Carr-Hughes Productions at it again with fake Rolex copyright claims

[tangledweb]

(Disclaimer: I happened to be near fence 5 at Rolex, and don't want to reexamine my own photos or see other people's photos or videos of the Frodo incident, but I don't believe in companies misusing the legal system to bully people)

In spite of what they said on this forum last year, it looks like Carr-Hughes Productions are at it again.
Videos on youtube that are clearly amateur footage are disappearing with the message "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Carr-Hughes Productions"
eg: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mU0Gv9DoBg

Now to be clear, this was clearly handheld amateur footage. Copyright therefore belongs to the photographer. No matter what C-H's "policy" might be, the law says that copyright belongs to the creator.

But, it is footage many people do not want to see on youtube, so presumably somebody at Carr-Hughes, or a lawyer acting for the 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".

Being willing to perjure yourself because it was the most efficient way to get material you did not want off YouTube is one thing, but doing once, then promising some of your most loyal customers you will not to do it again, then doing it again is ridiculous.

Here is what they said last year:
Dear Rolex Fans,

[blah blah]
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

[One Star]

YouTube has also suspended that user's account. :eek:

[Glimmerglass]

Before you get irked at Carr-Hughes I assume the following is at play here.

Some video on youtube.com likely was sourced from the video feed done by C-H and fully protected by copyrights. Accordingly C-H reaches out to youtube.com and indicates that copyright violations exists on their service. Based upon that youtube.com's employees to yank down all video with the Rolex Three-Day label.

I doubt that C-H has to look at every possible shared bit of video, identify it, then send that roll call of violators to youtube for action.

Rather C-H can push the housekeeping chores back to youtube.com to pull down the videos. The gripe really should be at youtube.com for a more of a wholesale removal of video.

[tangledweb]

Nope. YouTube require a list of specific URLs they do not want to spend time doing housekeeping.
http://www.youtube.com/t/dmca_policy

If you are a frequent abuser/user of takedown notices, you can even sign up for their automated service so you can electronically flag individual videos.
http://www.youtube.com/t/copyright_program

[LLDM]

Unfortunately trying to cover it all over just makes it all look, well, even more awful than it already is. :cry:

Good luck stuffing the genie back in the bottle Bob. Let us know how that works out for you. YouTube is NOT the only video site out there. :uhoh:

SCFarm

[LLDM]

Before you get irked at Carr-Hughes I assume the following is at play here.

Some video on youtube.com likely was sourced from the video feed done by C-H and fully protected by copyrights. Accordingly C-H reaches out to youtube.com and indicates that copyright violations exists on their service. Based upon that youtube.com's employees to yank down all video with the Rolex Three-Day label.

I doubt that C-H has to look at every possible shared bit of video, identify it, then send that roll call of violators to youtube for action.

Rather C-H can push the housekeeping chores back to youtube.com to pull down the videos. The gripe really should be at youtube.com for a more of a wholesale removal of video.

Um, don't think so. The obviously pirated Teddy SJ video is still up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VssXgFNnySk

From the Description:

The title explains it all.
NO, I DO NOT OWN THESE CLIPS! I WATCHED THE ROLEX LIVE OVER THE COMPUTER, AND RECORDED IT FROM THERE. Thanks.
(14.1hh Sport Pony gelding, finished 6th at Rolex 2008)


Title: Teddy O' Connor: Stadium Jumping: Rolex 2008

Tags: teddy connor pony gelding sport eventing rolex 2008 event amazing 6th place 14.1

SCFarm

[JER]

And there are other ways to watch the video online. It's still there for the looking.

[Nikki^]

It's sad that Carr-Hughes Productions is being controlling. I hate controlling people. The videos were taken by people at the event with their OWN cameras and want to share the video. I read the comments and one named Mr.Moe was pissing and moaning about it. He was writing in all caps "THIS VIDEO WILL BE REMOVED AND YOU WILL BE BANNED."
If you hate the video so much, then don't watch it. The video shows a rotational fall and the rider unluckily fell under the horse. Nothing more. There are tons of those videos on YouTube. It's up there not to laugh at but to show people what happened.

While the Frodo Fall video is taken down, all the other Rolex footage is still up and running. It's all those people pissing and moaning about the Frodo Video that got it taken off YouTube. Personally I would put it on a website of my own an if Carr-Hughes complains about my own footage, that I took with my camera, about the accident, I would tell them to shove it. Did I mention I hate controlling people?

Give it a few months and the video will be back on. The Amy Tryon video is back up on YouTube and nobody is complaining.

