Seattle Cheezburger Cats Continue World Domination
Though this New York Times report doesn't mention the local connection, both TechFlash and Slate have previously plumbed two-year-old Seattle company Pet Holdings. Run by former journalist Ben Huh, the company owns and runs the famously popular, viral I Can Has Cheezburger site, which is now venturing into book publishing, as the Times reports.
The books come mostly from reader-generated content, since it's we citizen Web surfers who upload our favorite krazy kat photos and kaptions to Huh's site; then he gets to profit from the book. Though the Web site itself, which now carries a fair amount of advertising, is clearly driving the revenue train. Huh told John Cook at TechFlash that his family of sites (which includes Fail Blog) attracts five million page views a day. (For this reason, Seattle Weekly is considering its own SeelyCats feature, based on the cats of our managing editor, Mike Seely.) Huh bought the LOLcat site for $2 million last year from Hawaiians Eric Nakagawa and Kari Unebasami; see the Honolulu Star-Bulletin account. The two compiled the first Cheezburger book, which sold 100,000 copies.
And Huh's money quote to the Times: "We're turning user-generated content into editorial content." He tells the paper he estimates that his company will generate half a million dollars in revenue from its book deals alone. Smart guy. Smart enough, too, to get out of journalism.
11 comment(s)
Zaira says:
Wow brilliant info...I am a cat lover myself and my entire family loved this piece :)
True if one does work smartly he can achieve so much success. Focus is the real game I guess...
Posted On: Sunday, May. 31 2009 @ 2:34AM
exe says:
Except the users in the "user generated content" get nothing. users getting used
Posted On: Sunday, May. 31 2009 @ 4:15AM
Johnny Cash says:
I luv Cheezburger Cats, they RULE!
R
www.online-privacy.vze.com
Posted On: Sunday, May. 31 2009 @ 5:21AM
Gregg says:
Seems like a waste of $2M. Don't get me wrong, I love cats - they taste just like chicken.
Posted On: Sunday, May. 31 2009 @ 5:22AM
Heidi says:
I agree with exe. What do the copyright holders of the photographs get out of these book deals, exactly?
Posted On: Sunday, May. 31 2009 @ 6:31AM
Stephanie says:
If you voluntarily put a photograph on the site, you should not then be able to claim copyright violations for its use. After all, the "viral" nature of the site means that the photos are re-published thousands, if not millions of times as they make their way across the Internet....
Posted On: Sunday, May. 31 2009 @ 7:30AM
graphicartist2k5 says:
how come every damn time i turn around some person is griping about "you're violating copyright laws!", but they have NO IDEA what copyright laws are even all about? how in the blue freaking hell is it "violating" copyright laws to download a picture of a cat, add some funny text to the picture, and upload it to a website? is ANY person making a profit from doing this? NO THEY ARE NOT. stop your bitching and do your homework as to what copyright is really all about. jeez.
Posted On: Sunday, May. 31 2009 @ 7:47AM
zolar says:
wargh.. what a value.. 1 million...
Posted On: Sunday, May. 31 2009 @ 8:47AM
SaintStryfe says:
it's not likely to be a copyright violation: it's a derivative work. Without the funny text and the ICHC brand, people likely wouldn't buy it. It changes the mere pictures into a separate work, and shouldn't be a copyright violation.
Posted On: Sunday, May. 31 2009 @ 10:42AM
Television Spy says:
"If you voluntarily put a photograph on the site, you should not then be able to claim copyright violations for its use"
Depends on the terms, if there are no terms given than I can understand their outrage. But if there are terms they should make it more explicit so that users know that their submissions could be used for the owner's sole profit.
Posted On: Sunday, May. 31 2009 @ 10:47AM
Gonzobot says:
The terms are there. Nobody reads them. None of you seem to have done so, evidently, despite your comments about said legal terms.
Also, things in the public domain (which a picture of a cat on the internet most likely is) are not typically subject to copyright.
Posted On: Sunday, May. 31 2009 @ 6:08PM