Flotrack does the same thing when anyone shares personal video on Youtube from a meet that Flotrack happens to be at.
Flotrack does the same thing when anyone shares personal video on Youtube from a meet that Flotrack happens to be at.
C/M Runner wrote:
Flotrack does the same thing when anyone shares personal video on Youtube from a meet that Flotrack happens to be at.
This would be HUGE PR for LetsRun to hire a lawyer for him then to write an article about it. Not kidding
just asking questions like Rojo does wrote:
C/M Runner wrote:
Flotrack does the same thing when anyone shares personal video on Youtube from a meet that Flotrack happens to be at.
This would be HUGE PR for LetsRun to hire a lawyer for him then to write an article about it. Not kidding
I agree, lets go Letsrun !
Steiner Math wrote:
briswiss wrote:
The YouTuber probably could tell the BAA to F off and they couldn’t do anything about the video. Are people not allowed to record a public road? They weren’t reposting a baa broadcast. Insane an organization would be so egotistical that they believe they could tell someone they aren’t allowed to record public roads paid for by tax payers. The BAA can stfu
My guess is YouTube would take the video down anyway if the BAA went to them. The guy could probably win in court if he took it that far, but it wouldn't be worth a timely and costly legal battle.
Dumb move by the BAA, his video only promotes the event, and the takedown is just bad press.
Also, in the his vlog about the BAA take down notice, I think Gnoza wanted to stay in the good graces of the BAA so he wouldn't get banned from running another Boston Marathon. Even if he won in court, the BAA, as a private entity, could ban him from running Boston for life.
MAG_1962 wrote:
Steiner Math wrote:
My guess is YouTube would take the video down anyway if the BAA went to them. The guy could probably win in court if he took it that far, but it wouldn't be worth a timely and costly legal battle.
Dumb move by the BAA, his video only promotes the event, and the takedown is just bad press.
Also, in the his vlog about the BAA take down notice, I think Gnoza wanted to stay in the good graces of the BAA so he wouldn't get banned from running another Boston Marathon. Even if he won in court, the BAA, as a private entity, could ban him from running Boston for life.
That would be terrible PR for them. How soon until LRC hires him a lawyer?
BAA is freaking out about this! I tweeted at them with this link and they deleted it. Afterwards i sent them a message on Twitter asking why they deleted it and they told me to “stop bringing this issue up.”
WTF?
800 dude wrote:
briswiss wrote:
The YouTuber probably could tell the BAA to F off and they couldn’t do anything about the video. Are people not allowed to record a public road? They weren’t reposting a baa broadcast. Insane an organization would be so egotistical that they believe they could tell someone they aren’t allowed to record public roads paid for by tax payers. The BAA can stfu
This is correct. It's well established that you can't own copyright in an event. You can own copyright in a particular recording (i.e., NBC's broadcast of the Boston Marathon), but this runner is the rightful owner of the copyright in his own GoPro video.
Now, the BAA supposedly does include language in its contract that prevents participants from doing this, but that doesn't give the BAA the right to make demands of third parties (Youtube). The BAA could theoretically sue the guy or get him banned from future BAA events. A lawsuit would be bad news for the BAA, though. Even if it's clear that the guy violated the contract, the BAA would look terrible, and the BAA would have to show that it's been harmed to get a remedy.
Sporting events rely on public ignorance of copyright law. Most of the public just obeys them.
Youtuber should get a lawyer to counter-hassle them and youtube.
Bad Wigins wrote:
800 dude wrote:
This is correct. It's well established that you can't own copyright in an event. You can own copyright in a particular recording (i.e., NBC's broadcast of the Boston Marathon), but this runner is the rightful owner of the copyright in his own GoPro video.
Now, the BAA supposedly does include language in its contract that prevents participants from doing this, but that doesn't give the BAA the right to make demands of third parties (Youtube). The BAA could theoretically sue the guy or get him banned from future BAA events. A lawsuit would be bad news for the BAA, though. Even if it's clear that the guy violated the contract, the BAA would look terrible, and the BAA would have to show that it's been harmed to get a remedy.
Sporting events rely on public ignorance of copyright law. Most of the public just obeys them.
Youtuber should get a lawyer to counter-hassle them and youtube.
Agreed. Should we tip off the Boston Globe about this? I think we should
Charles Bukowski wrote:
brien evans wrote:
Not sure how this is different than an NFL player wearing a GoPro during a game and posting it to his own monetized YouTube channel... It doesn't and won't happen.
It's an event that BAA puts on, where they have contracts, and the athlete participants sign agreements. It seems pretty straightforward...
How would this be different? Uhhhh. Let me thing for a second.
Oh, you're not actually on the field playing in an NFL game.
Was reading the first sentence of this thread too hard for you?
Here.... Let me quote it again.... I know how tough reading before you post can be sometimes....
A small-time YouTuber ran Boston 2021 with a GoPro and put a short video with some clips from the race
He was "on the field" recording "during the game." Nobody gives a sh!t if he goes back and runs the course the next day and records. You cant record the event as the participant. Don't like it? Don't participate.
brien evans wrote:
He was "on the field" recording "during the game." Nobody gives a sh!t if he goes back and runs the course the next day and records. You cant record the event as the participant. Don't like it? Don't participate.
I don’t think this is actually true
just asking questions like Rojo does wrote:
brien evans wrote:
He was "on the field" recording "during the game." Nobody gives a sh!t if he goes back and runs the course the next day and records. You cant record the event as the participant. Don't like it? Don't participate.
