Posting RK3DE vids--CH has changed policy!-see post 102 [Archive]

BuddyRoo

Oct. 9, 2007, 04:42 PM

My Rolex (RK3DE) videos were removed from you tube yesterday for "copyright infringement" per a filing by Carr-Hughes productions. I received no request to remove my videos, nor any explanation initially.

I scrubbed the rk3de website, the program, etc looking for specific verbiage related to videography and photography and found nothing. So I sent emails to both Carr-Hughes (the company creating/selling the DVD of the event) and RK3DE. I wasn't sure if I was being accused of copying THEIR work and posting it as my own, or if there was some rule.

I did receive a response this a.m. from Carr-Hughes explaining the issue--they have rights to video for public use--but if you want to save your you-tube account and not have it locked down (you get "accused" of copyright infringement X times and your account is locked) then you might want to pull down your vids. I had two pulled before I got any response. I have since pulled the others. But, other posters have had their accounts locked. (most people had MANY vids posted)

I wish venues were more specific in outlining the "rules". I'm not an avid rule breaker. In fact, I would've pulled my vids voluntarily had I been notified.

I simply put them out there to share with all of my horsey friends.

The only vids I have on the internet are of horse events. Wondering when the Traverse GP (Horse shows by the bay) are gonna come after me? LOL

Anyway...just a heads up.

It's too bad....so many of my friends have no IDEA what three day eventing is and that we have such a high caliber event in the US. Shoot, we ended up taking several "new recruits" this year due to videos and pics posted last year!

tangledweb

Oct. 9, 2007, 04:45 PM

Welcome to "the land of the free"
... free until somebody buys the rights that is.

LLDM

Oct. 9, 2007, 05:10 PM

BuddyRoo - I am not clear on what happened. Was this video you took with your own camera? Or was this video you purchased (like of your own ride)?

Is Carr-Hughes saying that only they can publish ANY video of Rolex 3DE 2007? That personal videos can't be posted anywhere on the web where the public might stumble across them?

Does this mean that a rider couldn't post a video of their own rider, or an owner of their own horse that was taken by them on their own equipment?

Please say it ain't so!

SCFarm

caffeinated

Oct. 9, 2007, 05:12 PM

Buddy Roo DID take her own video.

On youtube, copyright infringements don't have to be "proven" and are not investigated. Anyone can make an infringement report and your video will be taken down automatically.

bip

Oct. 9, 2007, 05:16 PM

Is Carr-Hughes saying that only they can publish ANY video of Rolex 3DE 2007? That personal videos can't be posted anywhere on the web where the public might stumble across them?

Does this mean that a rider couldn't post a video of their own rider, or an owner of their own horse that was taken by them on their own equipment?

Well, we wanted eventing to be more commercial. This is one of the results. RK3DE has sold the video rights to Carr-Hughes, just like the NFL or NBA. Double-edged sword.

Janet

Oct. 9, 2007, 05:16 PM

Obviously, you didn't take these videos, so you really have no right to post them on a public domain like youtube. You can't even display them on a private site without permission.
The way I read it she DID take the videos. What makes you think she didn't?
Next time take your own video camera ...and leave your infringement worries at home. ;)
The way I read it, she DID "take her own video camera".

Xctrygirl

Oct. 9, 2007, 05:18 PM

Carr-Hughes and NBC own the public broadcasting rights to the Rolex Three Day.

As in it's still infringing on their copyright to put up even your own video of Rolex. This is because NBC broadcasts the show with footage shot by Carr-Hughes in conjunction with the Peacock.

Same goes for if you try to post videos taken from the Ky Derby, the Daytona 500, the Superbowl etc etc. Big prime sporting events that are broadcast nationally by 1 company/network.

Its a very big no no.

~Emily

tangledweb

Oct. 9, 2007, 05:26 PM

BuddyRoo

Oct. 9, 2007, 11:24 PM

Oh heavens! Yes....this was video I took with my own camera myself. Definitely ammy videography.

No, there was nothing I could find in the books stating this was against the rules.

Good grief!!! You think I would take someone else's video and post? no. No.. All wrong. THis was MY video.

War Admiral

Oct. 9, 2007, 11:36 PM

I thought the OP was talking about videos they shot themselves. In which case the copyright infringement claim is bogus, but will still result in them losing their account.

YouTube and many other sites tend to operate on a guilty until proven innocent basis, because it reduces their risk under the DMCA. It is very easy for an organisation to send out hundreds of take down notices based on just a keyword search and they have no real incentive to check if the media in question actually belongs to them because they know they will not be penalised for false take down notices.

There is quite likely fine print on the back of the admission ticket or a sign next to the entrance gate banning videography or specific uses of your footage, but I would be very surprised if buying a ticket or passing through a gate entered you into a binding contract where by you assign copyright ownership of your footage to the production company that owns the rights to shoot that event.

Yepyepyep.

I really pray that some day I win the lottery. I will happily end my days (when I can't ride any more, that is) blowing the collective minds of boatloads of lawyersand all of my winnings by SUING over stuff like this. I would have YouTube's, Carr-Hughes' and NBC's assets in court in a New York minute if I only had the ca$h. "Bogus copyright infringement claim" is absolutely correct. What this really is, is a video company attempting to gain an unwarranted MONOPOLY on video from the event in question. Kinda like the horse show photographers who bitch to show management about parents taking pics of their kiddies.

We need to start fighting these asshats. :mad:

BuddyRoo

Oct. 9, 2007, 11:48 PM

For clarification.

1) videos posted were taken by me with my camera

2) videos were not posted for monetary gain

3) carr-hughes submits that they are entitled to all video rights.

I did not try to to profit--just wanted to share my own videos. Funny thing. Last year we had 4 in our group. This year.....nearly 30. The videos and pics drew a large crowd!!!

BuddyRoo

Oct. 9, 2007, 11:55 PM

Go---these are MY videos. Not something I stole. Taken with my camera. Just an fyi.

billdinva

Oct. 10, 2007, 12:34 AM

Sorry, but that's life in the big city. Carr-Hughes purchased the video rights from Rolex. They are not claiming that they own your video. They are claiming that they own the subject matter of your video and that your publishing of this clandestine video diminishes the value of the rights that they own.

Also you took these pictures, so I assume that you got permission from your subjects.

You have the right not to attend the Rolex event and not give them your money.

CatOnLap

Oct. 10, 2007, 01:03 AM

its like when you go to a big rock concert and make your own recording of the show. You are not allowed to do that. Even if you don't turn around and have 10,000 copies burned in China and market it in a plain white wrapper.

Sux tho.

luvs2ride79

Oct. 10, 2007, 01:10 AM

ANYTHING that is not shot by you (video or photos) is not yours to post. Unless the web site, photo, article, poem, or video expressly says that it is free for public distribution and copying, then it has a copyright, even if it doesn't say. It's called Implied Copyright.

Oops, just saw that you took the videos. But yeah, big sporting events have contracts for broadcasting, so you cannot publish your video, only view it yourself. Just like you can't take your video camera and bootleg a movie at a theater, even if you're not selling copies.

CA ASB

Oct. 10, 2007, 01:17 AM

billinva - if it is a public event, you do NOT need the permission of those you are photographing ... no model release, no nothing.

I investigated that fully when a very large photo of myself and my horse appeared in a national magazine in an article on sidesaddle. The shot was taken at a horse show, and anyone knowledgeable in sidesaddle would have recognized that it wasn't a good shot, nor did it illustrate the point they were using it for. I didn't even know the shot had been taken until it appeared full page along with the article. The only plus was that we weren't identified ...

BUT, had they asked us, we could have supplied tons of far more illustrative photos.

Since it is YouTube's site, technically, they control the content. While I don't agree with what was done at all - the OP took the video, they were within their rights.

Now, if the OP posts it on her own site, I think that would be far harder for them to seek removal.

tangledweb

Oct. 10, 2007, 01:31 AM

LLDM

Oct. 10, 2007, 08:10 AM

Okay then - What exactly does "Broadcast" mean? I can see where Carrs-Hughes would retain the rights to broadcast the content of RK3DE 2008. But I have a hard time seeing YouTube as a broadcast site. Isn't it more of a free "on demand" single cast deal?

And, in this same vein, YouTube is no different from posting your own video on your own website. Yes, YouTube is much larger/more popular and all - but technically, they are both public, single, on-demand and free.

And I just don't see how this is any different from still photos. Are the "official" photographers going to go around demanding any photo not taken by them of any competition covered by them through an exclusive contract be taken down from every website? Or, horrors, not be published in even the smallest local non-profit club newsletter?

I paid my money to Carrs-Hughes to download their official video. But, honestly, if this is going to be the policy I don't know that I would do that again. They have every right to protect their own video footage. But the idea that even bunches of 5 minute amateur snippets of a 4 day long competition is going to hurt their sales and "diminish" the value of their full length, professional product is just plain silliness. Seems like it would be free advertising for them.

If they were smart, they would simply request that these videos had a tag that referenced where the viewers could purchase their professional full length coverage.

I do have to wonder though - is this Carrs-Hughes being, um, ridiculous - or YouTube being paranoid?

SCFarm

caffeinated

Oct. 10, 2007, 08:46 AM

I do have to wonder though - is this Carrs-Hughes being, um, ridiculous - or YouTube being paranoid?

A bit of both.

To avoid potential lawsuits, youtube has a policy of removing ANY video that someone submits a copyright infringement claim on. Without investigation or notification.

War Admiral

Oct. 10, 2007, 08:58 AM

By the way, note that they added their own youtube video where you can leave comments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flOX2_7CZIk

And they have contact details on their website:
http://www.thesporthouse.com/contactus.sc

If you have bought this kind of dvd in the past, but don't like giving money to companies that engage in pseudo-legal bullying it might be worth telling them. They are probably a small enough company to notice if they get enough negative feedback.

Hear, hear!

