just asking questions like Rojo does wrote:
just asking questions like Rojo does wrote:
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
Bump
just asking questions like Rojo does wrote:
just asking questions like Rojo does wrote:
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
Bump
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.
Oh is that how copyright works? I guess I'll start making and selling my own videos of events like the Super Bowl and the Olympics now, as long as I film it it sounds like I own it. I think I'll go to the MOMA too and take some high-res photos of the art, then print out and sell my own copies. After all if I took the pic I can do whatever I want with it right?
800 dude wrote:
...
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.
I think I'd have a lawyer go the "Bill Clinton route" and ask "What does News Access mean?" I think it is reasonable to argue that a runner posting their own experience does not constitute "News Access" in the way BAA meant, but is using to suppress everything. This is similar to how companies try to use take down notices on fair use clips. An overreach of authority.
Oh Please wrote:
800 dude wrote:
...
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.
I think I'd have a lawyer go the "Bill Clinton route" and ask "What does News Access mean?" I think it is reasonable to argue that a runner posting their own experience does not constitute "News Access" in the way BAA meant, but is using to suppress everything. This is similar to how companies try to use take down notices on fair use clips. An overreach of authority.
Bingo. The Globe needs to get on this!
Get Revenge wrote:
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.
The spectacle of the Boston Marathon is built on aura and mystique because it goes all the way back to 1897. Why do elites even bother ? Is the prize money that good compared to other marathons ? The Boston Marathon course does not qualify for world records per the IAAF. I guess a movement away from Boston and all the BAA's self-proclaimed glory would have to start with the Kenyans and Ethiopians.
Do not quote my post, it's copyrighted 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.
Oh is that how copyright works? I guess I'll start making and selling my own videos of events like the Super Bowl and the Olympics now, as long as I film it it sounds like I own it. I think I'll go to the MOMA too and take some high-res photos of the art, then print out and sell my own copies. After all if I took the pic I can do whatever I want with it right?
One difference between a road race and most other types of sporting events is that the race takes place on public streets. The runners are not in an arena or a stadium. The Boston Marathon venue is owned by the citizens of the state and the cities & towns.
DanM wrote:
The spectacle of the Boston Marathon is built on aura and mystique because it goes all the way back to 1897. Why do elites even bother ? Is the prize money that good compared to other marathons ? The Boston Marathon course does not qualify for world records per the IAAF. I guess a movement away from Boston and all the BAA's self-proclaimed glory would have to start with the Kenyans and Ethiopians.
Indeed. I never understood the glorification of the Boston Marathon. I get that this is the oldest Marathon in the world but it's not even a record eligible course. You can't even run a PR there.
Bump
DanM wrote:
Get Revenge wrote:
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.
The spectacle of the Boston Marathon is built on aura and mystique because it goes all the way back to 1897. Why do elites even bother ? Is the prize money that good compared to other marathons ? The Boston Marathon course does not qualify for world records per the IAAF. I guess a movement away from Boston and all the BAA's self-proclaimed glory would have to start with the Kenyans and Ethiopians.
The Globe will address this and more in their article!
Can’t be bothered to feel bad for a YouTuber not being able to upload Boston footage from their GoPro.
Also the loser who keeps bumping the thread by saying the same thing is as psycho as the losers that live for the race cheater threads.
brien evans wrote:
Charles Bukowski wrote:
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.
Let me explain this to you.
The issue is not the validity of the legal contract. The issue is BAA pursuing this course of action in a mass parcicipation race. That's a s#itty thing to do. There are many things one can do that are legal, but s#itty. We are establishing the s#ittyness of this.
Hope that helps you understand. Let me know if you need more help.
Do not quote my post, it's copyrighted wrote:
Oh is that how copyright works? I guess I'll start making and selling my own videos of events like the Super Bowl and the Olympics now, as long as I film it it sounds like I own it. I think I'll go to the MOMA too and take some high-res photos of the art, then print out and sell my own copies. After all if I took the pic I can do whatever I want with it right?
Yes, that's exactly how copyright works. You absolutely can sell your own videos of the Super Bowl and the Olympics if you manage to film it all without getting booted from the stadium.
You cannot sell photos of art from MOMA (if the art is still under copyright), because that's simply a copy of a work that's fixed in a tangible medium. Sporting events are not fixed in a tangible medium, so they can't be protected by copyright.
Charles Bukowski wrote:
brien evans wrote:
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....
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.
Let me explain this to you.
The issue is not the validity of the legal contract. The issue is BAA pursuing this course of action in a mass parcicipation race. That's a s#itty thing to do. There are many things one can do that are legal, but s#itty. We are establishing the s#ittyness of this.
Hope that helps you understand. Let me know if you need more help.
Agreed. Can’t wait for them to be held accountable for this!
Charles Bukowski wrote:
brien evans wrote:
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....
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.
Let me explain this to you.
The issue is not the validity of the legal contract. The issue is BAA pursuing this course of action in a mass parcicipation race. That's a s#itty thing to do. There are many things one can do that are legal, but s#itty. We are establishing the s#ittyness of this.
Hope that helps you understand. Let me know if you need more help.