*This is not a snark against Frodo or his rider. I hope she makes a full recovery.*

[LexInVA]

It's certainly possible that CH threw a hissy fit and YouTube capitulated but they had absolutely no reason to do that since footage from the webcast can only be saved by those who are knowledgeable enough to do so (which pretty much eliminates everyone who got the webcast) and the event hasn't aired on any broadcast network yet.

[PineTreeFarm]

From Rolex's website. Terms and conditions for ticket holders.

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

[tangledweb]

From Rolex's website. Terms and conditions for ticket holders.

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

Yep, so anybody who transmitted a description of the event by describing it on this website, or put photos on flickr or facebook or wherever probably breached the terms and conditions. If you have a digital camera, you probably breached the stupidly broadly written conditions by transmitting the pictures from your own camera to your own computer or printer.

That still does not mean they own the copyright to your photos, videos or written descriptions, but they would probably be within their rights to take your ticket off you, evict you from the grounds, and refuse to admit you in future years.

You own copyright to material you create. It does not belong to somebody else just because they know lawyers are expensive so most people will back down.

[Lori B]

Agree w/ Nikky 100% on this. No one is making money on their amateur footage, and it's annoying, heavy-handed, and pointless for C-H to try to keep amateur media of any kind from being shared on the web.

The accident was a terrible tragedy. But it happened at a public event, in front of thousands of attendees. If you are going to have a problem with finding images or movies of your participation in this event shared on the web, then you'd best not participate. I don't understand why people think they have an expectation of privacy and control under such circumstances.

I would rather have photos and video available for people to see than read a 2,000 entry thread of speculation, hearsay, and hysterically escalating theorizing on the same sequence of events. I watched the video, I think it does fairly clearly show that they came into that fence very fast and very flat, which seem to have contributed to the crash. I don't understand what values are served by suppressing this free flow of information.

[Highflyer]

You aren't even allowed to take a camera/ video recorder to many ticketed/ pro sporting events. It's not like this is a new, diabolical rule C-H invented for eventing. It's probably the industry standard.

[ArtilleryHill]

Actually, considering that the Frodo tragedy appeared to have been taken out of their webcast video, it's kind of funny that now C-H appears to be claiming someone else's video of it is under the C-H copyright ...

[caffeinated]

No. See, I can go to a basketball or football game and tell folks about it over a beer. The way the ticket reads insists that you not convey any information in any manner about what was seen.

actually if you watch sports on TV, they usually have the same disclaimer. Doesn't stop anyone from telling others about it, or bringing their cameras to games, but the "rule" reads the same.

[bambam]

look at your ticket stub for any MLB, NFL, NHL game or concert and I bet it essentially says the same thing. This is not some nefarious provision that Carr-Hughes came up with for Rolex- it is industry standard. It is how they protect the HUGE investment they made in taping the event in exchange for exclusive broadcast rights.
Is the language over-broad? as it pertains to all descriptions and still pictures, probably. But they are not demanding that people take down their personal webshots photos. They are protesting broadcasting on the web in the exact medium they bought the rights to exclusively broadcast and from the source that probably harms them the most- youtube
I really don't have a problem with that

[useventers]

Actually, considering that the Frodo tragedy appeared to have been taken out of their webcast video, it's kind of funny that now C-H appears to be claiming someone else's video of it is under the C-H copyright ...

GOOD POINT!

[Nikki^]

Instead of C-H being all pansy like about the AMATEUR footage about the accident, how about C-H posting their own footage on line and every time someone watches it, $5 or $10 dollars will be donated to Laine to help with hospital and vet bills. They can set up a paypal account where ALL the money donated will go directly to for her medical bills. There can also be an option for those who want to donate more money.

If people can see the accident, they can fully understand what happened.

Trying to hide the footage just makes people mad and suspicious.

[RugBug]

In spite of what they said on this forum last year, it looks like Carr-Hughes Productions are at it again.

I guess you didn't fully read what you quoted from CHProductions. Specifically this part:

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),

There is no 'in spite of' here. They pretty clearly state that some clips of this sort may be removed... so why all the fuss?

[Glimmerglass]

This same discussion was well documented last year as well

Discussion thread: Posting RK3DE vids--CH has changed policy!-see post 102 (http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=117471&page=5)

With my post #85 I cited the new change in the Rolex Three-day web site with restrictions [for ticket holders] as to what can be transmitted ....

[vineyridge]

So is Carr-Hughes going to sue the Lexington newspapers or the NY Times for their stories and photos? Seems like that's just as much a breach of the ticket terms (for the photographers) as publishing personal videos on the web.

Or are there special exceptions for news people? What about professional photographers who are working with individual competitors and post their photos through their business sites?