And anybody who actually wanted to fight such a suit in court could possibly look for financial backing from video hardware manufacturers, who, if bogus "infringement" claims like this are successful repeatedly, will ultimately be damaged badly on the sales front. :D

Where'sMyWhite

Oct. 10, 2007, 09:09 AM

And I just don't see how this is any different from still photos. Are the "official" photographers going to go around demanding any photo not taken by them of any competition covered by them through an exclusive contract be taken down from every website? Or, horrors, not be published in even the smallest local non-profit club newsletter?

I have heard of shows/events where the "official" show photographer has informed other photographers to cease taking pictures; even if the pictures being taking were for personal use. It has happened.

Also, with respect to at least trademarks. A company needs to vigorously protect their trademarks or they loose the right to them. Kodak went after Paul Simon for his Kodachrome song - the settlement was very small but Kodak still had to protect their trademark. That's also why restaurants are picky about pointing out when you order a "coke" what cola product they serve... Coke is a trademark. Kleenex... Xerox... many examples.

War Admiral

Oct. 10, 2007, 09:12 AM

I have heard of shows/events where the "official" show photographer has informed other photographers to cease taking pictures; even if the pictures being taking were for personal use. It has happened.

Absolutely. And it's going to start happening more and more and more unless we all get vocal and fuss about it.

DMK

Oct. 10, 2007, 09:13 AM

Oops, just saw that you took the videos. But yeah, big sporting events have contracts for broadcasting, so you cannot publish your video, only view it yourself. Just like you can't take your video camera and bootleg a movie at a theater, even if you're not selling copies.

Conversely I have never been to such an event where you weren't told about that rule 4,872 times, and everyone who has ever been to a concert knows the purse search routine (OK, they are searching for more than cameras, but whatever). So I'd have to say Rolex dropped the ball on that one if it wasn't so much as mentioned on the ticket stubs.

drmgncolor

Oct. 10, 2007, 09:41 AM

That's also why restaurants are picky about pointing out when you order a "coke" what cola product they serve... Coke is a trademark.

And here I was thinking that when I order a Coke and the waitress says "we have Pepsi" it is because Coke and Pepsi TASTE very different and I might not like Pepsi (which I don't)...

What a load of crap BuddyRoo and I am sorry your personal videos of the Rolex were taken down.

Big Brother is watching you.

eqsiu

Oct. 10, 2007, 09:56 AM

Coke is a trademark. Kleenex... Xerox... many examples.

I thought that there was a loophole for products that have become associated one brand, like kleenex, chapstick, etc?

Yep, it even has a wikipedia entry (pretty accurate, too): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark

Adamantane

Oct. 10, 2007, 09:59 AM

Have you ever considered inquiring directly (here or elsewhere) to those who sold the rights? There may well be some kind of qualification or personal use exemption in some cases. Who knows that the contract says? The people who want you to think it gives them ironclad rights sure as heck aren't going to admit otherwise.

As for professional photographers feeling 'threatened' judging from pictures I've seen, they tend to do so much better a job of it than folks with Baby Brownies, so I would think personal snaps or videos would do no commercial harm, with or without having obtained the rights.

Bob Hughes

Oct. 10, 2007, 10:04 AM

Hello;

I'm Bob Hughes the Executive Producer for the Rolex TV Coverage.

I wanted to write to clarify, and in some respects apologize, for the confusion over the use of personal video from the Rolex event.

Readers of the eventing bulletin board may be familiar with me. My company has produced the Rolex TV coverage for years and I always write in to the that site to get reaction to our coverage and what yo, the eventing fan, think of how we produce the Rolex event. It is important to us.

To be straight forward, the right to publicly show the video of any sporting event (including over the web), is restricted. This includes video that you shoot personally. And in the case of the Rolex event the broadcasts are copyrighted.

These rights are very important, and in fact the Rolex TV broadcast is international in scope and extremely complex involving networks on 4 different continents. The agreements with those networks specifically restrict the use of video being placed on the internet from the event, and this includes on YouTube.

All that said, I want to say that from our end we did not handle this as politely as we could. We should have directly contacted each of the folks showing the video, explained what was going on, and then asked them to take the video off voluntarily. We are all fans of the event and we should have treated you better. In the future that is what we will do.

I hope everyone will understand our position and I again apologize for the way this was initially handed.

Sincerely,

Bob Hughes
Carr-Hughes Productions

Jeannette, formerly ponygyrl

Oct. 10, 2007, 10:18 AM

Bob -
Is it within the terms of your contract for individuals to post videos they have taken on their own websites?

Is anything on the internet by definition "public use?"

Do your rights cover still photography as well?

What is the difference between 1 still photo and 4000, showed in rapid succession? ;)

Cielo Azure

Oct. 10, 2007, 10:18 AM

"To be straight forward, the right to publicly show the video of any sporting event (including over the web), is restricted."

uhhh. ANY SPORTING EVENT??? Please elaborate on what Federal laws do not allow the videotaping of any sporting event.

Lori B

Oct. 10, 2007, 10:21 AM

cholmberg

Oct. 10, 2007, 10:40 AM

How much fun are horse shows going to be if you aren't allowed to take photos of your friends/kids/whatever for your own use. . . because the money grubbers want you to PAY someone else for pictures they took? Photography is a hobby of mine, I have quite a few pictures from the dressage portion Rolex I went to in '03. Of course I was so far away that they aren't great unless I tried to blow them up, and their media photogs were up very close. But they are still MY work. They do not say anywhere that you cannot take pictures, so I wouldn't think they could stop you from putting up photos. At the concerts, football games, etc. . they clearly state everywhere that photos and video aren't permitted. But Rolex has no such statement. So I don't see how it would hold up in court.

monday

Oct. 10, 2007, 10:42 AM

Just wanted to add, that while the issue is frustrating, thanks to Bob for coming on and explaining his position. It was a classy way to handle things under the circumstances.

caffeinated

Oct. 10, 2007, 10:54 AM

I still think it sucks.

If anything, people putting up their own video clips is free advertising for the people who own the rights to the entire broadcast... it's a shame it's gotta be this way instead.

Also, how does "fair use" play into this? Since you can use material owned by others if it's for educational purposes? What are the limits on that?

flypony74

Oct. 10, 2007, 10:54 AM

It would be one thing if any of these amateur videotaping event fans were making any MONEY from their home movies of Teddy at the Head of the Lake. But THEY ARE NOT. And hassling the fans of a sport who spend money on it, do things to increase its audience, etc. is just plain dumb, regardless of whether something concocted in a room full of lawyers in fact authorizes one to do so or not. Dumb as a sack of hammers.

I defy anyone to explain to me how amateur video, shared on YouTube with others, with no money changing hands, in any way deprives Rolex, Carr-Hughes, the sport, the venue, the riders, anyone, of rights or income to which they are entitled and which they would otherwise expect to make. How exactly would that work? Do you think that folks who don't know anything about eventing are going to pay money for access to the video stream for Rolex, or be satisfied with the very short set of still photos available on the official Rolex site? I'm serious, someone, (Mr. Hughes?) please 'splain this to me, because I really don't get it.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts. Load of horse crap, if you ask me.

A friend of mine, who is an amateur hobby photographer, was at a horse trial taking pictures just for fun not long ago. Apparently, one of the event organizers hassled her to no end, despite the fact that she was just taking pictures for fun, had no intentions of selling them (or even giving any away), and honestly didn't even know a soul who was riding that weekend. She has come before to hang out at events with me, and did bring her camera. I'm sorry, but if my friend wants to take pictures of me, then she damn well better be able to take pictures of me. What is next....an organizer hassling my mom standing out there taking distant shots with her basic little point and shoot? Neither of these scenarios, in my case, will affect the resident pro photographer's business, because if their pictures are good, then I will buy them. If they suck, then I won't.

This whole thing has gotten ridiculous. I realize that everyone needs to make a profit, but do it by providing a quality product at a reasonable price, rather than bullying people. I do not respond to those tactics.

Adamantane

Oct. 10, 2007, 10:56 AM

Thought that was thoughtful and professional of Bob.

the right to publicly show the video of any sporting event (including over the web), is restricted.

I'm no lawyer but my take is that from Bob's post the word publicly is the key, whether for profit or not. Maybe even more restricted than that for the officially broadcast copyrighted material.

It would be nice to have an IP attorney's take on this.

Take it that people are free to photograph or videograph whatever they wish for their private use under the arrangement cited.

Might speculate that (except for the once broadcast copyrighted material) as long as access to a site is not public -- i.e., password protected and not accessible to anyone who does a search, only to a friend or two -- it could be available on the internet privately. (In fact if it were so, in practical terms it is difficult to imagine how the question even could come up since nobody would have access to locate and challenge it.) But as a former boss once said to me, "There you go being logical again." :D

tangledweb

Oct. 10, 2007, 11:10 AM

All that said, I want to say that from our end we did not handle this as politely as we could.

Politely would seem to be putting it mildly. Presumably you or a lawyer acting for your company sent YouTube a notice complying with the provisions in Section 512(c)(3) of the Copyright Act. Therefore it presumably said "blah blah I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner blah blah".

I would expect that as somebody who makes their living producing and distributing copyrighted material that you know a certain amount about copyright. Even if you think they are not allowed to make it publicly available, you surely can't believe that you own copyright in a video shot by somebody else?

Were you or your agent willing to perjure yourself because it was the most efficient way to get material you did not want off YouTube?

bip

Oct. 10, 2007, 11:19 AM

Where'sMyWhite

Oct. 10, 2007, 12:18 PM

BuddyRoo

Oct. 10, 2007, 12:30 PM

Thank you Mr. Hughes for checking in.

To comment on a few other posts though....

-no, youtube does not investigate claims. they simply remove the video and you can file a counter claim.

-while I guess I understand the copyright concept and such (though I may not like it), I guess it seems like it would make more sense for the organizations to make it a little more well known AHEAD of time. I'm a rule-follower when I know what the rules were. At any other event I can think of, they tell you explicitly what is not allowed. I suspect we'll hear this mentioned in 2008.....I'll listen closely. Maybe it will come right after, "Keep your dogs under control, and your children on a leash...." ;)

-Someone asked about "did I contact anyone?" Yes...As soon as I was notified about the problem, I DID begin investigating the "official" policy on the RK3DE site, sent them email, sent Carr-Hughes Productions an email, etc. RK3DE info site sent my email directly to Carr-Hughes and I received a response yesterday morning.