Nice deflection and changing the premise of your entire argument. Don't worry, champ, it doesn't make you look stupid or anyrhing.
BAA can do whatever they want, and you can participate or not. They don't care.
You know what I think is s#itty? Agreeing to attend someone's event, signing a contract, and then violating the contract.
brien evans wrote:
Charles Bukowski wrote:
Let me explain this to you.
The issue is not the validity of the legal contract. The issue is BAA pursuing this course of action in a mass parcicipation race. That's a s#itty thing to do. There are many things one can do that are legal, but s#itty. We are establishing the s#ittyness of this.
Hope that helps you understand. Let me know if you need more help.
Nice deflection and changing the premise of your entire argument. Don't worry, champ, it doesn't make you look stupid or anyrhing.
BAA can do whatever they want, and you can participate or not. They don't care.
You know what I think is s#itty? Agreeing to attend someone's event, signing a contract, and then violating the contract.
They can do anything they want until the SPOTLIGHT is on them!
From Boston Marathon FAQ page:
"The B.A.A. discourages the wearing of action cameras such as GoPros while running in the Boston Marathon. Any footage of the Boston Marathon captured by runners or spectators is for personal use only. Personal use shall mean non-commercial use of such footage only. Any Boston Marathon footage for personal use shall not include any distribution for such purpose as to charge money, collect fees, or receive any form of remuneration. The Boston Marathon footage for personal use shall not be used in advertising and shall not be resold, relicensed, or sub-licensed. The Boston Athletic Association will not be liable for any third-party claims or incidental, consequential or other damages arising out of this personal use of Boston Marathon footage. Any Boston Marathon footage usage cannot violate rights held by existing B.A.A. sponsors and/or partners."
So you can take footage for your non-commercial use.
runfunner wrote:
From Boston Marathon FAQ page:
"The B.A.A. discourages the wearing of action cameras such as GoPros while running in the Boston Marathon. Any footage of the Boston Marathon captured by runners or spectators is for personal use only. Personal use shall mean non-commercial use of such footage only. Any Boston Marathon footage for personal use shall not include any distribution for such purpose as to charge money, collect fees, or receive any form of remuneration. The Boston Marathon footage for personal use shall not be used in advertising and shall not be resold, relicensed, or sub-licensed. The Boston Athletic Association will not be liable for any third-party claims or incidental, consequential or other damages arising out of this personal use of Boston Marathon footage. Any Boston Marathon footage usage cannot violate rights held by existing B.A.A. sponsors and/or partners."
So you can take footage for your non-commercial use.
So what about posting on a personal YouTube page is commercial use?
DanM wrote:
Do not quote my post, it's copyrighted wrote:
Oh is that how copyright works? I guess I'll start making and selling my own videos of events like the Super Bowl and the Olympics now, as long as I film it it sounds like I own it. I think I'll go to the MOMA too and take some high-res photos of the art, then print out and sell my own copies. After all if I took the pic I can do whatever I want with it right?
One difference between a road race and most other types of sporting events is that the race takes place on public streets. The runners are not in an arena or a stadium. The Boston Marathon venue is owned by the citizens of the state and the cities & towns.
Who do you think paid for and owns most pro sports stadiums?
brien evans wrote:
Charles Bukowski wrote:
Let me explain this to you.
The issue is not the validity of the legal contract. The issue is BAA pursuing this course of action in a mass parcicipation race. That's a s#itty thing to do. There are many things one can do that are legal, but s#itty. We are establishing the s#ittyness of this.
Hope that helps you understand. Let me know if you need more help.
Nice deflection and changing the premise of your entire argument. Don't worry, champ, it doesn't make you look stupid or anyrhing.
BAA can do whatever they want, and you can participate or not. They don't care.
You know what I think is s#itty? Agreeing to attend someone's event, signing a contract, and then violating the contract.
1. I'm glad you agree that it's s#itty.
2. I'm glad you have a firm grip on the obvious of not entering the race. Indeed that will happen.
3. If you want to argue the legal copyright claim of recorded video on public streets, then make your case, LawyerBro. Just a little tip for you: not everything in a fully executed contract is enforceable or legal.
just asking questions like Rojo does wrote:
runfunner wrote:
From Boston Marathon FAQ page:
"The B.A.A. discourages the wearing of action cameras such as GoPros while running in the Boston Marathon. Any footage of the Boston Marathon captured by runners or spectators is for personal use only. Personal use shall mean non-commercial use of such footage only. Any Boston Marathon footage for personal use shall not include any distribution for such purpose as to charge money, collect fees, or receive any form of remuneration. The Boston Marathon footage for personal use shall not be used in advertising and shall not be resold, relicensed, or sub-licensed. The Boston Athletic Association will not be liable for any third-party claims or incidental, consequential or other damages arising out of this personal use of Boston Marathon footage. Any Boston Marathon footage usage cannot violate rights held by existing B.A.A. sponsors and/or partners."
So you can take footage for your non-commercial use.
So what about posting on a personal YouTube page is commercial use?
If you are monetizing your page by allowing ads I would say that is commercial use