Shashir Mehrotra

When I got to YouTube, we had a big lawsuit from Viacom at the time.

and the very heavily watched lawsuit, and we won.

We won on summary judgment, actually.

We completely crossed the legal bar, but that's not the standard we held ourselves to.

We looked at that and we said, the law doesn't require us to do this, but we chose to do a lot more.

We launched Content ID as a way to make sure that creators could find content that other people uploaded on their behalf.

We launched an open creator program, which as far as I know, is still the only platform with an open rev share that's out there.

So I don't think the legal standard is the right standard to be looking at.

I'm not trying to get close to it.

It's fairly clear to me that we didn't cross below it, but that doesn't matter.

We're not trying to be close to that standard.

We think that creators, we need creators to work.

We need their business models to work for our platform to work.

And it's very similar to what happened at YouTube.

You know, I think I'll have to leave the legal arguments for the lawsuit and for the court case.

I think our view of it is that the set of work that was there was a fairly standard attribution that was well above the bar that any other product would do, what every LLM on the planet is doing and so on, and didn't come close to using

name and likeness in any way that was beyond attributing the source.

By the way, you pinned the reason why, right?

I mean, the idea that you can uncover your editing style from the end work, I just think it's not possible.

I mean, it's very hard to come back from that end work and say, what was the editing pass before that?