I will say they were quite courteous and explained that they owned the rights, etc etc.

My point in posting here was so that if you have similar videos out there, you can get them down before your whole youtube account is closed. Because youtube's policy is that if you keep being flagged for issues X number of times, they just close your account. By the time I knew there was an issue, several vids had already been removed...so figured I'd post a heads up as other youtube people had contacted me with similar.

Anyway, I've got nothing against CH et al. We go to Rolex. We buy the video every year. We watch the short program on NBC. We watch and rewatch the vids we took, surf through hundreds and hundreds of pics, etc. We love the sport, love the event, love it!

Me? Was just trying to "share the love". LOL. Who wouldn't want to see Teddy knockin' 'em dead?

Anyway, I won't in the future. ;)

caffeinated

Oct. 10, 2007, 12:35 PM

I also think one point that people are missing is that yes, the ammi with the video on youtube may not be making any money and did not intend to make money; but posting the "freebie" video may be keeping the licensed distributor from selling their video (after paying a considerable license fee in most cases).

I don't think a little ammy video is actually stopping sales. The official DVD or broadcast is still the only way to see complete rounds and XC courses. It's still the only way to see a lot of the less "popular" riders. There is no on-foot amateur that can compete with the official production.

Not only that, but am I the only one that thinks having little clips and such out there is actually GOOD for those trying to distribute the official DVDs? I know many times I've seen clips online and it's spurred me to actually go order the "real thing" so I can see the entire production/movie/documentary. I know if I saw video of a thirty second piece of Theodore O'Connor's trip, and it was awesome, I'd be more likely to want to see the whole thing.

It just seems like the confrontational "no, it's MINE!" thing doesn't actually help in terms of distributing more product. And I can't see how youtube clips even begin to actually compete, when it comes to content. I just can't imagine anybody thinking, "well, I wanted to order the videos of the entire event, but there are a couple dozen youtube clips online, I think I'll just make do with those"

So much of the fun of going to Rolex and other big events is sharing the experience with others, it just seems really sad that it's got to be this way, even if it's the rule of the law, etc.

BuddyRoo

Oct. 10, 2007, 12:43 PM

Caff-I definitely agree with you.

There's a group of 4 of us that go each year....then we come back, make online albums, share, etc....due to all that sharing, THIS year we bought 20 tickets I think? Something like that. So yes....showing people that this caliber of competition is happening HERE really does help get more people interested and participating IMHO.

Anyway....now I know better, so it won't happen.

But I have to wonder is this something that we need to ask about at all horse venues? Or only those that are being broadcast? Or what about pictures? Eventually, do we have to take down all of the stills we've taken? Hmmmm......

Lori B

Oct. 10, 2007, 12:52 PM

caffeinated & BuddyRoo, that was my point too -- that ammy videos do more to promote the event and the sport and cannot be argued to meaningfully detract from the revenue stream for the event's own media sales. I just don't see it. And even if the way that the rights to media representations of the event were negotiated gives them the formal ability to do so, I think the 800 pound gorilla approach doesn't gain them any revenue (it might deny YouTube a smidgin of advertising clickthrough revenue, but not very much), and costs them good will from fans, so my question continues to be, "What real benefit does this action afford Carr-Hughes in the real world?"

tangledweb

Oct. 10, 2007, 01:03 PM

I also think one point that people are missing is that yes, the ammi with the video on youtube may not be making any money ...

Nope, I don't think that is the point at all.

The main point is that in many areas of your life you need to know what your rights are or people will attempt to bluff you into giving them up. Car drivers will tell you that you are not allowed to ride a horse on the road, shop staff will tell you that you must be searched, private security guards will menace you, police will demand ID, people will tell you you cannot take photos in public places.

If you don't know what your rights are, then you will generally back down if somebody confidently states that the law is on their side. Bullying is still bullying, even if it is couched in psuedo-legal jargon.

Gracie

Oct. 10, 2007, 01:15 PM

Ever since Price whined that he is losing money because those bad kids were downloading instead of buying his music video, these types of sites, including youtube, are riding the edge of lawsuits and shutdown. Just ask Napster.

Youtube certainly doesn't have the staff to check every video downloaded to their site for copyright infringement. They rely on the law-abiding users to self regulate.

I understand that CH owns the video rights, blah,blah,blah. However, it seems small sighted and narrow minded of any big name musician or corporation to discount the potential of interest -- and sales -- generated from viewing indie vids of similar material on youtube.

AdAblurr02

Oct. 10, 2007, 01:26 PM

<snip>.

As for professional photographers feeling 'threatened' judging from pictures I've seen, they tend to do so much better a job of it than folks with Baby Brownies, so I would think personal snaps or videos would do no commercial harm, with or without having obtained the rights.

hah!! my good girlfriend has a whopper of a spendy pro-quality camera, and she looooves taking horsey pics with it. She very often gets MUCH better shots than the show photogs do - perhaps because she's concentrating on only one or two subjects (horses of friends or relatives), but whatever.

She got *quite* a bit of static last year at a show she attended for packing her camera around and taking pics of our babies - but she's long on guts and told the photog to step off, that there was NO rule about taking pics of friends horses privately - NOT selling them.

still, having your video jerked down does suck, so sorry I missed seeing it!

Adamantane

Oct. 10, 2007, 01:46 PM

Nope, I don't think that is the point at all.

The main point is that in many areas of your life you need to know what your rights are or people will attempt to bluff you into giving them up...

If you don't know what your rights are, then you will generally back down if somebody confidently states that the law is on their side. Bullying is still bullying, even if it is couched in psuedo-legal jargon.

Yes, I must agree.:yes::yes:

We've seen this sort of thing on the evening news (especially from DC) every day for years now. :sadsmile:

Where is the outrage?:confused:

KaraAD

Oct. 10, 2007, 03:32 PM

Hello;

I'm Bob Hughes the Executive Producer for the Rolex TV Coverage.
...
To be straight forward, the right to publicly show the video of any sporting event (including over the web), is restricted. This includes video that you shoot personally. And in the case of the Rolex event the broadcasts are copyrighted.
...
All that said, I want to say that from our end we did not handle this as politely as we could. ...
Sincerely,
Bob Hughes
Carr-Hughes Productions

I think it is nice that Carr-Hughes has apologized, especially since by incorrectly alleging to a third party that the OP has infringed on their copyright, they may have opened themselves up to a lawsuit...
And, unfortuneatly, Bob's email isn't a correct statement of the law either.

An actual work can be copyrighted - not an idea or a subject. If someone copied Carr-Hughes' video and broadcasted or made it public in connection with a commercial endeavor, that person would be infringing on C-H's copyright. C-H has no copyrightable interest in the OP's video.

Because it is a public event, the Event needs to make sure that it restricts the other attendees from photographing the event for commercial purposes. To do that, they need to put the attendees (like the OP) on notice that the OP doesn't have the right to take pictures for commercial purposes. The reason why you can't take pictures / videos at concerts is because on the back of your ticket stub it tells you that by buying the ticket and attending the concert, you have agreed not to use photographic equipment. By buying those rights from the event, C-H may have a contractual right to be the official photographer and sole distributor at the Rolex Event and have sole rights to broadcast the video but C-H doesn't have any more rights than the event had to sell them.

I assume that the Rolex Event somehow posted notices about not taking pictures for commercial purposes (on the back of the ticket stub or on a sign somewhere). Whether or not, posting the OP's video on YouTube is be a problem would depend on the language of the notice that the Event gave the attendees. If it is contrary to the language, C-H may have the right to enforce the Event's rights against the OP, but they shouldn't do it by alleging copyright infringement.

Plus, C-H probably missed out on great marketing opportunity. Rather than asking all of the amateurs to take the videos off YouTube, they could have offered to let them stay, as long as the amateur puts a comment on the video that points people to where they can buy the full / official DVD.

Phaxxton

Oct. 10, 2007, 03:55 PM

Yepyepyep.

I really pray that some day I win the lottery. I will happily end my days (when I can't ride any more, that is) blowing the collective minds of boatloads of lawyersand all of my winnings by SUING over stuff like this. I would have YouTube's, Carr-Hughes' and NBC's assets in court in a New York minute if I only had the ca$h. "Bogus copyright infringement claim" is absolutely correct. What this really is, is a video company attempting to gain an unwarranted MONOPOLY on video from the event in question. Kinda like the horse show photographers who bitch to show management about parents taking pics of their kiddies.

While I can't claim to be an expert in broadcast copyrights per se, last time I checked, copyrights and patents ARE legal monopolies - albeit for a set period of time. (I honestly do NOT know what broadcast copyrights exactly cover, but I'm trying to learn more about that...)-

If you want to actually change the law (since I'm pretty sure the current law would not be in your favor in court, though that's just my guess), then your money and time are better spent lobbying the legislature to amend the Constitution or the Copyright Act... or perhaps it's governed by the Digital Milennium Copyright Act? Not sure... but I believe the best way to achieve what you want is in the legislature, not the courts.

And now a totally random, somewhat unrelated intellectual property rights rant, by Phaxxton:
It never ceases to amaze me that (1) people have far less respect for intellectual property rights (patents, trademarks, copyrights, etc.) than they do for tangible property rights (look at all the people downloading music for free illegally. Most of them wouldn't walk into Best Buy and steal the CD) and (2) people think that just b/c it's a big corporation, it's not entitled to own intellectual property or enforce its rights to that property.
Stupid rant over...

Sure it stinks because the OP clearly meant NO harm, and this is a shady area of the law... but it's NOT as if it's totally outrageous for a company to protect its rights.

