Daughter's track video on YouTube taken down, RunnerSpace.com copyright infringement

Great two posts, Bad Wigins, thanks.

Thanks to those who responded with very insightful and helpful information. I thought I would give an update as I got an email from YouTube today.

First, I didn't dispute the takedown notice, so apparently YouTube does some investigation on its own. The email (at end it says "Regards, The YouTube Legal Support Team"), says:

"We have determined that the copyright takedown request we received for these URLs was invalid. Your copyright strike has been resolved."

The email also includes more information than the original copyright violation notice I received. It includes the name of the person at RunnerSpace.com (Job Title is "Editor in Chief").

Under 'Describe the work allegedly infringed" it says:

"My company, organization or client's live performance".

Under "Where does the content appear?" he wrote "Entire video".

I'm still a bit baffled by it all, as seems like a strange business practice to go after someone like me. I understand Rojo's comments about getting a revenue stream from family and friends ... but this was a High School meet of little importance. In addition, the video was a qualifying heat for goodness sake (she didn't even make the final), and would be viewed by a total of about 10 people. I do know it does not give me incentive to rush over to join RunnerSpace.

For $1 per month you can start your own Wordpress video web site.

Update from the OP wrote:

I'm still a bit baffled by it all, as seems like a strange business practice to go after someone like me. I understand Rojo's comments about getting a revenue stream from family and friends ... but this was a High School meet of little importance. In addition, the video was a qualifying heat for goodness sake (she didn't even make the final), and would be viewed by a total of about 10 people. I do know it does not give me incentive to rush over to join RunnerSpace.

Welcome to "copyright everything" as a business model.

Update from the OP wrote:

I'm still a bit baffled by it all, as seems like a strange business practice to go after someone like me. I understand Rojo's comments about getting a revenue stream from family and friends ... but this was a High School meet of little importance. In addition, the video was a qualifying heat for goodness sake (she didn't even make the final), and would be viewed by a total of about 10 people. I do know it does not give me incentive to rush over to join RunnerSpace.

It's because sites like RunnerSpace and MileSplit love embedding videos from people like you and getting views off those which leads to ad revenue which leads to profit. It's not your video that's the problem. It's the embed by the rival site even if that site doesn't have rights to the video. It's probably best to make your video private so someone else can't profit off its embed.

Bad Wigins' account has been hi-jacked!

And do you think RunnerSpace has the man power to sift through YouTube uploads to find one-off videos from parents that have 5 views? No. That video was probably embedded by MileSplit or Flotrack or Letsrun and they were getting page views with their ads on it and claiming youtube policies allow them to do that. So runnerspace has no choice but to go file a claim with youtube to get it taken down. Probably happens vice versa too.

Assuming that is true, it's not just RunnerSpace you should be upset with, but all the sites.

Upload to several non-US based free video websites then let people know on Reddit.

Update from the OP wrote:

"My company, organization or client's live performance".

And sports don't count as live performances. Easy call for youtube.

As for ticket fine print, that's exactly what happened with the NASCAR crash video. Youtube initially agreed with NASCAR, then realized they were wrong.

Why were they wrong? Because in the United States, you cannot sue anyone for copyrighted infringement unless the copyright is registered. To register a copyright, you have to send your works to the federal copyright office. How is a company going to do that with your videos? Even if they could, they'd be taking a big risk that their fine print would hold up if you accused them of fraud. Because of this, their fine print is unenforceable in any event, and carries little legal weight against copyright's strong preference for the cameraman. When a website looks at a video, it says, ok, who made the video? That's square one where the copyright originated. Unless there's a clear trail of evidence that the copyright changed hands, e.g. is registered in someone else's name, they will stick with the original author.

I don't think live streaming would be any different, as it doesn't alter who is holding the camera. And NBA v Motorola was about live-streaming of a sort, updates of events via pagers. It could drastically alter sporting event broadcasting, but for niche sports like track that's a good thing. The more video, and the less NBC, the better.

amberddd wrote:

And do you think RunnerSpace has the man power to sift through YouTube uploads to find one-off videos from parents that have 5 views? No. That video was probably embedded by MileSplit or Flotrack or Letsrun and they were getting page views with their ads on it and claiming youtube policies allow them to do that. So runnerspace has no choice but to go file a claim with youtube to get it taken down. Probably happens vice versa too.