I can see if the Carr-Hughes Production footage was being pirated, but this is ridiculous.

As someone said, you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

[Lori B]

If we all just ignore the rules, they aren't going to take us all to court. Just say no to corporate media bullying, regardless of the source. This problem calls for a little anarchy. I was at the event, and will go again, and if I ever wind up with a photo or piece of footage of serious and public interest, I will use it as I see fit, with the exception of making money from it. I encourage everyone else to do the same.

And telling me that other pro sports have the same rules doesn't make me care more about those rules either.

Edited to add: I double-dog dare all these weasel lawyers to take everyone's cell phones away from them on the way in the gate of every game, show, event, etc. Cell phones are all cameras now. As much as they'd like to try to suppress and own images of events that they sponsor, it's just not possible any longer. And trying just insults our intelligence.

[bambam]

you are free to do that but when you bought a ticket, you essentially agreed to the terms on the ticket, which include this limitation.
I guess I just don't see what the fuss is about

[tangledweb]

I guess you didn't fully read what you quoted from CHProductions. Specifically this part:

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),

There is no 'in spite of' here. They pretty clearly state that some clips of this sort may be removed... so why all the fuss?


Way to selectively quote there. The remainder of that sentence you quoted above is "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."

But yes, you could read that as saying they will ask politely "first", then only submit a fraudulent takedown notice if that fails to get the result they want.

[bambam]

then only submit a fraudulent takedown notice if that fails to get the result they want.
what part is fraudulent?

[tangledweb]

what part is fraudulent?

The part where they claim they own the copyright to footage they did not take.

[moonriverfarm]

I believe it is called MONOPOLY. And not the board game.
I will never go to an event that can legally take my photos and videos from me - if they let cameras in, too bad for them.

[vineyridge]

Of course another point is that the ticket is a contract between the ticket buyer and Rolex, not between the spectator and Carr-Hughes. Carr-Hughes has a contract with Rolex, and whether or not that contract allows them to enforce the Rolex rules where the footage is not under their copyright is something that we just don't know.

If Rolex doesn't want people to take and use photos, it should be the one to enforce its rules.

[JER]

So is Carr-Hughes going to sue the Lexington newspapers or the NY Times for their stories and photos? Seems like that's just as much a breach of the ticket terms (for the photographers) as publishing personal videos on the web.


Rolex gives out press credentials to photogs and reporters to cover the event. Any media outlet can report on the events as news.

[bambam]

The part where they claim they own the copyright to footage they did not take.
that is not fraud even if their copyright claim is incorrect (and I am not sure it is)

[Melliebay]

So is Carr-Hughes going to sue the Lexington newspapers or the NY Times for their stories and photos? Seems like that's just as much a breach of the ticket terms (for the photographers) as publishing personal videos on the web.

Or are there special exceptions for news people? What about professional photographers who are working with individual competitors and post their photos through their business sites?

I can see if the Carr-Hughes Production footage was being pirated, but this is ridiculous.

As someone said, you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

Media and photographers are the exception. I was at Rolex with a media pass. I was NOT allowed to shoot video, but I was allowed to shoot and share photos. Video is a big no-no because Carr Hughes has the EXCLUSIVE on Rolex video. There is not an EXCLUSIVE photographer at Rolex.

[IveGotRhythm]

I've probably got no right to reply here, but here I go.
I'm a 40 year old re-rider who grew up showing hunters. I was always attracted to eventing but it just wasn't around where I was so I never had the chance.

Fast forward 25 years and the way I showed hunters no longer exists. So I have become increasingly fascinated with eventing.

Possibly the greatest attraction has been the eventing community as I have witnessed it on this board. Never have I seen such solidarity in admitting there is a problem and a group effort to find a solution to that problem.

That said, this video deserves to be witnessed. If not through the official company, then on YouTube (and it has been established that Carr-Hughes has pulled it).

For people like me, who are drawn to eventing and think it's a sport they might like to try, the descriptions, diagrams, and understanding the mechanics and consequenses of a rotational fall do not compare to seven seconds of video that took my breath away and left me in tears.

In NO WAY does this lessen my respect for eventers or even my desire to event (at LL's, of course). It does give me respect beyond what any words could ever convey for the risks I would be taking with my life and that of my horse.

If Carr-Hughes does not wish to make this video avialable to the public then someone should. Leave it up on YouTube. For everyone who watches it out of morbid curiosity there are 100 people who really need to learn a lesson from it.

Not a lesson of cruelty, but a lesson of respect.

[vineyridge]

Rolex gives out press credentials to photogs and reporters to cover the event. Any media outlet can report on the events as news.