Cielo Azure

Oct. 10, 2007, 04:08 PM

We will be going to the GA National Draft Horse Show and the NC State fair to exhibit our horses (starting Friday). I consider these "sporting events." These are huge horses shows, with multiple breeds and open shows. There is no place, in any of the premium books or literature that says that I can't take my video camera or my camera and shot whatever I want. I am disgusted that "Bob" had the nerve and inform us that ANY sporting event was off limits for videotaping. What a nerve! How dare he? Under what law? We are all being intimidated by this kind of creepy behavior, which he cites "laws" (without ever actually stating what law) are being broken. Again, Bob. What Federal law makes it illegal to videotape and publically show said tape at ANY sporting event??? Does this include the White House Easter Egg hunt or how about the Boston Marathon?

Sure, if you are in a privately owned stadium AND tickets stubs or premium bokks or entry forms state such (that no camera's or videos allowed), that is one thing. BUT IT BETTER BE DARN CLEAR AND WELL POSTED. If you have a sign posted in the men's bathroom, it doesn't mean s**t, unless everyone goes into the men's bathroom and reads the sign and then (if you really want to protect your infringement rights) get everyone to sign a release that they understand the sign!!!

Come on people, we don't need a lawyer to tell us that! This guy is still intimidating us. That was no "Public apology," that was pure arm twisting -mafia style!

Lori B

Oct. 10, 2007, 04:13 PM

Phaxxton

Oct. 10, 2007, 04:19 PM

Phaxxton, I have all kinds of respect for intellectual property. I'm just not clear on how BuddyRoo's amateur video of an event shared with others, no money changing hands, violates the property interest of the paid broadcaster / licensee. ????

Is she showing Bob Carr-Hughes company's video of Rolex? Uh, no.

Is she making any money? Uh, no.

Again, I ask for an explanation of how this action BENEFITS Carr-Hughes production company. Mainly, it seems to have pissed off some folks who are otherwise fans of the sport and supporters of the effort to better publicize big events like Rolex.

Like I said, broadcast copyright isn't my speciality (I don't have a specialty, unless you count eating chocolate mint milanos... mmm....)... but I'd assume it's the same as a pro football game or any other sporting event in which a network owns the broadcast rights. I can't go to a Giants' game, videotape it, and then broadcast it on the internet, as far as I know... if someone owned the rights to Rolex, then why should that be different? :confused: Then again, maybe I CAN do that. I'm not 100% sure what broadcast copyrights include, but I think that it gives the owner of the right the exclusive right to air / broadcast any footage of the event... not sure if it has to be the event in its entirerty or a significant portion, or any portion... I have no idea...

This is something I should read up on more - I'm honestly curious. I'm not trying to start an argument. The rant about the IP rights wasn't directed at anyone in particular -- just my honest observations of many people and something I've never understood, save for the idea that we all want something for free! :yes:

And, as an aside, money changing hands isn't necessary for copyright infringement... might be necessary if you were trying to prove damages in court to collect money, but it's not essential to copyright infringement that there be commercial gain involved.

And we have to remember that these big companies aren't in it for the benefit of the sport... we all have differing interests going on...

I need to do some reading up on this stuff. This has sparked my curiosity.

Cielo Azure

Oct. 10, 2007, 04:22 PM

KaraAD

You said exactly what I was trying to write (poorly). Exactly!!!
And I still think the guy is trying to intimidate us.

Phaxxton -I ask you, how is videotaping a sports event and posting that video infringing on anyone's copyright, if they haven't clearly documented that videotaping was not allowed at the event? Where is that in the copyright law?

Again, Bob never actually said where the company displayed the sign or wrote that videotaping wasn't allowed (such as ticket stubs). Betcha they DIDN'T have a sign or notice, or he would have written where and how the public was alerted and he didn't write that. I assume that a lawyer approved the release of his letter before he sent it; unless he is a complete amateur. A lawyer would have insisted that this detail be included. Therefore, I assume that there wasn't such a notice and he is bluffing.

Phaxxton

Oct. 10, 2007, 04:33 PM

I don't know for sure, but my GUESS (key word GUESS) is that BROADCAST rights, as opposed to run of the mill copyright, pertain to the exclusive right to be the sole person to air any footage of the event. I have no idea if notice is required - or if so what would constitute sufficient notice.

I do know that many sporting events sell internet broadcasting rights, tv broadcasting rights, and radio broadcasting rights separately, though of course they can all wind up in the same hands.

Like I said, this has sparked my curiosity and am reseraching it to satisfy my own curiosity. I'm just not as aghast by the whole situation as some others are. (I really don't think THIS of all things is what's threatening our freedom in this country... but I digress...) We're all entitled to our opinions. :yes:

ETA - I'd assume that if you asked for it, they would provide an explanation on exactly what their rights are and how your conduct infringed their rights.

And I AM sorry that the OP and others who meant no harm were forced to remove your videos.

caffeinated

Oct. 10, 2007, 04:33 PM

Like I said, broadcast copyright isn't my speciality (I don't have a specialty, unless you count eating chocolate mint milanos... mmm....)... but I'd assume it's the same as a pro football game or any other sporting event in which a network owns the broadcast rights. I can't go to a Giants' game, videotape it, and then broadcast it on the internet, as far as I know... if someone owned the rights to Rolex, then why should that be different? :confused: Then again, maybe I CAN do that. I'm not 100% sure what broadcast copyrights include, but I think that it gives the owner of the right the exclusive right to air / broadcast any footage of the event... not sure if it has to be the event in its entirerty or a significant portion, or any portion... I have no idea...

This is something I should read up on more - I'm honestly curious. I'm not trying to start an argument. The rant about the IP rights wasn't directed at anyone in particular -- just my honest observations of many people and something I've never understood, save for the idea that we all want something for free! :yes:

And, as an aside, money changing hands isn't necessary for copyright infringement... might be necessary if you were trying to prove damages in court to collect money, but it's not essential to copyright infringement that there be commercial gain involved.

And we have to remember that these big companies aren't in it for the benefit of the sport... we all have differing interests going on...

I need to do some reading up on this stuff. This has sparked my curiosity.

But then there's also the issue of "fair use"- you can use some copyrighted material for some purposes, correct?

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

How could that apply to this sort of situation?

Where'sMyWhite

Oct. 10, 2007, 04:35 PM

If you want to actually change the law (since I'm pretty sure the current law would not be in your favor in court), then your money and time are better spent lobbying the legislature to amend the Constitution or the Copyright Act... or perhaps it's governed by the Digital Milennium Copyright Act? Not sure... but I believe the best way to achieve what you want is in the legislature, not the courts.

Phaxxton, I don't believe this is a constitutional issue (not sure which amendment you'd be thinking had been violated).

But, you are absolutely correct that changes need to be made through the legislature. And, in many cases, law is still struggling to learn how to manage content with respect to the new electronic age.

There are ways to work this issue without beating up on CH. :)

Glimmerglass

Oct. 10, 2007, 04:41 PM

In professional baseball, although it has long been made a punch line, there is the uber famous disclaimer aired during the broadcast (tv, radio, and internet) of every MLB game:

Any rebroadcast, reproduction, or other use of the pictures and accounts of this game without the express written consent of Major League Baseball is prohibited.

I suspect that in some capacity that type of right exists for Rolex and was conveyed to Carr-Hughes upon award. Effectively the exclusive right to all competition on the medium of video was granted in exchange for financial compensation. Meaning Carr-Hughes put up the money for the broadcast rights to the Rolex organizers which in turn helps fund and supports the on-going annual event.

Go back to the MLB disclaimer - which has been legally challenged and successfully won - which states "any reproduction ... and accounts of this ..". Meaning even though Jane Doe might videotape a Mets game at Shea Stadium in person with her own camera phone it would be in violation to reproduce it because it reflects the accounts of game. e.g., the video reflects the 4th player on the homes team roster hits a home run in the 3rd inning.

My guess - and I'll be quick to say I don't know it all - is that when you buy a ticket to Rolex there are a lot of disclaimers attached to it. From waiving liability rights to their right to eject disorder patrons, et al I wouldn't be shocked if there was language that may mirror in spirit at least what MLB does.

Concerts are the same way but obviously over the ages bootleg recordings have been made. Although before youtube.com rebroadcast was typically a cottage industry of tapes and CDs given to friends or perhaps peddled in small quantities. U2, for example, despite selling the ticket to the concert still won't encourage or allow illegal recordings to be made at shows.

In terms of it "not being fair" well that is a whole other court so to speak. Do I think sales of DVDs, for example, are impacted by essentially 2 minute amateur shot video? Not really.

However in defense to Carr-Hughes they are committing a great deal of resources for Rolex in the next couple of years PLUS the FEI World Equestrian Games. I suspect they have a need to ensure they've been enforcing their rights - no matter how petty - all along if they face down the road a time when home users have cameras and sound just as good as commercial equipment and youtube.com (the the like) allows for more much more then simple 2 minute clips, etc.

I think all commercial providers are all uncertain as to how the "new economy" with free content will mix with their heavy capital investments, so they react (right or wrong) by at least enforcing their rights under the law.

Phaxxton

Oct. 10, 2007, 04:42 PM

Phaxxton, I don't believe this is a constitutional issue (not sure which amendment you'd be thinking had been violated).

But, you are absolutely correct that changes need to be made through the legislature. And, in many cases, law is still struggling to learn how to manage content with respect to the new electronic age.

There are ways to work this issue without beating up on CH. :)

Key word there is OR -- followed by a clear statement that I do not know which statute governs. Sorry if that was unclear.

Nowhere did I state an amendment was violated. My point was that I doubted the current law was on her side and it would need to be challenged in the legislature. No idea why I wrote constitution, other than I am always thinking patents, which have their roots in the constitution.

Phaxxton

Oct. 10, 2007, 04:45 PM

In professional baseball, although it has long been made a punch line, there is the uber famous disclaimer aired during the broadcast (tv, radio, and internet) of every MLB game:

Any rebroadcast, reproduction, or other use of the pictures and accounts of this game without the express written consent of Major League Baseball is prohibited.