Assuming that is true, it's not just RunnerSpace you should be upset with, but all the sites.

runnerspace "has no choice" but to abuse the system? Come on. Either do their diligence and enforce legit claims, or leave people alone. Don't be an apologist for lazy and unwarranted behaviour.

ttttttttttttttttttttt wrote:

amberddd wrote:

And do you think RunnerSpace has the man power to sift through YouTube uploads to find one-off videos from parents that have 5 views? No. That video was probably embedded by MileSplit or Flotrack or Letsrun and they were getting page views with their ads on it and claiming youtube policies allow them to do that. So runnerspace has no choice but to go file a claim with youtube to get it taken down. Probably happens vice versa too.

Assuming that is true, it's not just RunnerSpace you should be upset with, but all the sites.

runnerspace "has no choice" but to abuse the system? Come on. Either do their diligence and enforce legit claims, or leave people alone. Don't be an apologist for lazy and unwarranted behaviour.

What I meant by that is that runnerspace/flotrack/letsrun/milesplit will embed user videos from events that they were denied video access to and know that they aren't supposed to have video content on their site. User youtube videos are their loophole and they refuse to take them down, citing (rightfully) youtube policy.

amberddd wrote:

And do you think RunnerSpace has the man power to sift through YouTube uploads to find one-off videos from parents that have 5 views?

Yes, all they have to do is search for the name of the meet and make a claim against any video that shows up.

UK Allsport started it all wrote:

Runs Space and Flows Trak don't pay a living wage. They can survive because Court Jesters have been around since Ancient Kenya invented Astrionomym marratage, nuclear family, and civilization.

Fast forward to the 1960s, Allsport/Getty re-discovered that people are willing to travel and work as media for almost nothing just to be at T&F meetings.

Somehow I thought of this thread today.

It may be time to expose the above poster. He is the N A Z I ZION IST guy and anytime there is a post about videos or photography he comes on here and gets bitter because he is a track photographer. Very easy to identify his posts.

And if you think people are going to be allowed to live stream from events they don't have the rights to you are wrong.

Just upload to non-US video servers.

wejo wrote:

And if you think people are going to be allowed to live stream from events they don't have the rights to you are wrong.

Maybe by some kind of FCC rule, but not by copyright law. Without copyright law, events can't use the DMCA to stop them. Fan video streams are going to happen.

USATF is now getting in the act. They are going after a club team that made their own video of their first trip ever to club XC nationals and their team finishing in the back of the pack. The did not use any USATF footage in their video yet USATF is claiming copyright infringement. Much of the video is of the team driving to the course, eating in a restaurant, etc.

http://levelrenner.com/2015/02/20/cease-and-desist-one-clubs-ordeal-with-usatf/

USATF clearly doesn't get it.

As a policy matter, USATF is incredibly short sighted to stop it member clubs from making the video. It is great for the sport for clubs to be promoting the sport. There is no commercial value to USATF being lost from the video.

From a legal standpoint, being aware of this thread, I'm pretty sure it's not copyright infringement.

What did the club copy that USTAF owned? Nothing.

Now if the club signed something saying they wouldn't make video (I don't see any reference to that) that would be a breach of contract claim right? If there was some sort of waiver assigning USATF the copyright to anything shot at the race, then conceivably you all are saying there might be a copyright claim, but that is unsettled?

Now what USATF doesn't want clubs to do is say shoot top finishing video of USATF Outdoor nationals but that is a completely different thing. (We won't even get into the point that many of you are saying that would not be a copyright violation but a breach of contract).

Very short sighted direction at USATF.

Bad Wigins wrote:

... Because in the United States, you cannot sue anyone for copyrighted infringement unless the copyright is registered. ....

Your earlier commentary in thread was right in. ^This^ is flat out incorrect.

Copyright needn't be registered. To sue for punitive damages, it needs to have been registered before infringement. To sue for copyright infringement and collect for unlawful use, registration is required.

It's dumb for a niche sport to restrict dissemination of free content. Like shooting yourself in the foot.

Publicity 101 wrote:

It's dumb for a niche sport to restrict dissemination of free content. Like shooting yourself in the foot.

I can see how USATF would be against someone filming the entire 100m final and posting it on youtube, but like some of you all said fan videos may have different protections.

Take a look at the SuperBowl for example. This fan video of the game winning interception has 2 million views and is still up on youtube:

This video which copied the tv broadcast of the same interception has been removed on copyright grounds:

Now that could be because the video matching system would automatically catch the second, and not the first. However, no doubt the NFL has tons of trademark lawyers on the prowl who are eager to assert the league's rights and they may realize that #1 is not copyright infringement. It may violate some terms on the ticket but it's not copyright infringement.