So does that mean that if I'm an amateur photographer and get a really clear shot of a newsworthy fall, I can't sell the thing to a news organization? And I wonder if the NY Times bothered to get Rolex press credentials for an on site reporter. Or would one reporter with press credentials suffice for all newspapers subscribing to the AP? If it's news in the Lexington paper, it's news on YouTube. H & H posted a link to the YouTube video in their coverage of the accident.

[tangledweb]

that is not fraud even if their copyright claim is incorrect (and I am not sure it is)

Possibly true. It could be explained by incompetence instead. Fraud generally requires deliberate deception. It is certainly possible that they genuinely believe they own the copyright to any footage shot within 50 miles of Lexington on any day in April, but I would expect that a company that makes its living creating copyrighted material and selling copies of it on DVD and licensing it for TV and web broadcast would employ at least one person who knows a thing or two about copyright.

[bambam]

this will be my last post on this tangledweb since this is a serious side-point and largely irrelevant to the discussion but I was not disputing the knowingly part. There are several elements to fraud and making a dishonest statement by itself is not fraudulent in any state of which I am aware regardless of whether the statement is knowingly false.
okay I am done hijacking on what is essentially a semantics argument :)

[bird4416]

I've probably got no right to reply here, but here I go.
I'm a 40 year old re-rider who grew up showing hunters. I was always attracted to eventing but it just wasn't around where I was so I never had the chance.

Fast forward 25 years and the way I showed hunters no longer exists. So I have become increasingly fascinated with eventing.

Possibly the greatest attraction has been the eventing community as I have witnessed it on this board. Never have I seen such solidarity in admitting there is a problem and a group effort to find a solution to that problem.

That said, this video deserves to be witnessed. If not through the official company, then on YouTube (and it has been established that Carr-Hughes has pulled it).

For people like me, who are drawn to eventing and think it's a sport they might like to try, the descriptions, diagrams, and understanding the mechanics and consequenses of a rotational fall do not compare to seven seconds of video that took my breath away and left me in tears.

In NO WAY does this lessen my respect for eventers or even my desire to event (at LL's, of course). It does give me respect beyond what any words could ever convey for the risks I would be taking with my life and that of my horse.

If Carr-Hughes does not wish to make this video avialable to the public then someone should. Leave it up on YouTube. For everyone who watches it out of morbid curiosity there are 100 people who really need to learn a lesson from it.

Not a lesson of cruelty, but a lesson of respect.

Excellent post. I saw the video before it was removed and I'd like to see it again. It is awful to watch, but I feel I can learn from it. I'd like to see all footage of it from different views to try and figure out exactly what went wrong. If this kind of accident happened to me, I wouldn't object to anyone seeing video footage if they could learn from it. I hope the video is made available to the higher ups so they can analyze it.

[RugBug]

Way to selectively quote there. The remainder of that sentence you quoted above is "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."

But yes, you could read that as saying they will ask politely "first", then only submit a fraudulent takedown notice if that fails to get the result they want.

You're certain that the request wasn't sent with no reply from the poster?

Even if it wasn't, I'm guessing that CH was taking the quickest measures to get morbid footage down as fast as possible. I don't see anything wrong with that. The footage is gruesome, especially knowing the outcome.

[CHProductions]

Dear Rolex Fan,

This is Liz Hughes from Carr-Hughes Productions. I just wanted to take a moment to touch base with all of you regarding an issue that came up last year regarding posting of personal video from Rolex on sites such as YouTube. We are standing by the revised policy as posted on the COTH. This is clearly evident by the large number of Rolex postings from this year’s event that are currently running on YouTube.

However, we have had to make an exception to our policy and as I’m sure you can guess, it has to do with Laine Asker’s tragic accident on Saturday. Due to the extreme graphic nature of the accident and video footage being placed on YouTube, Carr-Hughes took swift action to remove the footage from YouTube immediately, without first contacting the account holder. Waiting, in this case, a few days to clear this up otherwise, was simply not an option.

To be candid we have received a number of complaints about this, and we have received a number of compliments. We know that many of you won’t agree with our stance and we certainly respect your right to your own opinion. Either way, we wanted to go on record letting everyone know why we made the decisions we did.

Along with all of you, our thoughts and prayers are with Laine and her family.

Best regards,
Liz Hughes

[RugBug]

It is awful to watch, but I feel I can learn from it. I'd like to see all footage of it from different views to try and figure out exactly what went wrong.

It's possible to see graphic simulations of rotational falls to see what happens. You do NOT have to watch it happen to an actual horse and rider to learn.

And can you REALLY tell what happened by watching the video anyway? You can come up with a whole lot of maybes. But the definitive answer lies with the rider, who may never remember the fall.