I suspect that in some capacity that type of right exists for Rolex and was conveyed to Carr-Hughes upon award. Effectively the exclusive right to all competition on the medium of video was granted in exchange for financial compensation. Meaning Carr-Hughes put up the money for the broadcast rights to the Rolex organizers which in turn helps fund and supports the on-going annual event.

Go back to the MLB disclaimer - which has been legally challenged and successfully won - which states "any reproduction ... and accounts of this ..". Meaning even though Jane Doe might videotape a Mets game at Shea Stadium in person with her own camera phone it would be in violation to reproduce it because it reflects the accounts of game. e.g., the video reflects the 4th player on the homes team roster hits a home run in the 3rd inning.

My guess - and I'll be quick to say I don't know it all - is that when you buy a ticket to Rolex there are a lot of disclaimers attached to it. From waiving liability rights to their right to eject disorder patrons, et al I wouldn't be shocked if there was language that may mirror in spirit at least what MLB does.

Concerts are the same way but obviously over the ages bootleg recordings have been made. Although before youtube.com rebroadcast was typically a cottage industry of tapes and CDs given to friends or perhaps peddled in small quantities. U2, for example, despite selling the ticket to the concert still won't encourage or allow illegal recordings to be made at shows.

In terms of it "not being fair" well that is a whole other court so to speak. Do I think sales of DVDs, for example, are impacted by essentially 2 minute amateur shot video? Not really.

However in defense to Carr-Hughes they are committing a great deal of resources for Rolex in the next couple of years PLUS the FEI World Equestrian Games. I suspect they have a need to ensure they've been enforcing their rights - no matter how petty - all along if they face down the road a time when home users have cameras and sound just as good as commercial equipment and youtube.com allow for more then 2 minute clips, etc.

I think all commercial providers are all uncertain as to how the "new economy" with free content will mix with their heavy capital investments, so they react (right or wrong) by at least enforcing their rights under the law.

Thank you.

Phaxxton

Oct. 10, 2007, 04:49 PM

But then there's also the issue of "fair use"- you can use some copyrighted material for some purposes, correct?

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

How could that apply to this sort of situation?

Broadcasting protected IP on the internet is not a fair use of which I am aware. Fair use pertains to your regular copyright infringement, whereas I think broadcast rights would have to be different... since they aren't inherently like copyright protection in every (or even all) way(s). In practice, fair use is usually reserved for things like educational (nonprofit) purposes, satire, commentary, etc.

Regardless, no one factor is determinative in determining fair use. The fact that she didn't make money is something to consider, but it wouldn't be dispositive. (And I hate to bring it all back to the OP b/c I think we're ALL in agreement that she had no intention to break any rules and that she didn't harm anyone!)

caffeinated

Oct. 10, 2007, 04:54 PM

to be totally hypothetical for a moment- if the video was not described as rolex, and was used to illustrate the types of jumps or a certain type of obstacle, would that be "educational?"

(and I'm not totally aghasted by any of this, like it may seem, I'm just sort of sad, since the pictures and stuff we all share with each other after something like Rolex is half the fun of it. That and I recognize C-H is making a big investment in an obscure sport which is good for all of us)

Phaxxton

Oct. 10, 2007, 05:03 PM

to be totally hypothetical for a moment- if the video was not described as rolex, and was used to illustrate the types of jumps or a certain type of obstacle, would that be "educational?"

No way to know for sure, but I think it's doubtful. I think of educational purposes more as an actual nonprofit educational organization, like a school... not just posting it on the internet to illustrate something... but, hey, you never know!!

And as I said, I don't think fair use pertains to broadcast rights, though again, I'm not sure. Maybe someone better versed in this would know.

I see I've now become the pot stirrer with no answers. Stupid place to put myself and I apologize for that (sincerely). ;) Time to read up! LOL

summerhorse

Oct. 10, 2007, 05:39 PM

Because YouTube has paid advertising I can see their point BUT as someone posted they are missing the boat. Instead of insisting they be removed just insist that their homepage to order be displayed. Those little snippets on YouTube are NOT going to impact anybody ordering the video. I saw plenty of them on YouTube but can we say "variable quality"? SO I ordered it from the site.

Not so sure i will again (esp. with those LOOOONG stretches of such exciting bits of 30 min. of people and their dogs wandering around the grass...)

tangledweb

Oct. 10, 2007, 05:44 PM

And as I said, I don't think fair use pertains to broadcast rights, though again, I'm not sure. Maybe someone better versed in this would know.

I think the conceptual problem you are having is that you believe broadcast rights exist.

Broadcast rights are merely a commercial agreement between two parties. They have no standard form, no standard exclusions, and no specific way of restricting the activities of anybody who did not sign the contract.

They are not an enshrined right, like say the right to freedom of expression, or the right of the United States Congress "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

If you want to sell exclusive rights to broadcast an event you generally hold them at a private venue, and make it a condition of entry that other people don't bring cameras or agree to other specific conditions.

An event entering into a contract with a video company giving it the right to broadcast that event does not magically make the video company own other people's footage, still photos, thoughts or children.

eventmom

Oct. 10, 2007, 05:51 PM

I think the conceptual problem you are having is that you believe broadcast rights exist.
An event entering into a contract with a video company giving it the right to broadcast that event does not magically make the video company own other people's footage, still photos, thoughts or children.
:):):) AMEN!
Sounds like somebody is pushing way too much weight around.
u-tube sure is taking it laying down :eek: Can't blame them I guess. Problem is, this kind of behavior, if left unchecked, is so dangerous.

billdinva

Oct. 10, 2007, 10:27 PM

Let's say that I see your horse quitely grazing in your pasture. There is a no trespassing sign on your fence. I hop the fence to get a closer look at your horse. The no trespassing sign doesn't apply to me because I am not looking at your horse for any commercial purpose. Besides, how arrogant of you for not letting me on your property to look at looking at your beatiful horse. Your horse seems gentle enough, so I go over to your tack room to get a saddle. No problem, the door on the tack room was open and the saddle was in plain view. You weren't using it right now. I place the saddle on the horse and hop on and do a couple of laps around the pasture. I return the saddle to the tack room, and then leave your pasture by hopping back over your fence. No one was using the horse. Signs don't apply to me because I don't read them. No commercial purposes.

Does anyone one here have a problem with this?
IGNORE ABOVE. I STAND CORRECTED.
See http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum/showpost.php?p=2733125&postcount=74

"Unauthorized broadcast" and "copyright infringement" are polite words for "stealing".

tangledweb

Oct. 10, 2007, 10:35 PM

Does anyone one here have a problem with this?

Huh? Everybody would have a problem with it, which is why trespass is illegal.

If on the other hand, you stayed on the legal, public side of the fence, videoed the horse and posted it on youtube, the owner might not like it. It might make them uncomfortable. It might make them worry that they will sell fewer of the DVDs they produce of their horse munching grass in their field, but there is nothing they can do about it.

Which is not to say that they might not try to bully you with legal jargon, claim you did something wrong, and hope that the risk of incurring legal fees to prove you were in the right will make you back down and keep your legally taken footage to yourself.

War Admiral

Oct. 10, 2007, 10:43 PM

Tangledweb, if I ever need a lawyer, you are ON! :D This is why I believe the courts would go in "my" favor if "I" decided to bring legal action on something like this:

Broadcast rights are merely a commercial agreement between two parties. They have no standard form, no standard exclusions, and no specific way of restricting the activities of anybody who did not sign the contract.

tangledweb

Oct. 10, 2007, 10:48 PM

Tangledweb, if I ever need a lawyer, you are ON!

Thanks, but I would recommend finding a lawyer instead. :lol:

billdinva

Oct. 10, 2007, 10:49 PM

Actually there might be law against taking and using pictures of the horse, depends on the state. Could be invasion of privacy, especially if a telephoto lens is used. Taking and selling an unauthorized picture of someone else's horse is not much different then taking a joy ride.

Why can't I take bring my web cam to a sporting event and stream it live over the internet? Because I don't own the rights to it. And that why there is a law against it.

I STAND CORRECTED.
See http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum/showpost.php?p=2733125&postcount=74

tangledweb

Oct. 10, 2007, 10:59 PM

Actually there might be law against taking and using pictures of the horse, depends on the state. Could be invasion of privacy, especially if a telephoto lens is used.

Go on, find a law in any state, that grants horses a right to privacy. I dare you.

Taking and selling an unauthorized picture of someone else's horse is not much different then taking a joy ride.

Here on earth there are a few crucial differences, but I maybe on your planet there are people who would be equally upset by both, so I will ignore that one.

Why can't I take bring my web cam to a sporting event and stream it live over the internet? Because I don't own the rights to it. And that why there is a law against it.
Again, which law?

The owner of the venue might not permit it, and because it is their property be within their rights to ask you to leave, but there is no general law forbidding people videoing, photographing or streaming sporting events. There have been draconian laws introduced in some countries as part of hosting Olympic games, but I challenge you to find a law banning it for general sporting events.

billdinva

Oct. 10, 2007, 11:15 PM

These are civil matters, not criminal matters.

Another example:
You ask your trainer to exercise your expensive, talented show horse. Your trainer arranges for a photographer to take pictures of the trainer jumping your horse over some high fences. The trainer uses the pictures in her advertising brochures, website and trade publications. The trainer sells the photos the the owner of the facility where your horse is boarded and where the photos were shot. The facility owner using the pictures in his advertising brochures, website and trade publications. The facility is generally open to the public and has an area where spectators can view the riding arena. You have not executed a photo release or otherwise granted permission to use photos of your horse.

Phyxius

Oct. 10, 2007, 11:16 PM

I have heard of shows/events where the "official" show photographer has informed other photographers to cease taking pictures; even if the pictures being taking were for personal use. It has happened.

.

Yes it has happened, but as a photographer I can tell you it's BS. There is plenty of law out there explaining this.

billdinva

Oct. 10, 2007, 11:58 PM

I STAND CORRECTED. Generally, you may take and publish pictures as long as you are not trespassing or have not been asked to stop. A sign at the event stating "photography prohibited" would be enough. The content of the photo may have copyright and other problems if any logos are visible. Note that the name of the event itself may be trademarked and your use may of the name to promote your video may be trademark infringement.

