Children's rights, or child labor?

[The Stars Tremble]

Illinois governor J.B. Pritzker on Friday signed into law a first-of-its-kind bill entitling young social media influencers to a percentage of earnings for monetized videos they appear in. The law, which could accelerate interest for similar legislation in other states, marks one of the first known examples of lawmakers successfully amending child labor laws to protect young workers from parents cashing in on their online labor.

New Law Forces Parents to Share Cash With Their ‘Kidfluencers’

An Illinois law forces adults who profit from kids' content to set aside a percentage of their earnings in a trust the minors can access when they mature.

gizmodo.com

I support the new law. I think the money set aside for a trust fund should be 50% of earnings (the article doesn't seem to specify a rate) but it would be perverse to deny parents any cut at all. It's a reasonable expectation that parents coach their children, or provide professional coaching or production, or spend on other things which benefit the child. Like education and healthcare. Turning over all the money, like thousands or millions of dollars are just pocket money, wouldn't be right either.

On the other hand, what the hell kind of internet are we running, where children as young as 4 can profit from it? It may not seem like work to them, but if someone is paying another person for what they do, isn't that fundamentally work?

Interested in all opinions on this, because I'm really not sure.

 

[soylentgreen]

I would like to know if this law would have any legal effects on any case brought to court when the child grows up and realises they are owed money. Or is the child bound to a contract drawn up by his parents and sponsors.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

I would like to know if this law would have any legal effects on any case brought to court when the child grows up and realises they are owed money. Or is the child bound to a contract drawn up by his parents and sponsors.

I think the mechanism of a trust fund is intended to remove that problem. The parents can't draw on the trust fund, nor can the child or anyone, until the child turns 18.

On the other hand, such a law would rule out children claiming any more than was in the trust fund. That's a point against the law, particularly if it's vague about the percentage to go to the trust fund.

Worst case scenario is that the child blows their trust fund on a failed civil case, or the parents already spent the money.

 

[BirdinHand]

I agree with Illinois.

Parents shouldn’t be getting rich off the labor of their kids.

I immediately think of “Ryan’s World” where a boy - not much different in age than my own son - has been online since he was a toddler on channels and even has tv shows and toys.

Ryan’s World’s Net Worth Will Blow You Away | Nas Academy

Ryan’s World’s net worth is out of this world. Find out how Ryan Kaji makes money and tops the charts as YouTube’s highest earning creator. Read more.

nasacademy.com

That wealth should be HIS for when he is older. At least the vast majority of it.

How many childhood stars have we read about over the years where their parents took advantage of them?

At least Illinois is trying to make sure these kids get something out of the stardom when they are adults.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It’s unclear how such nanny state nonsense could be enforced. How exactly is anyone going to prove that the video content was made (as opposed to posted by an IP address) in Illinois?

When SB 1782 takes effect on July 1 2024, it will ensure kids under the age of 16 who appear in videos receive a cut of the earnings those videos generate. The adult behind the account will be required to set aside some of the minor’s earnings in a trust account that the kid will receive access to once they legally enter adulthood. The law only applies to video content made in Illinois that generates more than 10 cents per view. Minors, meanwhile, need to appear in at least 30% of the content over a 30-day period to qualify for compensation. Adults who fail to abide by the new rules could find themselves on the receiving end of legal action.

 

[samiam5211]

It’s unclear how such nanny state nonsense could be enforced. How exactly is anyone going to prove that the video content was made (as opposed to posted by an IP address) in Illinois?

Doesn't the metadata of most videos show the location of where it was filmed? At least if they had access to the original recording.

 

[BirdinHand]

It’s unclear how such nanny state nonsense could be enforced. How exactly is anyone going to prove that the video content was made (as opposed to posted by an IP address) in Illinois?

Because it is video?

Plenty of these videos are filmed in people’s houses, yards, neighborhoods, etc.

We aren’t talking studio sets. We are talking kids playing with toys in their homes or yards.

 

[Irredentist]

It’s unclear how such nanny state nonsense could be enforced. How exactly is anyone going to prove that the video content was made (as opposed to posted by an IP address) in Illinois?

Presumably you could prove the location based on the content shown in the video itself.

 

[soylentgreen]

I think the mechanism of a trust fund is intended to remove that problem. The parents can't draw on the trust fund, nor can the child or anyone, until the child turns 18.

On the other hand, such a law would rule out children claiming any more than was in the trust fund. That's a point against the law, particularly if it's vague about the percentage to go to the trust fund.

Worst case scenario is that the child blows their trust fund on a failed civil case, or the parents already spent the money.

Problems can always arise. Murphy's law. Sounds like a law that just might come back and bite them when the kids do reach 18.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Because it is video?

Plenty of these videos are filmed in people’s houses, yards, neighborhoods, etc.

We aren’t talking studio sets. We are talking kids playing with toys in their homes or yards.

OK, but who is going to monitor the internet to try to determine which videos were subject to (or exempt from) the new rule? Can you tell how much per view a given Youtube video is getting or where it was recorded?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Doesn't the metadata of most videos show the location of where it was filmed?

