Update from the OP wrote:
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."
That's good they removed the strike, and unusual. It would have been best to challenge it otherwise.
wejo wrote:
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:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgloErF-H2cThis video which copied the tv broadcast of the same interception has been removed on copyright grounds:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jegTOQjbdCwNow 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.
That may not run afoul of copyright ... They didn't "copy" anything ... But it can run afoul of commercial use terms. There's a long and detailed article on outsideonline.com recently about how the game of what constitutes "commercial photography" has changed with YouTube and ads, etc. it mostly references federal land management agencies, such as Nat Parks, etc .... But I would expect something like the SB has licensed "commercial rights" and so on that are likely infringed by the fan video if the person who posted it or YouTube are making $$$ off it.
Stop your whining you clowns. Sports clips and music can be downloaded from a million foreign servers. Just google for it. ThePirateBay was shutdown by Swedish Meatball Police but has be cloned in 100s of nation thus far. RIAA and DMCA have failed the recording industry and video industry. It's their own fault for putting it out in digital format.
Maybe if they paid us certified officials and coaches at least travel and hotel money I would feel bad. As it turns out nobody held a gun to my head when I decided to coach kids for no payment.
Wtfunny wrote:
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.
I'm incorrect, and then you basically repeat what I said? Of course you don't have to register copyright to be protected by it in many contexts. But if you want to have leverage to sue, it has to be registered.
The broader point being that since copyright originates with the author, websites will side with the man holding the camera unless there is strong evidence that the copyright changed hands - something with legal teeth like a contract or a registered copyright. They can't register what they don't have, so without a contract their claims are frivolous.
That doesn't stop them from making them, because the DMCA process favors them. Basically it goes like this:
1) claimant makes claim to website
2) website rubber stamps claim, takes down video, informs account holder
3) account holder may dispute takedown if they provide personal info including name and address
4) claimant then has 14 days to file a lawsuit for infringement or claim is dropped.
In more detail
http://brainz.org/dmca-takedown-101/websites may review and reject meritless claims on their own initiative, and with fan videos, the outcome of step 4 is a foregone conclusion. They just have to look at the video and the copyright status is obvious to them. But a lot of videos stay down because people either don't know they'd win, or don't want to provide their info to the claimant.
The problem is foreign servers are not under US jurisdiction. Folks upload, then tweet the link to the foreign server, and the video is sprayed away to millions.
Sorry ..a typo ... That SHOULD read"To sue for copyright infringement and collect for unlawful use, registration is NOTrequired".You CAN sue for loss of use ... So approx whatever the usage would've normally been ... But you can't sue for punitive damages on top of that, unless you have the copyright registered.If a normal license agreement for a given usage is, say, $750, and someone uses the image/clip without permission, you CAN sue for that amount, or close to it .... A little more, a little less .... etc .... But you can't sue punitive damages, which is where the bigger bucks tend to be.
Bad Wigins wrote:
Wtfunny wrote: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.
I'm incorrect, and then you basically repeat what I said? Of course you don't have to register copyright to be protected by it in many contexts. But if you want to have leverage to sue, it has to be registered.
The broader point being that since copyright originates with the author, websites will side with the man holding the camera unless there is strong evidence that the copyright changed hands - something with legal teeth like a contract or a registered copyright. They can't register what they don't have, so without a contract their claims are frivolous.
That doesn't stop them from making them, because the DMCA process favors them. Basically it goes like this:
1) claimant makes claim to website
2) website rubber stamps claim, takes down video, informs account holder
3) account holder may dispute takedown if they provide personal info including name and address
4) claimant then has 14 days to file a lawsuit for infringement or claim is dropped.
In more detail
http://brainz.org/dmca-takedown-101/websites may review and reject meritless claims on their own initiative, and with fan videos, the outcome of step 4 is a foregone conclusion. They just have to look at the video and the copyright status is obvious to them. But a lot of videos stay down because people either don't know they'd win, or don't want to provide their info to the claimant.
wejo wrote:
Bad Wigins wrote:It's a frivolous takedown notice, it happens all the time.
Live sporting events are not copyrightable in the US (see NBA v Motorola). Generally, if you hold the camera, you own the video, unless you signed a contract stating otherwise before attending the event.
It looks like you are right. See this:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090420/0257124562.shtml#commentsAlthough it sounds like some have said a proposed remedy is for the tickets to say, "X gets the copyright to any recordings made by the fan at the game."
I have noticed for the Superbowl etc, there are a ton of fan videos up on youtube. Official game videos, no.
If it is for your family just share the video with them privately to be sure or if you really want you can dispute the takedown notice but I don't see the point.
At first, I was going to say there isn't a market for some random race at a track meet but I said this for Flotrack a while ago and it applies to Runnerspace, the market to get people to pay in high school/college track is mostly consisting of getting parents and relatives and friends to pay to watch their loved ones. Not fans of the sport. Mark Floreani got really upset when I said it but I don't think there is a huge audience of fans to pay to watch college track meets.
Think of it, there is some random college invite. Let's say it's not a local race, but most teams have to travel to. You want to watch your friend/relative run? Fly across the country or drive a few hundred miles or pay to watch online? There might be 2000+ competitors at an event. That's 2000 parents who might be willing to open their checkbooks. Those are the people who will pay $10 or $20 or whatever it is tow watch. Same thing with charging admission for college track meets. Most of the spectators at most schools are are parents/friends. Rojo said at Cornell they used to make a decent amount on track meets because all the parents paid to come watch. Technically I think they are supposed to be able to apply for a free ticket, but usually at track meets that doesn't happen. Same thing applies to NCAA track, I heard very few schools let parents know they can get free tickets.
