcaim.12199). S2CID 157677395 (http
s://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:157677395).
48. "Journalism changed forever by user-generated content" (https://www.sciencedaily.com/rele
ases/2016/05/160523083828.htm). ScienceDaily. Retrieved 2 September 2020.
49. "How Newsrooms Use User Generated Content" (https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/our
-research/how-newsrooms-use-user-generated-content). Reuters Institute for the Study of
Journalism. Retrieved 2 September 2020.
50. Jack Collins (11 July 2016). "A Complete Guide to User Generated Content Marketing" (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20160820103827/http://blog.startafire.com/user-generated-content-
marketing/). Archived from the original (https://blog.startafire.com/user-generated-content-ma
rketing/) on 20 August 2016. Retrieved 2 April 2017.
51. "2017 Consumer Content Report: Influence in the Digital Age" (https://stackla.com/go/2017-c
onsumer-content-report-influence-in-digital-age/). Stackla - User-Generated Content
Marketing. 10 November 2017. Retrieved 9 April 2018.
52. David Hunegnaw (6 January 2017). "The Future of User-Generated Content is Owned" (htt
p://adage.com/article/digitalnext/future-ugc-owned/307322/). Retrieved 2 April 2016.
53. John Battelle (16 October 2016). "10 Stats That Show Why User-Generated Content Works"
(https://web.archive.org/web/20180525203927/http://www.dmnews.com/content-marketing/1
0-stats-that-show-why-user-generated-content-works/article/444872/). Archived from the
original (http://www.dmnews.com/content-marketing/10-stats-that-show-why-user-generated-
content-works/article/444872/) on 25 May 2018. Retrieved 2 April 2017.
54. Alex York (5 October 2016). "The Ultimate User-Generated Content Guide" (http://sproutsoci
al.com/insights/user-generated-content-guide/). Retrieved 2 April 2017.
55. "a person like me" as their most trusted source:
Jessica Tsai (December 2007). "Power to
the People". Consumer Relationship Management magazine (destinationCRM.com).
pp. 29–33.
56. Daughtery, Terry; Eastin, Matthew S. (1 July 2013). "Exploring Consumer Motivations for
Creating User-Generated Content". Journal of Interactive Advertising. 8 (2): 16–25.
doi:10.1080/15252019.2008.10722139 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F15252019.2008.107221
39). S2CID 167548635 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:167548635).
57. "Study: 71% of consumers prefer personalized ads" (https://www.marketingdive.com/news/st
udy-71-of-consumers-prefer-personalized-ads/418831/). Marketing Dive. Retrieved 24 April
2018.
58. David Hunegnaw (6 January 2017). "The Future of User-Generated Content Is Owned | Ad
Age" (https://adage.com/article/digitalnext/future-ugc-owned/307322). Advertising Age.
"Marketers need to own the rights to user-generated content in order to use it well"
59. Lukyanenko, Roman; Parsons, Jeffrey; Wiersma, Yolanda (2014). "The IQ of the Crowd:
Understanding and Improving Information Quality in Structured User-Generated Content".
Information Systems Research. 25 (4): 669–689. doi:10.1287/isre.2014.0537 (https://doi.org/
10.1287%2Fisre.2014.0537).
60. Memarovic, Nemanja (2015). "Public Photos, Private Concerns: Uncovering Privacy
Concerns of User Generated Content Created Through Networked Public Displays" (https://
www.ifi.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:ffffffff-c29f-36ac-0000-000031153409/perdis2015-CR-01.pdf) (PDF).
Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Pervasive Displays.
doi:10.1145/2757710.2757739 (https://doi.org/10.1145%2F2757710.2757739).
S2CID 17746880 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:17746880).
61. Kiss, Jemima (3 January 2007). "Guardian Unlimited website: The trouble with user
generated content" (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/organgrinder/2007/01/the_trouble_with_user
_generate.html). The Guardian. London. Retrieved 10 February 2007.
62. White, Martha C. (7 April 2014). "Be Wary of Awesome and Scathing Online Reviews" (http
s://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/be-wary-awesome-scathing-online-reviews-n721
16). NBC News. Retrieved 25 November 2014.
63. Du, Siying; Gregory, Steve (30 November 2016). "The Echo Chamber Effect in Twitter: does
community polarization increase?". Complex Networks & Their Applications V. Studies in
Computational Intelligence. Springer, Cham. 693: 373–378. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-50901-
3_30 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-3-319-50901-3_30). ISBN 9783319509006.
64. Bowell, Tracy (12 May 2017). "Response to the editorial 'Education in a post-truth world' " (ht
tps://doi.org/10.1080%2F00131857.2017.1288805). Educational Philosophy and Theory. 49
(6): 582–585. doi:10.1080/00131857.2017.1288805 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F00131857.2
017.1288805). ISSN 0013-1857 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0013-1857).
65. Kircher, Madison Malone. "Could Paying Millions of Dollars to Creators Have Saved Vine?"
(https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/10/paying-viners-millions-wouldnt-have-saved-vine.ht
ml). Intelligencer. Retrieved 15 April 2020.
66. George, Carlisle; Scerri, Jackie (24 April 2018). "Web 2.0 and User-Generated Content:
Legal Challenges in the New Frontier" (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/22824551
7).
67. "Is 'go away' the best response to complaints about user-generated content?" (http://www.co
mputerworld.com/s/article/9179594/Is_go_away_the_best_response_to_complaints_about_
user_generated_content_?taxonomyId=14). Computerworld. 23 July 2010. Retrieved
22 July 2014.
68. "Fair Use Principles for User Generated Video Content" (https://www.eff.org/pages/fair-use-p
rinciples-user-generated-video-content). Electronic Frontier Foundation. 30 October 2007.
Retrieved 22 July 2014.
69. "Is YouTube's three-strike rule fair to users?" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_o
nline/8696716.stm). BBC News. London. 21 May 2010. Retrieved 5 February 2012.
70. Anderson, Nate (10 November 2011). "Why the feds smashed Megaupload" (https://arstechn
ica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/why-the-feds-smashed-megaupload.ars). Ars Technica.
Retrieved 22 January 2012.
71. "Online Intermediaries and Liability for Copyright Infringement" (https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/
bitstream/1842/2305/1/wipo-onlineintermediaries.pdf) (PDF). WIPO. Retrieved 22 July 2014.
72. Cha Meeyoung et al. "I tube, you tube, we tube, everybody tubes: analyzing the world's
largest user generated content video system." Internet Measurement Conference (2007).
73. Smith, Andrew; Fischer, Eileen; Yongjian, Chen (2012). "How Does Brand-related User-
generated Content Differ across YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter?". Journal of Interactive
Marketing. 26 (2): 102–113. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2012.01.002 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.in
tmar.2012.01.002).
74. Dhar, Vasant; Chang, Elaine (November 2009). "Does Chatter Matter? The Impact of User-
Generated Content on Music Sales". Journal of Interactive Marketing. 23 (4): 300–307.
doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2009.07.004 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.intmar.2009.07.004).

External links
OECD study on the Participative Web: User Generated Content (http://www.oecd.org/dataoe
cd/57/14/38393115.pdf)
A Bigger Bang (https://www.theguardian.com/weekend/page/0,,1939196,00.html)—an
overview of the UGC trend on the Web in 2006
https://hbr.org/2016/03/branding-in-the-age-of-social-media

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User-generated_content&oldid=1075540969"

This page was last edited on 6 March 2022, at 09:48 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0;

additional terms may apply. By
using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.