I don’t know, but most videos don’t feature minors, generate significant revenue or originate in Illinois.

At least if they had access to the original recording.

Who is “they”?

 

[BirdinHand]

OK, but who is going to monitor the internet to try to determine which videos were subject to (or exempt from) the new rule? Can you tell how much per view a given Youtube video is getting or where it was recorded?

The checks cut to influencers tells you that.

These people are paid for clicks or paid by advertisers for clicks/traffic. There are very complex algorithms behind that monetization.

They also know the money is coming in BECAUSE of their kids.

Are you trying to claim that a couple living in Illinois making money off little Johnny playing Minecraft or Legos online shouldn’t be forced to make sure some of that money is actually saved for little Johnny when he’s an adult instead of being wasted on Mom and Dad buying a larger house, new cars and taking expensive trips?

 

[samiam5211]

I don’t know, but most videos don’t feature minors, generate significant revenue or originate in Illinois.



Who is “they”?

"They" is whoever is trying to determine where the video was recorded.

 

[BirdinHand]

but most videos don’t feature minors, generate significant revenue or originate in Illinois.

No, but there are a significant amount of videos that DO feature minors.

I see it regularly because my son loves to watch them.

Kids love to watch videos of other kids playing games and/or playing with toys.

It’s weird - and many of us with kids are simply amazed by it. And joke about it.


Those kids should have funds set aside for them for when they are older.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The checks cut to influencers tells you that.

These people are paid for clicks or paid by advertisers for clicks/traffic. There are very complex algorithms behind that monetization.

They also know the money is coming in BECAUSE of their kids.

Are you trying to claim that a couple living in Illinois making money off little Johnny playing Minecraft or Legos online shouldn’t be forced to make sure some of that money is actually saved for little Johnny when he’s an adult instead of being wasted on Mom and Dad buying a larger house, new cars and taking expensive trips?

Doesn’t little Johnny live in that larger house, ride in those new cars and go along on those expensive trips?

 

[ttwtt78640]

"They" is whoever is trying to determine where the video was recorded.

Yep, and who pays “them” for “their” effort?

 

[samiam5211]

Yep, and who pays “them” for “their” effort?

I don't know where you're going, and don't care.

 

[BirdinHand]

Doesn’t little Johnny live in that larger house, ride in those new cars and go along on those expensive trips?

No one is saying he doesn’t.

What Illinois is saying is that a specific amount must be set aside for little Johnny when he is of age to have a say in how the money is spent.
Brittney Spears. McCaully Caulkin. Lindsay Lohan. Shirley Temple. Gary Coleman. Drew Barrymore.

That’s just a few childhood stars that have faced legal battles over how their parents squandered or took advantage of the money made by the kids.

And what Illinois is trying to prevent with the next generation of childhood “stars”

 

[ttwtt78640]

I don't know where you're going, and don't care.

Laws only work if they are adequately enforced and adequate law enforcement costs money.

 

[Helix]

My kid watches these shows. They are basically commercials for toys. Oddly, a lot of the kids and families are Russians living in America. The shows generate a shitload of money, apparently.

 

[ttwtt78640]

No one is saying he doesn’t.

What Illinois is saying is that a specific amount must be set aside for little Johnny when he is of age to have a say in how the money is spent.
Brittney Spears. McCaully Caulkin. Lindsay Lohan. Shirley Temple. Gary Coleman. Drew Barrymore.

That’s just a few childhood stars that have faced legal battles over how their parents squandered or took advantage of the money made by the kids.

And what Illinois is trying to prevent with the next generation of childhood “stars”

I understand the potential ‘issue’, but question how this could be adequately enforced by a state government.

 

[Mr Person]

New Law Forces Parents to Share Cash With Their ‘Kidfluencers’

An Illinois law forces adults who profit from kids' content to set aside a percentage of their earnings in a trust the minors can access when they mature.

gizmodo.com

I support the new law. I think the money set aside for a trust fund should be 50% of earnings (the article doesn't seem to specify a rate) but it would be perverse to deny parents any cut at all. It's a reasonable expectation that parents coach their children, or provide professional coaching or production, or spend on other things which benefit the child. Like education and healthcare. Turning over all the money, like thousands or millions of dollars are just pocket money, wouldn't be right either.

On the other hand, what the hell kind of internet are we running, where children as young as 4 can profit from it? It may not seem like work to them, but if someone is paying another person for what they do, isn't that fundamentally work?

Interested in all opinions on this, because I'm really not sure.

It's an adaption of the laws protecting child actors. And damn, I just read an article about the child actor's case who sparked it all. Jackie Coogan. Made 3-4 million (something like 45-60 million today). Thought his father had managed his assets well but when he went to retrieve them, it turned out his mother and stepfather had managed to squander it all.

If kids are going to be allowed to do this influencer crap (generally 'toy unboxing' videos and the like, from what I gather), then I think we must protect their interest in the earnings.