Contrast that with a sport like women's basketball. You only have 20 sets of parents involved per game. Sports Athletic Departments may not think there is a market for track meets but there is a ton of competitors. Most sports have way more fans than competitors. A close relative is way more likely to pay for something than some casual fan for anything. A college track meet with 40 schools in some ways is like there being 20 women's college basketball games (20 games x 2 schools per game) going on at once. Yet a Sports Department guy thinks, "no one cares about track" so they don't broadcast it themselves.
Flotrack and Runnerspace should charge for what they are doing. My main beef is they don't let people buy a 1 day pass. If I was really into Shannon Rowbury it is not fan friendly to have to get a subscription and cancel it to watch her race once. With streaming so easy to do I think more races might just start streaming themselves and then they can charge a one off price.
The cost to live stream is $0 if you use Youtube. And I just googled and it looks like you can do pay per view on youtube:
https://gigaom.com/2012/04/10/youtube-adds-pay-per-view-to-live-streaming/
The sports market is in turmoil over the issues you bring up. The consumer electronics industry has told professional sports teams and athletics leagues that publicity produced by individual smartphone users will result in a 100-fold increase in interest and viewership. But teams and leagues are operated by constipated old geezers who think it's the 1960s and still wanting to hold onto and control video content.
Wtfunny wrote:
Sorry ..a typo ... That SHOULD read
"To sue for copyright infringement and collect for unlawful use, registration is NOTrequired".
You CAN sue for loss of use
Anyone can sue, the OP can sue them, but sueing is different than winning.
simply semantics wrote:
Wtfunny wrote:Sorry ..a typo ... That SHOULD read
"To sue for copyright infringement and collect for unlawful use, registration is NOTrequired".
You CAN sue for loss of use
Anyone can sue, the OP can sue them, but sueing is different than winning.
(There's always one)
It's fairly standard procedure .. Copyright these days isn't so difficult to prove with digital capture, etc. registration of that copyright has little to do with it in most cases, UNLESS you want to sue for punitive damages. The copyright holder will win the lawsuit, in most cases, whether the IP was registered or not.
Wtfunny wrote:
It's fairly standard procedure .. Copyright these days isn't so difficult to prove with digital capture, etc. registration of that copyright has little to do with it in most cases, UNLESS you want to sue for punitive damages. The copyright holder will win the lawsuit, in most cases, whether the IP was registered or not.
RS does NOT own copyright to the OP's video of his daughter.
Use your brain wrote:
Wtfunny wrote:It's fairly standard procedure .. Copyright these days isn't so difficult to prove with digital capture, etc. registration of that copyright has little to do with it in most cases, UNLESS you want to sue for punitive damages. The copyright holder will win the lawsuit, in most cases, whether the IP was registered or not.
RS does NOT own copyright to the OP's video of his daughter.
Of course they don't ... That's why I didn't say, anywhere, anything like that. Wtf is wrong with you?
Use your brain wrote:
RS does NOT own copyright to the OP's video of his daughter.
If the Op purchased a ticket that on the back said anything he shot in the stadium Runnerspace would have the rights to, then they would possibly be able to make a copyright claim.
But i'm pretty sure there ticket didn't say that. That's the gist right?
wejo wrote:
Use your brain wrote:RS does NOT own copyright to the OP's video of his daughter.
If the Op purchased a ticket that on the back said anything he shot in the stadium Runnerspace would have the rights to, then they would possibly be able to make a copyright claim.
But i'm pretty sure there ticket didn't say that. That's the gist right?
No.
You don't lose copyright ownership of your property that way.
You may well forego any right to market and monetize that property. But RS do not own the copyright for that guys video.
It's kinda like posting a picture on the Facebook. Facebook garner some claim to use that image on Facebook, and possibly even in their advertising .... But they don't own the copyright. You do. They can't sell a usage license to that image to SI for a cover shot, etc, because they do not own the copyright claim to it.
... On the other hand .... A small fyi ...... Your repeated use of screenshots from copyright protected video ARE infringement, and not covered by Fair Use and a violation of federal law.
Wtfunny wrote:
... On the other hand .... A small fyi ...... Your repeated use of screenshots from copyright protected video ARE infringement, and not covered by Fair Use and a violation of federal law.
The NFL and TV Networks are presently negotiating to split the revenues from sales of HD screenshots to magazines, newspapers, and websites.
Today the HD pictures are fuzzy today.
However by 2016 the HD will be frozen images at 8,000 vertical line clarity.
The NFL is expected to permamently roadblock authorized press writers and fans from using professional video equipment, still photography gear, smartphones, go-pros, and handycams.
Isn't the Runner Space subsidiary of Nike shopping for a price to acquire ESPN?
It's not as simple as resolution. It's also shutter speed .. and video is not usually shooting at high enough s/s to freeze action well. So even 8000 vertical lines of clarity will have subject movement, because they're not being shot at 1/1000th of a second. It'll work fine for small web jogs, but print will not compare to decent stills.It's definitely a rapidly changing world though, and I'm sure institutions like the NFL will double down on their restrictions.
NFL lockdown on video wrote:
The NFL and TV Networks are presently negotiating to split the revenues from sales of HD screenshots to magazines, newspapers, and websites.
Today the HD pictures are fuzzy today.
However by 2016 the HD will be frozen images at 8,000 vertical line clarity.
The NFL is expected to permamently roadblock authorized press writers and fans from using professional video equipment, still photography gear, smartphones, go-pros, and handycams.
No problem for frozen images totally at HD 8,000 vertical lines of clarity given that electronic global shutters have been used on cinema cameras for over 10 years.