Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	11. Contingencies Legal Matters On July 19, 2012, a complaint was filed by Videoshare, LLC naming the Company in a patent infringement case (Videoshare, LLC v. Brightcove Inc., United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts). The complaint alleges that the Company has infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,987,492 with a listed issue date of July 26, 2011, entitled “Sharing A Streaming Video.” The complaint seeks an injunction enjoining infringement, damages and pre- and post-judgment costs and interest. On January 10, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and on January 21, 2013 Videoshare filed an amended complaint. On April 11, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss Videoshare’s amended complaint. Videoshare has not yet responded to the Company’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Company is evaluating the matter and, as such, has not yet determined whether it is probable that a loss will be incurred in connection with this complaint, nor can the Company reasonably estimate the potential loss, if any. On August 27, 2012, a complaint was filed by Blue Spike, LLC naming the Company in a patent infringement case (Blue Spike, LLC v. Audible Magic Corporation, et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas). The complaint alleges that the Company has infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,346,472 with a listed issue date of March 18, 2008, entitled “Method and Device for Monitoring and Analyzing Signals,” U.S. Patent No. 7,660,700 with a listed issue date of February 9, 2010, entitled “Method and Device for Monitoring and Analyzing Signals,” U.S. Patent No. 7,949,494 with a listed issue date of May 24, 2011, entitled “Method and Device for Monitoring and Analyzing Signals” and U.S. Patent No. 8,214,175 with a listed issue date of July 3, 2012, entitled “Method and Device for Monitoring and Analyzing Signals.” The complaint seeks an injunction enjoining infringement, damages and pre-and post-judgment costs and interest. The Company answered and filed counterclaims against Blue Spike on December 3, 2012. This complaint is subject to indemnification by one of the Company’s vendors. The Company cannot yet determine whether it is probable that a loss will be incurred in connection with this complaint, nor can the Company reasonably estimate the potential loss, if any. Guarantees and Indemnification Obligations The Company typically enters into indemnification agreements in the ordinary course of business. Pursuant to these agreements, the Company indemnifies and agrees to reimburse the indemnified party for losses and costs incurred by the indemnified party, generally the Company’s customers, in connection with patent, copyright, trade secret, or other intellectual property or personal right infringement claims by third parties with respect to the Company’s technology. The term of these indemnification agreements is generally perpetual after execution of the agreement. Based on when customers first subscribe for the Company’s service, the maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under certain of these indemnification agreements is unlimited, however, more recently the Company has typically limited the maximum potential value of such potential future payments in relation to the value of the contract. Based on historical experience and information known as of March 31, 2013, the Company has not incurred any costs for the above guarantees and indemnities. The Company has received two requests for indemnification from customers in connection with patent infringement suits brought against these customers by third parties. To date, the Company has not agreed that the requested indemnification is required by the Company’s contract with these customers. In certain circumstances, the Company warrants that its products and services will perform in all material respects in accordance with its standard published specification documentation in effect at the time of delivery of the licensed products and services to the customer for the warranty period of the product or service. To date, the Company has not incurred significant expense under its warranties and, as a result, the Company believes the estimated fair value of these agreements is immaterial.

11. Contingencies

Legal Matters

On July 19, 2012, a complaint was filed by Videoshare, LLC naming the Company in a patent infringement case (Videoshare, LLC v. Brightcove Inc., United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts). The complaint alleges that the Company has infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,987,492 with a listed issue date of July 26, 2011, entitled “Sharing A Streaming Video.” The complaint seeks an injunction enjoining infringement, damages and pre- and post-judgment costs and interest. On January 10, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and on January 21, 2013 Videoshare filed an amended complaint. On April 11, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss Videoshare’s amended complaint. Videoshare has not yet responded to the Company’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Company is evaluating the matter and, as such, has not yet determined whether it is probable that a loss will be incurred in connection with this complaint, nor can the Company reasonably estimate the potential loss, if any.

On August 27, 2012, a complaint was filed by Blue Spike, LLC naming the Company in a patent infringement case (Blue Spike, LLC v. Audible Magic Corporation, et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas). The complaint alleges that the Company has infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,346,472 with a listed issue date of March 18, 2008, entitled “Method and Device for Monitoring and Analyzing Signals,” U.S. Patent No. 7,660,700 with a listed issue date of February 9, 2010, entitled “Method and Device for Monitoring and Analyzing Signals,” U.S. Patent No. 7,949,494 with a listed issue date of May 24, 2011, entitled “Method and Device for Monitoring and Analyzing Signals” and U.S. Patent No. 8,214,175 with a listed issue date of July 3, 2012, entitled “Method and Device for Monitoring and Analyzing Signals.” The complaint seeks an injunction enjoining infringement, damages and pre-and post-judgment costs and interest. The Company answered and filed counterclaims against Blue Spike on December 3, 2012. This complaint is subject to indemnification by one of the Company’s vendors. The Company cannot yet determine whether it is probable that a loss will be incurred in connection with this complaint, nor can the Company reasonably estimate the potential loss, if any.

Guarantees and Indemnification Obligations

The Company typically enters into indemnification agreements in the ordinary course of business. Pursuant to these agreements, the Company indemnifies and agrees to reimburse the indemnified party for losses and costs incurred by the indemnified party, generally the Company’s customers, in connection with patent, copyright, trade secret, or other intellectual property or personal right infringement claims by third parties with respect to the Company’s technology. The term of these indemnification agreements is generally perpetual after execution of the agreement. Based on when customers first subscribe for the Company’s service, the maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under certain of these indemnification agreements is unlimited, however, more recently the Company has typically limited the maximum potential value of such potential future payments in relation to the value of the contract. Based on historical experience and information known as of March 31, 2013, the Company has not incurred any costs for the above guarantees and indemnities. The Company has received two requests for indemnification from customers in connection with patent infringement suits brought against these customers by third parties. To date, the Company has not agreed that the requested indemnification is required by the Company’s contract with these customers.

In certain circumstances, the Company warrants that its products and services will perform in all material respects in accordance with its standard published specification documentation in effect at the time of delivery of the licensed products and services to the customer for the warranty period of the product or service. To date, the Company has not incurred significant expense under its warranties and, as a result, the Company believes the estimated fair value of these agreements is immaterial.