I don’t think this is actually true
I only say true things.
brien evans wrote:
just asking questions like Rojo does wrote:
I don’t think this is actually true
I only say true things.
Show me the rules where it says no one is allowed to record the events
just asking questions like Rojo does wrote:
brien evans wrote:
I only say true things.
Show me the rules where it says no one is allowed to record the events
GoPros and recording devices are explicitly listed under prohibited items, and:
5.2.3 - Participants are prohibited from using recording devices including but not
limited to mobile phones, video cameras, GoPros or similar devices for
commercial use, publication, or distribution by any media outlet.
https://www.baa.org/sites/default/files/2021-08/Boston_Marathon_Rules_and_Policies_08_2021.pdfIf you don't want to follow the rules, don't participate.
brien evans wrote:
5.2.3 - Participants are prohibited from using recording devices including but not
limited to mobile phones, video cameras, GoPros or similar devices for
commercial use, publication, or distribution by any media outlet.
...
If you don't want to follow the rules, don't participate.
They can write whatever baloney they want, but if the law contradicts it then it has no effect.
As copyright holder, you have the exclusive right to control publication of your own recording of a live sporting event. It can even be commercial. (NBA v Motorola) Maybe an FCC rule would restrict you from airing it on a TV station if it would compete with another licensed broadcast. But youtube is not a "media outlet." Fan videos get past even NBC's relentless takedown attempts.
Bad Wigins wrote:
brien evans wrote:
5.2.3 - Participants are prohibited from using recording devices including but not
limited to mobile phones, video cameras, GoPros or similar devices for
commercial use, publication, or distribution by any media outlet.
...
If you don't want to follow the rules, don't participate.
They can write whatever baloney they want, but if the law contradicts it then it has no effect.
As copyright holder, you have the exclusive right to control publication of your own recording of a live sporting event. It can even be commercial. (NBA v Motorola) Maybe an FCC rule would restrict you from airing it on a TV station if it would compete with another licensed broadcast. But youtube is not a "media outlet." Fan videos get past even NBC's relentless takedown attempts.
So now it went from "the rule doesn't exist" to "they can write whatever rule they want but it's rubbish because I don't think I need to abide by the rules I agreed to by participating." ... Let me know how that works out for you, champ.
I hope the BAA just bans participants from using GoPros and other cameras during the race. I couldn’t believe the number of “look at me” social media idiots I saw recording themselves as they ran.
It’s a race.
Bad Wigins wrote:
brien evans wrote:
5.2.3 - Participants are prohibited from using recording devices including but not
limited to mobile phones, video cameras, GoPros or similar devices for
commercial use, publication, or distribution by any media outlet.
...
If you don't want to follow the rules, don't participate.
They can write whatever baloney they want, but if the law contradicts it then it has no effect.
As copyright holder, you have the exclusive right to control publication of your own recording of a live sporting event. It can even be commercial. (NBA v Motorola) Maybe an FCC rule would restrict you from airing it on a TV station if it would compete with another licensed broadcast. But youtube is not a "media outlet." Fan videos get past even NBC's relentless takedown attempts.
EXACTLY
This story is perfect for the Globe, maybe for Spotlight?
Need to go after them hardcore, especially after their vax mandate. Record their stupid little event, put it out there, let people experience it from the armchair. The goal is to strip the secretive mystique and magic of their hallowed race, that way people will stop putting it up on a pedestal, thinking it's the be-all/end-all of distance running. It's revenge for their selling out our personal freedoms and mandating the heart-damaging vax. All distance runners shoudn't take the vax, our immune systems our robust, our hearts don't need to be torn up by a nuclear bomb of spike proteins injected directly into our organs. That's why you passed out during the race, your heart was damaged from the vax and couldn't sustain the effort your mind was asking it to put forth.
There's a difference between a robust immune system fighting a small beach-head of virus spike proteins in the nose and an atom-bomb of spike proteins injected directly into your bloodstream.
BAA needs to be punished for their lack of vision and understanding. POST THE RACE.
brien evans wrote:
Bad Wigins wrote:
They can write whatever baloney they want, but if the law contradicts it then it has no effect.
As copyright holder, you have the exclusive right to control publication of your own recording of a live sporting event. It can even be commercial. (NBA v Motorola) Maybe an FCC rule would restrict you from airing it on a TV station if it would compete with another licensed broadcast. But youtube is not a "media outlet." Fan videos get past even NBC's relentless takedown attempts.
So now it went from "the rule doesn't exist" to "they can write whatever rule they want but it's rubbish because I don't think I need to abide by the rules I agreed to by participating." ... Let me know how that works out for you, champ.
They could disqualify him from the race, if they had caught him during the race, they could have removed him from the course. Rule or no rule, they don't own the rights to the video. He could win in court but it would cost way too much time and money.
just asking questions like Rojo does wrote:
Bad Wigins wrote:
They can write whatever baloney they want, but if the law contradicts it then it has no effect.
As copyright holder, you have the exclusive right to control publication of your own recording of a live sporting event. It can even be commercial. (NBA v Motorola) Maybe an FCC rule would restrict you from airing it on a TV station if it would compete with another licensed broadcast. But youtube is not a "media outlet." Fan videos get past even NBC's relentless takedown attempts.
EXACTLY
This story is perfect for the Globe, maybe for Spotlight?
I reached out to the Globe, there is interest in doing a story on this. Not kidding