The criteria behind developing personalized playlists does indeed require some clarification. Considering playlists as property is an interesting take — many people don’t see it that way, but if the role of Human Playlist Curator was to become an official position within streaming services, one would have to consider the value of the work they do. My guess is that, like any creative position, there would be a dual ownership to the work. The playlists would “belong” to the service (Pandora, Spotify, Apple Music, et al.), but the person who worked on the playlist and compiled the tracks would get the credit of creating the content, such as freelance writers do when they write a guest blog post.
Another issue that arises with playlists as property is their position in an already hyper-competitive music industry. A great point in the closing paragraphs of this post regarding promotional content and sponsorship disclosures if user-generated, “influencer” playlists were to become the standard — could artists and record companies be able to pay Playlist Curators to feature more of their work? Say one of these Curators is employed by Apple Music— does Apple get a cut of that money? If that were the case, wouldn’t these playlists not be personalized at all?
Really makes you think about how music is presented to audiences. I guess I’ll listen to one of the recommended playlists on my Spotify while I mull this over. . .