I suppose. Ultimately, I really don't see how a 7 second clip can really contribute significant value to a 15 minute production which was why I chose that as the ridiculous example. Even on a subjective level, the contribution of such an art piece, whether video or audio in nature is minimal at best.
For a better example, let's take someone who does an editorial for 3 minutes and plays a popular rock track in the background. Say the track is there playing for 2 minutes out of the 3 minute presentation. The same $100 is earned and the artist is paid $33. That almost seems like it's too much to be honest, especially if the song is just background noise behind a commentator. But I guarantee that YouTubers would be falling over themselves for such a system to exist.[DOUBLEPOST=1397060867,1397060746][/DOUBLEPOST]
I disagree that there should be any specific formula. The rights holder should be able to determine their own market value. As I mentioned before, it isn't fair that they currently get 100% of the publisher's share.
It would certainly be interesting to have something like that written in to ContentID. The ability for the system to flag content before going live, provide the uploader an option that says "this content is licensed by such and such and is worth $X or X% to use. Pay the license fee or accept the revenue share in order for your video to be made public". I'd go for that. I still think that a formulaic method works because they would still retain veto rights, but get 100% of whatever their art contributed to the video.
And I totally get what you're saying, but honestly I feel that a system like this would actually increase artist revenue. Imagine a YouTube where you could use copyrighted content but just had to give a cut away above board without having to worry about sanctions against your channel. More people would get involved in that, more revenue generated and the artist gets more at the end of the day.
