idjogger wrote:
just asking questions like Rojo does wrote:
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
Does this user have ads? And are they ONLY going after users who allow ads?
just asking questions like Rojo does wrote:
idjogger wrote:
If you are monetizing your page by allowing ads I would say that is commercial use
Does this user have ads? And are they ONLY going after users who allow ads?
I don’t see any ads on this YouTube channel. BAA is clearly in the wrong here
This post was removed.
Bump
Technically if you make money off the video that’s illegal. I’m guessing the BAA assumed he did. Otherwise they would just request you take the video down if it contained footage reserved for sponsors. Normal pictures and highlight reels are allowed but video/audio distractions as a runner supposedly ruins the experience of the race as written in their race statement and agreement form.
Funrunkid wrote:
Technically if you make money off the video that’s illegal. I’m guessing the BAA assumed he did. Otherwise they would just request you take the video down if it contained footage reserved for sponsors. Normal pictures and highlight reels are allowed but video/audio distractions as a runner supposedly ruins the experience of the race as written in their race statement and agreement form.
Yeah but they’re WRONG! They need to stand down
just asking questions like Rojo does wrote:
just asking questions like Rojo does wrote:
Does this user have ads? And are they ONLY going after users who allow ads?
I don’t see any ads on this YouTube channel. BAA is clearly in the wrong here
If you watched his vlog about the BAA takedown notice, he purposefully extended the length of the video so ads would appear in the middle of video (the YouTube algorithm at work). Some of his other videos contain ads. As much as I think the BAA is being foolish, they are probably in the right.
MAG_1962 wrote:
just asking questions like Rojo does wrote:
I don’t see any ads on this YouTube channel. BAA is clearly in the wrong here
If you watched his vlog about the BAA takedown notice, he purposefully extended the length of the video so ads would appear in the middle of video (the YouTube algorithm at work). Some of his other videos contain ads. As much as I think the BAA is being foolish, they are probably in the right.
Can he take the BAA to court?
just asking questions like Rojo does wrote:
MAG_1962 wrote:
If you watched his vlog about the BAA takedown notice, he purposefully extended the length of the video so ads would appear in the middle of video (the YouTube algorithm at work). Some of his other videos contain ads. As much as I think the BAA is being foolish, they are probably in the right.
Can he take the BAA to court?
He can always take anyone to court. He probably doesn't have a case since he voluntarily agreed to the BAA's terms and conditions when he signed up to participate in the race. Whether or not he read all the terms imposed by the BAA when he signed up is another matter. However, ignorance of the terms and conditions is not a defense because he had the opportunity to read the terms before he finalized his entry to run Boston.
This is an interesting issue. You've got a private event organizer, a public space, private citizens competing in the private event on public space, a participate of the private event publishing images of the private event and of the private citizens in the private event, and an written agreement between the private event and participates of the event. There is also a commercial use issue with the publication of the material to the internet.
This probably falls under the developing legal category of "street style photography."
For a host of reasons, not just monetary, the BAA probably doesn't want a bunch of unregulated street style photography of the event posted on the internet. The race enters into agreements with media outlets and photographs, who generally abide by a set of commercial standards. Private citizens often do not.
At a minimum, I suspect courts would find that the BAA may ban the participant from running future Boston Marathons for explicitly breaching his agreement with the BAA. I also suspect that it can obtain an injunction requiring the content be removed from the internet.
The mad pooper wrote:
This is an interesting issue. You've got a private event organizer, a public space, private citizens competing in the private event on public space, a participate of the private event publishing images of the private event and of the private citizens in the private event, and an written agreement between the private event and participates of the event. There is also a commercial use issue with the publication of the material to the internet.
This probably falls under the developing legal category of "street style photography."
For a host of reasons, not just monetary, the BAA probably doesn't want a bunch of unregulated street style photography of the event posted on the internet. The race enters into agreements with media outlets and photographs, who generally abide by a set of commercial standards. Private citizens often do not.
At a minimum, I suspect courts would find that the BAA may ban the participant from running future Boston Marathons for explicitly breaching his agreement with the BAA. I also suspect that it can obtain an injunction requiring the content be removed from the internet.
BAA sounds like a bunch of bullies
The mad pooper wrote:
This is an interesting issue. You've got a private event organizer, a public space, private citizens competing in the private event on public space, a participate of the private event publishing images of the private event and of the private citizens in the private event, and an written agreement between the private event and participates of the event. There is also a commercial use issue with the publication of the material to the internet.
This probably falls under the developing legal category of "street style photography."
For a host of reasons, not just monetary, the BAA probably doesn't want a bunch of unregulated street style photography of the event posted on the internet. The race enters into agreements with media outlets and photographs, who generally abide by a set of commercial standards. Private citizens often do not.
At a minimum, I suspect courts would find that the BAA may ban the participant from running future Boston Marathons for explicitly breaching his agreement with the BAA. I also suspect that it can obtain an injunction requiring the content be removed from the internet.
You’re not entirely correct here. The BAA language has the audacity to include spectators.
I did spectate the 2021 BM. I was standing on a public sidewalk while filming the goings on taking place on a public road. I have signed no agreement with BAA. I might just post it on YT hoping to provoke a response.
MAG_1962 wrote:
just asking questions like Rojo does wrote:
Can he take the BAA to court?
He can always take anyone to court. He probably doesn't have a case since he voluntarily agreed to the BAA's terms and conditions when he signed up to participate in the race. Whether or not he read all the terms imposed by the BAA when he signed up is another matter. However, ignorance of the terms and conditions is not a defense because he had the opportunity to read the terms before he finalized his entry to run Boston.
Yeah but the terms and conditions aren’t just anything they want. THEY have to follow the laws, too.
Here comes SPOTLIGHT!!!
BAA dumb wrote:....he stated that he turned off monetization on the original video beforehand "just in case".
If he actually did this then he doesn't seem to be violating any of the BAA Terms and Conditions , though I suppose youtube still might make money off the content.
just asking questions like Rojo does wrote:
Yeah but the terms and conditions aren’t just anything they want. THEY have to follow the laws, too.
What laws are you suggesting BAA is violating?
ghost_coach wrote:
brien evans wrote:
It's an event that BAA puts on, where they have contracts, and the athlete participants sign agreements. It seems pretty straightforward...
^^THIS^^
Does the BAA sell videos of the race? I don't actually know.
If they do sell videos of the race, then the request to take it down makes sense.
If they do not sell videos of the race, then the request to take it down does not make sense.
pooper scooper wrote:
just asking questions like Rojo does wrote:
Yeah but the terms and conditions aren’t just anything they want. THEY have to follow the laws, too.
What laws are you suggesting BAA is violating?
Bullying, anti-trust, I’m not a lawyer
just asking questions like Rojo does wrote:
pooper scooper wrote:
What laws are you suggesting BAA is violating?
Bullying, anti-trust, I’m not a lawyer
But if HE did not break any laws and they said he HAD to stop then that MUST be illegal.
For example: I’m in my car, the light turns green, I go. I then get a letter from BAA telling me NOT to drive on a green light. WHAT?!?!
ghost_coach wrote:
brien evans wrote:
It's an event that BAA puts on, where they have contracts, and the athlete participants sign agreements. It seems pretty straightforward...
^^THIS^^
Agree. Straightforward stupidity on BAA’s part.
Crooked Hillary wrote:
ghost_coach wrote:
^^THIS^^
Agree. Straightforward stupidity on BAA’s part.
Wait, who’s stupid, BAA or the guy?