For creators trying to build sustainable businesses, the established financial system has never quite fit. Banks balk at volatile revenues. Venture capitalists want returns that require scaling the unscalable. Jack Ojalvo, a former M&A banker and e-commerce founder, has spent three years building a third option.

Copyright Capital, which Jack launched in 2022 and operates across the EU and internationally, provides capital and professional services to digital creators, primarily long-form YouTubers, at a point in the market when most financial institutions still can’t price the risk. The firm is headquartered in Geneva and has local teams across regions supported by centralized specialist functions, including legal, finance, digital rights management (DRM), and investments. 

“We keep on creating new solutions based on the needs of the creators,” Jack says, “instead of forcing creators into our solution.”

His background straddles two worlds. After stints in M&A at Allen & Company in New York and Rothschild in Paris, Jack co-founded Supplementler.com, which grew into one of the largest sports nutrition and healthy-living platforms in the MENA (Middle East & North Africa) region before its exit to Nestlé. That experience of building a large-scale e-commerce operation, combined with his finance background, shaped how he reads the Creator Economy: as a capital-starved sector with major structural inefficiencies.

Why Banks and VCs Both Miss the Mark

The case against traditional financing is one Jack has thought through carefully. 

Banks face two problems: they don’t understand what creators do, and the revenues they’re evaluating are too volatile to fit standard underwriting models. “One month might be great, and then a few months might be very low,” he says. “It is very hard to adapt traditional loans and interest expenses to their asset-light and dynamic business.”

The venture capital problem is different and more fundamental. VC is built around equity stakes and eventual exits, but creator businesses are inherently person-dependent. “It is very hard to scale a person, very hard to disassociate the person from the company, and the mathematics do not work out well,” Jack notes.

From the creator’s side, the objections are just as strong. Equity means dilution, often across multiple rounds, and the operational restrictions that come with investor oversight. Debt means covenants. According to Jack, neither maps well to a business model defined by creative autonomy and irregular cash flows.

Copyright Capital’s answer is to offer neither. “We first understand the needs and wants of the creators and their red lines,” Jack explains. From first conversation to capital deployment, the process typically takes one to two weeks.

Revenue, Not Reach

When evaluating which creators to fund, Copyright Capital ignores most of the metrics that dominate industry conversation. In Jack’s view, subscriber counts are vanity metrics, and view counts don’t translate consistently across platforms or geographies.

“At the end of the day, the main metric we look at is the revenues of the creator,” he says.

That framing shifts the evaluation from audience size to business performance, which is both more predictable and more relevant to the firm’s thesis. A creator with a smaller but monetized, diversified revenue base represents a different risk profile than one with large followings but thin or erratic income. 

Jack notes that anchoring funding decisions to actual earnings also aligns the firm’s interests with the operational realities of creator businesses rather than proxy metrics that may not correlate with financial sustainability.

Two Lock Structures Copyright Capital Avoids

One of the more specific commitments Copyright Capital makes is around what it won’t do. Jack identifies two common deal structures in the creator funding space that he believes drive creator resistance and harm the ecosystem.

The first is the MCN lock, in which multi-channel networks require creators to remain on their platforms for periods well beyond the investment horizon. The second is the ad lock, where investors require creators to run direct advertising through their own networks rather than working with outside talent agencies. Both restrict creator flexibility without delivering proportionate value.

“We work with talent agencies. We do not try to replace them,” Jack says, noting that agencies are typically better positioned to secure direct brand deals than an investor-affiliated network. 

Creative and managerial control stays entirely with the creator. “Creators are 100% right to be willing to retain full artistic and managerial control,” he says. “We do not interfere with that whatsoever.”

Diversification as the Core Risk Strategy

Jack sees algorithm changes, platform monetization shifts, and regulatory uncertainty as permanent features of the Creator Economy rather than temporary disruptions.

“This is the biggest problem in the space and the reason why most of the older players, or newcomers, end up either quitting or just having poor results,” he says. His response has been to build what he describes as one of the most diversified portfolios in the industry, spread across geographies, platforms, content categories, video lengths, and revenue streams.

“There are many drastic regulatory changes, monetization changes, content consumption changes, and AI changes that are expected in the next one to two years,” he notes. “We thrive to not only stay agile but are also able to actively diversify and mitigate risks.”

IP Ownership and the Structural Bet on Creators

Beneath the near-term operational model is a larger thesis about where power will shift in the Creator Economy.

“I think the biggest change will come from AI and IP ownership,” Jack says. “We want to democratize IP ownership. We want creators to keep their IP.”

The argument is that if creators have access to capital early enough, they can build without being forced to sell rights prematurely, whether to platforms, studios, or investors.

Jack also pushes back on a persistent misconception among media executives: that lower production costs necessarily mean lower production value. Top YouTubers, he argues, are competing directly for attention with premium streaming content. 

“Top creators need real budgets to produce great entertainment,” he says. “But content with a fraction of the budget of a major Hollywood production can very well yield more profitability and, in some cases, more revenues.”

Coming to the U.S. Market

After gaining international traction across the EU and other markets, Copyright Capital plans to focus its efforts in the U.S. market, which Jack identifies as the firm’s primary priority for 2026.

“We did really well irrespective of the geography, platform, or currency,” Jack says. “Now is the time to tackle the U.S. market.” The expansion will follow the same localization approach Copyright Capital has applied elsewhere: local teams who understand the culture and serve as primary creator contacts, backed by centralized investment, legal, and rights management functions.

For Jack, the broader bet remains long-term regardless of short-term market cycles. Creator funding is not a niche product for top-tier talent in his view, but an emerging infrastructure layer for a sector that has grown faster than the financial systems built to serve it.

“With its agile organization and business model, Copyright Capital will continue to fill this emerging gap where traditional banks and VCs cannot touch,” Jack concludes.

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Check Out Our Podcast