See http://www.publaw.com/photo.html
But see, and Freedom of Information, Dangerous Sports, http://www.rtnda.org/pages/media_items/dangerous-sports192.php and Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U.S. 562 (1977) discussed near middle of the 1st column on page three at http://www.schiffhardin.com/binary/jacoby-image_rights.pdf

I found this law in Oregon
167.385 Unauthorized use of livestock animal. (1) A person commits the crime of unauthorized use of a livestock animal when the person knowingly:
(a) Takes, appropriates, obtains or withholds a livestock animal from the owner thereof or derives benefit from a livestock animal without the consent of the owner of the animal;

I don't know if "derives benefit" would include publishing a photograph.

CookiePony

Oct. 11, 2007, 08:58 AM

My point in posting here was so that if you have similar videos out there, you can get them down before your whole youtube account is closed. Because youtube's policy is that if you keep being flagged for issues X number of times, they just close your account. By the time I knew there was an issue, several vids had already been removed...so figured I'd post a heads up as other youtube people had contacted me with similar.

Practical question: how does youtube know that someone has Rolex videos? Is it in the title or description of the video? What if you called it something like "Joey's Birthday Party" and then just emailed the link to your friends? Unless someone stumbled upon it, it might stay under the radar.

Adamantane

Oct. 11, 2007, 09:57 AM

Practical question: how does youtube know that someone has Rolex videos? Is it in the title or description of the video? What if you called it something like "Joey's Birthday Party" and then just emailed the link to your friends? Unless someone stumbled upon it, it might stay under the radar.

I think the organizer of any event has the right to manage and parcel out its benefits in whatever way they please, including restricting the spectators to simply 'spectating' with no technological assists or recording devices, provided that they make this restriction part of the condition for admission. Even including Mom and Dad inviting people to an authentic "Joey's Birthday Party" and prohibiting snapshots.:lol: Which would be very dumb, but they would be entitled to do it.:yes::yes:

While this strategy you mention would be simply an attempt to evade the IP laws and just as unlawful as if it were labeled accurately and "in your face," in purely practical terms you do have a point. There seems to be no means I know of to identify content apart from the label text or from somebody actually viewing the content and informing the site owners. For now, anyway.

Preemptive restrictions on private possession of photo or videographic content may be part of current public policy, but so far they seem to be holding up in court. Pity the poor parents who take the time honored (if embarrassing later to the then grown-up subject) photos of their month old baby lying naked butt-upward on a bathmat and then foolishly bring them to some busybody photo counter for prints:eek:

One wonders if some future Priscilla Goodbody [Johnny Carson's humorous nickname for the censors at NBC] will decide that it is immoral, lewd and disgusting to photograph an animal giving birth, thus making all those foal-birthing videos criminally punishable right up there with armed robbery.

I certainly would never go so far as to even suggest that I might possibly once have had involvement in the making of just such a foal birth video, since while he is on his tear, "The Decider" in current Administration may choose to ignore the Constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws, like all the other prohibitions he has gotten away with ignoring so far.

KayBee

Oct. 11, 2007, 10:44 AM

I don't think a little ammy video is actually stopping sales.

<snip>

Not only that, but am I the only one that thinks having little clips and such out there is actually GOOD for those trying to distribute the official DVDs? I know many times I've seen clips online and it's spurred me to actually go order the "real thing" so I can see the entire production/movie/documentary.

Dear Mr. Hughes --

Thanks for stopping by the board and both explaining your position and apologizing for the manner in which you took steps to protect your assets.

I wonder whether a review your policy might serve both your company's ends as well as the needs of the equestrian community. As the poster above mentions, publicly available amateur clips may serve to increase demand for your product now and in future. I speak of potentially:

enlarging the audience for events such as Rolex specifically
enlarging the audience for horse-related events generally
increasing demand for videos post event

You may know that certain broadcast TV stations (ABC, NBC) have taken to providing their shows online, for a limited period of time. This is partly an attempt to increase audience share by reaching out to those who have missed an episode, but is also an alternative to attempting to prosecute those who share "bootleg" episodes via peer-to-peer software.

Evidence suggests that peer-to-peer sharing has solidified, and in some cases, increased, audience share. It also has the potential for creating increased demand for licensed products related to the media property.

Peer-to-peer sharing allows "fandom" to spread via word-of-mouth (bottom up) rather than through advertising (top down). For that reason, I think that you should reconsider allowing amateur videos to be shared via You Tube. Such an action would in the nature of a public service to the equestrian community at large as there are very few people who get to attend the events in person; broadcast of such events is infrequent; and video purchase expensive due in part, I'm sure, to the limited demand for such video.

As an alternative, you might consider featuring video from Rolex events -- perhaps one rider per week, on your own website, even as broadcast channels are doing with shows such as Heroes and Lost. This would serve as a public service and, perhaps, increase the demand for your product in the long run.

Thanks again for your stopping by.

BuddyRoo

Oct. 11, 2007, 11:09 AM

CookiePony-

Youtube does not "police" for this type of thing.

The process is as follows....

I go out searching for videos. Let's say I'm looking for jumping vids. I might do a search on Rolex, or Teddy, or Karen, or somesuch. Those words may be in the tag line and as such, those vids are pulled up.

So, I see one that looks just like MY video! And I want to file a complaint. So I follow the step by step guide on youtube's QA page and file a complaint. I submit to you tube. You tube removed the other person's video--no explanation--just gone. Oh, but with a note that they can counter file a complaint.

You tube does not investigate the claim. They leave that up to the individuals. (i can understand why!) They do not dig around and see if there's truly an issue or not. They let the users duke it out.

But anyway....that's how it works. So CH only had to go out looking for videos (that we all tag in a manner so they CAN be found on searches--silly us!) and then they can file a complaint.

My issue (which they have both privately and PUBLICLY apologized for) is that had they just sent me a private message requesting that I remove my videos due to alleged copyright infringement, I would have done so voluntarily. Because see, youtube doesn't like having naughty, rule breaking, copy right infringers on the site. So if you get X number of complaints filed against you, your account gets locked and you're kicked out of the you tube community. This is what happened to some people who had several vids removed concurrently. I only had 2 removed the first day and I went ahead and removed the others before I had any more complaints filed.

That's how it works.

It's been an interesting discussion. I certainly have learned a lot--though I will say there still seems to be a lot of grey area.

I can completely appreciate all sides to the issue. But I'm starting to think that maybe we need to get very proactive about the laws. As someone else mentioned, one of the fun things about going to a big event like RK3DE is taking all the pics and video and coming back to share with all your horsey friends (and non horsey friends). It's amazing how much interest for the sport can be rustled up when folks get to hear the whistle blow and then see shots of horses rounding the corning, jumping big stuff and galloping off to the next question. It's exhilirating. It's fun. It's about the coolest thing you can see.

And ammy photography/videography is what gets spread around. Yes, we buy copies of the highlight DVD and the full DVD. And yes, we have a "pony party" and watch it and drink beer and hang out. But we also pull out our personal vids of Teddy at HOTL coming down the bank and into the water and splashing by....a perspective that one doesn't see on the retail DVD. ;) Or maybe the video of the horse that got caught in the jump and we were standing right there.

You get my point. We buy the merchandise, but man, it's fun to watch the shots taken while you were RIGHT THERE. (I'm grinning just thinking about it. Luckily, I've got 'em on my hard drive and I can go watch them now. )

:D

I digress.

In summary, you tube does not do the searching. The complainant does.

Gotta go watch some vids now. Sorry I can't share. ;)

carolprudm

Oct. 11, 2007, 11:22 AM

Ever since Price whined that he is losing money because those bad kids were downloading instead of buying his music video, these types of sites, including youtube, are riding the edge of lawsuits and shutdown. Just ask Napster.

Tell me about it. I recieved a letter signed by the president of Bernina USA (OK, rubber stamped) accusing me of buying and using pirated embroidery designs on EBAY and threatining a $$$$$ lawsuit if I don't pay a penalty and return the unspecified designs.

Adamantane

Oct. 11, 2007, 02:07 PM

Tell me about it. I recieved a letter signed by the president of Bernina USA (OK, rubber stamped) accusing me of buying and using pirated embroidery designs on EBAY and threatining a $$$$$ lawsuit if I don't pay a penalty and return the unspecified designs.

Was there any similarity between what you were doing and what they had? There actually are IP protections for some kinds of designs, and legitimately so -- what if Mickey Mouse was free for everyone to use? -- but sometimes similarity is in the eye of a financially motivated beholder. I had a friend who a dot.com ISP outfit tried to extort money and stop from using a domain name or some such that had been his long before anybody around here ever had heard of the outfit. His lawyer told him to tell them to stuff it, which he did, and they diappeared from his life forever. (The dot.com still exists, so I'm sure that once their bluff was called their lawyers advised them to forget it.)

KaraAD

Oct. 11, 2007, 02:41 PM

TangledWeb - If you're not a lawyer, you should think about a career change! Great explanation!

Phaxxton - As others have pointed out, broadcast rights are not a seperate defined intellectual property right like a copyright. The network have the sole rights to broadcast the Giants game because the Giants, the Stadiums and the NFL have gotten together and sold (via contract) the right to broadcast the games to the Network. Again, the teams, the Stadiums and the League have gotten together and made sure that they retained those rights and that the attendees are restricted from recording the game for commercial purposes (its on the ticket stub and posted in the stadium and even put into the broadcast). Usually the language on the stub at a game prevents commercial photography (so that you can still take a picture of yourself standing near your favorite player and post it if you want) and usually the language on a concert stub prevents even bringing anytype of recording sound or video in to the concert hall. But what an attendee can and can not do is based on what the language of the notice says.

