Let your editor upload, but not publish

First, why the setting is missing

YouTube's channel permissions are more granular than people assume — they just do not separate the two things you want separated. Its documentation lists an Editor as able to “upload and publish content”, in one capability. A Subtitle Editor cannot upload at all; a Viewer cannot edit. There is no role anywhere on the ladder that lets someone put a video on your channel and stops them making it public.

The roles do separate other things, and it is worth knowing which, because most people hand out the wrong one. An Editor can edit everything and publish, but cannot “delete channel or published content” — only drafts. A Manager can “create, upload, publish, and delete content”. If you are granting access at all, Editor is the meaningfully safer of the two, and the difference is invisible unless you go looking.

The second thing worth knowing is why no third-party tool fixes this for you. Channel permissions explicitly do not extend to the YouTube APIs, so a tool never acts as your editor — it acts with a grant from your account. And at that layer the separation disappears: editing a video's metadata requires youtube, youtube.force-ssl or youtubepartner, and all three also authorise deletion. Google's summary of the narrowest one reads:

“See, edit, and permanently delete your YouTube videos, ratings, comments and captions.”

So the choice below is not which permission to grant. It is a workflow choice: who holds access, and what has to happen before something goes live.

Option 1 — Add them as a collaborator

The default path: add the editor to the channel and ask them not to publish. It is instant, it is free, and it works right up until it does not.

What it costs: the access is channel-wide and permanent until revoked. It reaches every video already live, not just the one they are working on, and “please don't publish” is a convention rather than a control. It also means your channel's safety now includes their account security, which you cannot see or audit. If you take this route, grant Editor rather than Manager — same working capability, without the ability to delete published videos (the role table shows exactly where the two diverge).

Option 2 — They upload unlisted from their own channel

The editor publishes the cut unlisted on a channel of their own and sends you the link. You download it and upload it yourself. Nobody gets access to anything.

What it costs: the file crosses the wire twice, you retype every field by hand, and until you have downloaded it the only copy of your finished video lives on someone else's account. For a weekly upload this is the arrangement that quietly eats an afternoon a month, and it is the one most likely to be abandoned the week you are busy.

Option 3 — Share the login

It needs saying only to rule it out. A shared password gives away everything the account can do, survives every offboarding you forget, and destroys your ability to attribute any action to any person. If two people use one login, “who changed this?” has no answer, ever.

Option 4 — Put an approval step between them and the channel

Since the permission cannot be split, split the workflow instead. The editor works somewhere that is not your channel; you hold the only access; and the handoff is a review rather than a transfer of custody.

What it costs: one more surface for both of you to learn, and an approval step that has to be quick or it becomes the bottleneck. What it buys is that the destructive capability is never handed out, so nothing depends on anyone's restraint or their password hygiene.

This is what we built VidGate to be. Editors sign in with an email link — no Google account, no YouTube permission — and draft metadata or upload cuts. You see each proposed change as a diff against what is live right now, approve it, and VidGate pushes exactly what you approved. The channel grant never leaves your account.

Questions people ask next