Someone asked about Fair Use - fair use relates to a use by someone of someone else's copyrighted work. Not applicable here because the OP didn't use C-H's video. But, as an example, if I was writing a paper for school about the Rolex Event and C-H had interviewed someone and put the interview in the DVD or in a publication, I would be able to quote in my paper some part of that video or publication. I need to put quotes around it and properly attribute it to C-H's copyrighted work but that would be one fair use of C-H's copyrighted video / publication. I wouldn't be infringeing.

ESG

Oct. 11, 2007, 04:44 PM

Game, set and match to COTH, led by BuddyRoo, tangledweb, and caffienated. Zip to "Bob" and billdinva.

Oops - I published a score for a sporting event (Carr-Hughes baiting). Is there copyright infringement involved? Will the YouTube/CH police be knocking on my door?

BuddyRoo

Oct. 11, 2007, 04:53 PM

LOL. :lol:

Nah, I don't really care that much to be honest. Gotta choose your battles to win your wars, ya know? A little surprised how many weighed in. I get 10 replies to "my horse is sick with Potomac" and 6 pages on you tube! Wow!

So anyway....back to my sick horse....

ESG

Oct. 11, 2007, 04:58 PM

Oh, BuddyRoo, I'm sorry to hear about your pony. Jingling for a swift recovery.

BuddyRoo

Oct. 11, 2007, 05:01 PM

Thanks ESG. I think she's gonna be okay.

but really...it IS surprising about the you tube. And kind of sad too. But, on the upside, I did watch all of my Rolex coverage earlier today and it put a big smile on my face. :D

Glimmerglass

Jan. 7, 2008, 10:08 PM

I'm digging this thread back up after passing by the Rolex 2008 ticket website.

I can't say I recall this last year on their site, but to echo my comments posted before this appears to address this subject:

Rolex 3-Day Event Tickets (http://www.rk3de.org/tickets.htm)

EVENT ADMISSION CONDITIONS
Any ticket and/or any other admission items are a revocable license, ...[snip] .. [b]Holder agrees not to transmit or aid in transmitting any description, account, picture or reproduction of this event in whole or in part. Breach of any of the foregoing automatically terminates this license. Holder acknowledges that this event may be broadcast or otherwise publicized, and Holder hereby grants permission to EEI, the Kentucky Horse Park, the Fédération Equestre Internationale, the U.S. Equestrian Federation, the United States Equestrian Team Foundation, the United States Eventing Association, the Mid-South Eventing & Dressage Association, Rolex Watch U.S.A., Farnam, and any other sponsors and their designees or agents to utilize the Holder’s image or likeness, without compensation, in connection with any live or recorded broadcast, transmission or other reproduction of this event. ... [continued]

As I said, like baseball and any other professional sport or event they typically have language limiting spectator's right to share a "reproduction" of the event meaning your video (not just video as seen on tv and aired by a network)...

In professional baseball, although it has long been made a punch line, there is the uber famous disclaimer aired during the broadcast (tv, radio, and internet) of every MLB game:

Any rebroadcast, reproduction, or other use of the pictures and accounts of this game without the express written consent of Major League Baseball is prohibited.

I suspect that in some capacity that type of right exists for Rolex and was conveyed to Carr-Hughes upon award. Effectively the exclusive right to all competition on the medium of video was granted in exchange for financial compensation. Meaning Carr-Hughes put up the money for the broadcast rights to the Rolex organizers which in turn helps fund and supports the on-going annual event.

Go back to the MLB disclaimer - which has been legally challenged and successfully won - which states "any reproduction ... and accounts of this ..". Meaning even though Jane Doe might videotape a Mets game at Shea Stadium in person with her own camera phone it would be in violation to reproduce it because it reflects the accounts of game. e.g., the video reflects the 4th player on the homes team roster hits a home run in the 3rd inning.

My guess - and I'll be quick to say I don't know it all - is that when you buy a ticket to Rolex there are a lot of disclaimers attached to it. From waiving liability rights to their right to eject disorder patrons, et al I wouldn't be shocked if there was language that may mirror in spirit at least what MLB does.

BuddyRoo

Jan. 7, 2008, 10:33 PM

Yeah, based on that, I guess our still pics can't go online this year either, eh? What a disservice to the sport. Sigh.

Unlike major league baseball which is broadcast in whole...all anyone can get of Rolex is a 1 hr compilation of highlights. Hardly enough to really get a feel for what is there in total.

I think they're cutting off their noses to spite their faces, but the rules are the rules. Guess I won't be doing the annual photo album anymore.

halla

Jan. 7, 2008, 11:13 PM

MySparrow

Jan. 8, 2008, 12:07 AM

Obviously, you didn't take these videos, so you really have no right to post them on a public domain like youtube. You can't even display them on a private site without permission. If you purchased a copy of the video, you did so with the understanding that you were going to view it privately, and not for profit or for public use. That right belongs to owner --the company that shot and produced the tape and retains all rights to it, both public and private.

Next time take your own video camera ...and leave your infringement worries at home. ;)

I read it quite the other way -- that she did post her own videos, not some that she "displayed without permission" taken by someone else.

What a shame.

War Admiral

Jan. 8, 2008, 12:20 AM

Wait, so we can't even post a *description* of the event? WTF? That seems way way over the line. And if picture is included, I suppose that means no more advertising by trainers showing themselves riding at Rolex, or horses competing there. That seems completely insane to me.

Your perception is accurate. That is COMPLETELY insane.

I vote that henceforth we all make no mention of R8lex whatsoever, since even mentioning "I went to R8lex and it was gr8" on this forum constitutes a "description or account". We could, after all, get COTH in trouble, and nobody wants that! :eek:

See what your marketing department thinks of THAT one, Bob! The biggest horsey forum on the internet with NO mention of R8lex whatsoever? THAT's gonna put some bums in seats and attract some more sponsorship.... Way to go...

BuddyRoo

Jan. 8, 2008, 12:34 AM

MySparrow, and others....

She is correct. When this post was done a few months ago, the issue was that my uploads to youtube were considered copyright infringement.

I took the videos with my Sony H5. I have always ALSO purchased the official ROLEX video....but it ALWAYS sucks. And still, I (and all my friends who go) buy it. But we sit at certain fences, in fact arriving before the gates are even open on Sat (at about 6:45am)--we arrive to get GREAT SEATS and get GREAT SHOTS.

We all come armed with cameras. In fact, it's almost a contest to see who can get the best shots.

Anyway, I've never posted anythin I didn't take myself. And I guess I broke the rules. As soon as I was alerted to the problem, I took my vids down. But it sucked because Carr Hughes did not give me the opportunity to take them down before filing a complaint with you tube thus jeopordizing my account.

FWIW--they APOLOGIZED publically and privately for that--I contacted them privately and they did respond here as well. I don't think the're the "bad guys"...just the "misguided guys". If their product was more comprehensive and better, and if they were taking advantage of PR created by independent posters like me, they'd make more money.

It's a matter of milking the cow vs priming the race horse. Cow milkers take what is in front of them with no foresight and milk til it's dry. Racers prime the animal and think of the future races. If they were race horse owners, they'd applaud me and even give me a forum--create a competition for submission to their video, someting...to promote the sport and get more $$. They're cow milking. Cows die. Milk runs dry.

I will always have a camera.

caffeinated

Jan. 8, 2008, 09:27 AM

Holder agrees not to transmit or aid in transmitting any description, account, picture or reproduction of this event in whole or in part

PICTURES?

:no:

Again, most of the fun of going is taking all the pictures and sharing them later. Heck, that's half the reason I went to Rolex in the first place- I saw peoples' photos and their descriptions, and had to see it for myself.

I love that the production company is getting coverage on major networks, but this kind of thing really bothers me. Since when do amateur photographs, video, and commentary really "compete" with the profits? We're horse people. We'll watch anything horse related on TV, listen to any commentary where we might learn something, no matter what. Heck, even if we know the results and outcome, and have seen photos and videos of pieces of rides, we're still going to tune in and watch it because we're so delighted to get some TV coverage every once in a while.

bah.

Glimmerglass

Jan. 8, 2008, 10:13 AM

I really don't think anyone connected with the Rolex Kentucky Three-Day is looking to squash anyone's enthusiasm as a spectator. That means they are not outright banning video recorders or still picture photography at the gate.

What anyone can logically assume is that they (like most sporting events) are grappling with the new media era and rapid changes. They don't know the impact of youtube or even facebook, myspace, flickr on their revenue stream. Until now most video has been either amateur and/or of low grade quality. Technology is rapidly changing that and outlets like youtube allow video clips of far more then 90-second bursts to be aired.

What once was personal shot photos that had to get developed and at best could be passed out to friends physically can be shared to huge communities online.

Does that hurt the RK3D by having photos and clips shown in advance of say NBC airing it? My little opinion says no - the results are published the next day in the papers and some on-line official reporters (like the Chronicle) have images and detailed descriptions the evening of each day.

Still the organizers have to be prudent/cautious and insert protective language like I cited off their website (which everyone agrees to upon purchasing a ticket); they'll still selectively enforce it sadly which appears to have been the case with the original poster of this thread. I wouldn't however get angry and retailiate against the RK3D and swear off doing what you like to do by attending and taking the pictures you want.

Kareen

Jan. 8, 2008, 10:17 AM

Does anybody else find this course of action completely counterproductive for the sport? I would wish that anybody who has access to a camera would plaster their privately obtained footage a-n-y-w-h-e-r-e on the internet to fight this kind of BS outside the courts. This is ridiculous. Almost as bizarre a concept as patent rights to live animal genoms... Did anybody at this company ever think it could actually *cost* them business to enforce such publishing-rights? I mean one reason why companies like this are in business is because there *are* events that raise enough public interest to warrant a profit from these very rights. How are sports struggling for enough public attention (like eventing is) supposed to maintain a fan community if rights are restricted this way? It is almost like they are sawing on the branch they are sitting on. It is good business concepts relying on monopolisation of what should be common rights are more and more falling out of fashion and undermined by forums such as youtube or myvideo. Whoever has spent the money on a ticket and made the effort to go there should be entitled to share their own personal footage with whomever they chose. Otherwise where are you supposed to begin? What do you do if your own horse is competing there? Could you force you to actually purchase footage from your own horse from them? How about companies making a profit selling footage from someone elses horse pay for at least their entry fees - hey why not for their upbringing and training expenses on top? Afterall they want to use your effort to make a profit off?!
Would make more sense to me than any of this copyrighting someone elses videos concept don't you agree?

Ghazzu

Jan. 8, 2008, 10:34 AM

It's a matter of milking the cow vs priming the race horse. Cow milkers take what is in front of them with no foresight and milk til it's dry.

On behalf of my dairy farmer friends, that is one of the most inaccurate and crappy analogies I've heard.

You might as well say that race horse people run their horses into the ground and then dump them.

Lori B

Jan. 8, 2008, 10:49 AM

Right on, Kareen.

I second the commentators who have observed that the videos they sell of the event after the fact are pitiful and truncated, and the still pics on the site are the tiniest fraction of what they should be publishing of the event.

Folks like BuddyRoo and similar COTHers are the BEST sort of fans and ambassadors for eventing. Enthusiastic, knowledgeable, and willing to spend time and money on the event. The last thing in the world the production companies should be doing is hassling them. If they don't want the web full of amateur video streams, they should be producing better and more complete videos of the event themselves. Heck if they were smart they would sponsor a photo and video contest for amateur spectators photographers and videographers.

Production companies can't seem to wrap their minds around the fact that we live in a time where nearly any motivated participant in an event can produce some kind of media stream of their experience. The folks who are making money are the ones who understand this and foster it, not the ones who are trying to put the genie back in the bottle.

tangledweb

Jan. 8, 2008, 11:43 AM

In buying a ticket, it seems they want you to agree not to email photos to your friends, post them on forums, facebook, myspace or blogs. If you are a competitor your friends and family cannot take pictures for you to put on your web page or in your sale ads. Really, even moving photos from your camera to a computer or printer involves transmission. Want to phone your friends and give them an "account" or "description" of your day? Can't do that either.

The contact form on their website is here:
http://www.rk3de.org/contact_us.php

If these restrictions bother you or discourage you from buying a ticket, I think you should ask exactly what they will permit. I don't think many people have a problem with there being one official DVD and broadcast of the event, but a broadly written ban on transmitting even a written account is nuts in 2008 when many normal non-commercial, social activities involve transmitting information.

Sending lawyers to harass your paying customers and most loyal fans seems like a very strange way to increase patronage.

BuddyRoo

Jan. 8, 2008, 01:22 PM

Ghazzu

Jan. 8, 2008, 01:50 PM

Ghazzu--I didn't mean it literally.

I was talking about it from a business perspective. That's a "phrase" we use around here a lot. People milking the system the way it is now vs investing in the future and seeing the bigger picture. People who are static vs people who want to gallop on down to bigger/better things.

I was not intending to imply that dairy farmers are asshats. But thank you for making the leap. It made me giggle.

I'm a bit sensitive to it, having milked cows for a brief period in my earlier days.
It is probably the hardest job I've ever had. Those folks kill themselves for very little money.
And they take good care of their cows, because you don't *get* milk out of an uncared for cow.:D

Valentina_32926

Jan. 8, 2008, 01:54 PM

My assumption is title was something like "Rolex 3 day event video" - next time say something like "My ride or X's ride in an horsey event" - minus the event title i(t's impossible to tell where it was taken) - and believe me ther are not going to waste the effort going through every single horsey video out there too see if they can find any taken at "their" site.

bambam

Jan. 8, 2008, 02:00 PM

Unlike major league baseball which is broadcast in whole...all anyone can get of Rolex is a 1 hr compilation of highlights. Hardly enough to really get a feel for what is there in total.

Not true- least year you were able to get DVDs of each day which showed every single ride, unedited (without commentary which is fine with me) for IIRC $20 per day. Based on how popular it was (they had trouble getting enought done for pick-up Sunday because they received way more orders than they expected) I bet they do it this year too. You could get them at Rolex or you could order them off the website afterwards (probably still can). Much better IMHO than the edited DVD.

BuddyRoo

Jan. 8, 2008, 02:10 PM

I'm talking about broadcast. All that gets broadcast is about an hour long compilation of highlights on NBC. Which, btw, we're super THANKFUL for, but it's still quite a small portion when you compare that to a baseball game being broadcast in its entirety.

And yes, I realize you can buy the dvds. we do.

But....I have a pretty cool perspective when I'm standing in the creek as the horse jumps (over by HOTL) that they're not getting. And it's fun to show say, my mom.

At any rate, it's illegal to do so now, I get that. I just think as I stated before that rather than squelch the basically free PR or view ammys as competition, they ought to do a contest for video submissions or something.

If all I knew of Rolex was what you can catch on NBC, I would not be as GEEKED as I am when I simply flip through my photos or vids. GEEKED is the right word. Coolest stuff EVER. XC day to my friends and I (Team Kemowasabi) is like Christmas morning to a 6 YO. We can't sleep, we're up at the crack of dawn, we're giggling like idiots, and having a BLAST. And when we get home, we spread the joy via our pics and vids and as a result? Each year, we suck newbies in. :) Last year our normal group of 4 turned into nearly 20 people from another horse BB because they had seen our pics. And guess what? Theyr'e all going back. And bringing friends.

We're a GREAT PR team for the event.

CHProductions

Jan. 10, 2008, 10:13 AM

Dear Rolex Fans,

Due in part to your input, both on the COTH BB and via email, Carr-Hughes has revised the policy on allowing Rolex fans to post video clips on YouTube. Below you will find our new policy. And as always, please feel free to contact us directly if you have any additional questions.

Our company, Carr-Hughes Productions, has been involved with the Rolex Kentucky Three-Day Event since 1999. We have worked side-by-side with the event organizers, sponsors and television broadcast companies both nationally and internationally to make “Rolex” a premiere equestrian event in the United States. Prior to our involvement with “Rolex”, television coverage of the event was limited to local broadcasting on Kentucky Public Television. Today, “Rolex” can be seen in over 125 countries, on a variety of networks including NBC, ESPN-Star Sports, CNBC and Eurosport. This would never have been possible without a great deal of financial investment on the part of the event organizers, long time, loyal sponsors such as Rolex, USA, broadcast companies such as NBC and a desire from Carr-Hughes to do everything we can to promote an event that we care deeply about.

As you can probably understand, as this event has grown, so too have the legalities and complexities of running it. The television broadcast rights alone are a very complex and complicated issue. Carr-Hughes is responsible for protecting and enforcing these rights, which include prohibiting public use of video images of the event (these same rules apply to events such as The Super Bowl, The Daytona 500, Kentucky Derby, rock concerts, etc… ). As someone stated in the COTH forum, the back of a Rolex ticket does indeed state that the “Holder agrees not to transmit or aid in transmitting any description, account, picture or reproduction of this event in whole or in part”.

Unfortunately there have been serious rights violations occurring on a regular basis which we have had to address. Until now our policy was to remove ALL videos containing Rolex footage from public media venues, which included the internet and more specifically YouTube. Upon further discussion of this policy, we have decided to make an exception in regards to Rolex fans posting their own personal video footage on YouTube. Going forward, as long as the footage is clearly shot from a personal video camera, and not directly copied from the official Rolex TV shows, web casts or DVD’s, (and is not excessive in length) we will not ask that it be removed from YouTube. Of course, there may be exceptions when we do in fact ask that a video clip be removed (injury of a horse and/or rider for example), but if this is the case, we will go directly to the account holder first and ask them to remove the clip voluntarily, so their YouTube account will not be penalized with a copy right’s violation.

We sincerely hope that this decision will again encourage Rolex fans to post their own video clips on YouTube, to be shared with friends, family and Rolex fans from around the world. Hope to see you all in April 2008!

Sincerely,
Liz Hughes

BuddyRoo

Jan. 10, 2008, 10:24 AM

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you!

johnnysauntie

Jan. 10, 2008, 10:26 AM

This is an extremely thoughtful and accommodating response from CH Productions. It will protect their professionally produced media, and at the same time will let fans share their experiences -- which as pointed out in earlier posts, helps raise the visibility of the event.

I'm really impressed with this response from CH Productions. Many other media companies have been less accommodating.

BuddyRoo

Jan. 10, 2008, 10:36 AM

Exactly! Aside from the initial issue I had, once I contacted them they have explained their position and I think this latest update is huge. They certainly don't HAVE to allow any of it.

Thank you CH!

Lori B

Jan. 10, 2008, 10:49 AM

Bob and CH -- Well done! Eventing and Rolex are fortunate for your involvement in the event AND the sport. Thank you for listening, and for making your policies fair and in the best interests of the sport.

pharmgirl

Jan. 10, 2008, 10:55 AM

All I can say is Wow! What Lori B and others said. Thanks to Bob, Liz and everyone at CH. I feel lucky that people like yourselves are involved with our sport :yes:

zagafi

Jan. 10, 2008, 11:13 AM

Wow! I am utterly impressed by CH's response. Thanks so much for doing this for the sport and its fans!

bambam

Jan. 10, 2008, 11:43 AM

Between this post and Bob Hughes' in the past, it is quite clear that Carr Hughes Production is a class operation
CHProductions, your willingness to accomodate fans, as well as Bob's yearly posts asking for feedback, go far and beyond what I would expect and what most companies are willing to do, as you were obviously well within your rights to limit any broadcast of the event

PalominoMorgan

Jan. 10, 2008, 12:04 PM

Very cool of them. I still like someone's suggestion that they have an ammy video contest as well. There are LOTS of folks who get some great video on their own whether it is from knowing the sport better or just being at the right place at the right time. Would be very cool to be able to search out and see the highlights everyone captured.

Side note: I cannot wait to be able to take a vacation to watch Rolex. Got to walk around the horse park last year and was giggling just imagining the place filled with fans, horses, riders, etc. If it hadn't been so blasted cold that day I would have been off to walk the XC course too to really scare the crap out of my DH.