[arnika]

Instead of C-H being all pansy like about the AMATEUR footage about the accident, how about C-H posting their own footage on line and every time someone watches it, $5 or $10 dollars will be donated to Laine to help with hospital and vet bills. They can set up a paypal account where ALL the money donated will go directly to for her medical bills. There can also be an option for those who want to donate more money.


To Liz Hughes,

Having read your above statement I would just like to go on record that I completely disagree with your decision. I agree wholeheartedly with the statement above! After reading that not only did Laine suffer a fractured jaw, fractured skull, fractured vertebrae, fractured ribs and massive internal injuries, I can be fairly sure that her family would appreciate any support that can be offered. Not only would you be delivering welcome financial help but you would also contribute to the safety education of numerous eventers and beginners in the sport. To put your head in the sand is a ridiculous thing to do. This issue is not going away and will only be worse with the next incident.

[bird4416]

It's possible to see graphic simulations of rotational falls to see what happens. You do NOT have to watch it happen to an actual horse and rider to learn.

And can you REALLY tell what happened by watching the video anyway? You can come up with a whole lot of maybes. But the definitive answer lies with the rider, who may never remember the fall.

A simulation doesn't tell me why it happened only what happens after the initial incident that created the fall. I want to know why the fall occured, i.e. bad distance, slip on take off, etc.

[JER]

It's possible to see graphic simulations of rotational falls to see what happens. You do NOT have to watch it happen to an actual horse and rider to learn.

And can you REALLY tell what happened by watching the video anyway? You can come up with a whole lot of maybes. But the definitive answer lies with the rider, who may never remember the fall.

I'm an EMT and have put a lot of time into seeing the aftermath of accidents as well as studying them.

Video is VERY helpful. In EMS classes, we often watch accidents on YouTube and discuss what happened, why and evaluate the EMS response.

(Pilots do the same thing with their flight simulators. They put the conditions of the crash in the simulator to see if they can figure out what could have been done differently to save the situation.)

I think eventers need to see worst-case scenarios. Rotational falls are a reality and need to be seen that way. Rotational falls and dangerous wrecks are not things that happen somewhere to somebody else, they're things that can happen to you.

Carr-Hughes, for all your expressed good intentions, you're not helping anyone. You're sanitizing reality and that is very, very dangerous.

[dressagetraks]

Disclaimer: I've never evented. Just a fringe fan. But I have one suggestion.

Maybe one appropriate place and use for such fall videos, horrific though they may be, would be in the mandatory pre event meetings like Denny said they used to have. Get all the entrants, and as part of the briefing, remind them, right before the event, this is what can happen when you run fast and flat at a vertical, or keep going when your horse is obviously not up to it today, or such.

I remember back in driver's education, we had to sit there and watch movies like "Highway to Death," full of smashed-up cars from DUIs, speeding, actual footage of a few accidents, etc. It DID have an impact. Even on the kids who normally felt immortal. You could see them thinking about it afterwards. Heck, I remember those things and still think of them when a speeder or whoever goes by, and that was 20 years ago.

[event1]

Dear Liz Hughes-

Thank you for trying to police the entire internet world....however, your efforts are basically fruitless considering there were some 50,000 people there of which many of them had video cameras. They are allowed in at the gate and if your company has a problem with this or where spectators personal videos end up-you should take it up with the organizers of Rolex. When a video hits Youtube-people are not making money off of it-they are sharing their own personal experience to whomever chooses to view it-even if it is not in good taste or judgement. You guys at Carr Productions certainly had no problem leaving Le Samuri's horrific breakdown on your video from last year and made money from it-where was your badge then?

Please be advised that this is America and if people do or don't want to view something-that is their right-especially when the person involved chooses to participate in a sport that is at this point being watched closely and highly scrutinized.



Sorry to sound insensitive as I too-hope Laine makes a fast and full recovery. However-lets not forget that her horse Frodo died for her and people need to see what is going on in this sport-the good, the bad and the ugly. The last thing the situation needs is to be hidden and swept under the rug.;)

P.S. I have not seen the video-nor am I interested in doing so.

[wabadou]

Dear Liz Hughes-

Thank you for trying to police the entire internet world....however, your efforts are basically fruitless considering there were some 50,000 people there of which many of them had video cameras. They are allowed in at the gate and if your company has a problem with this or where spectators personal videos end up-you should take it up with the organizers of Rolex. When a video hits Youtube-people are not making money off of it-they are sharing their own personal experience to whomever chooses to view it-even if it is not in good taste or judgement. You guys at Carr Productions certainly had no problem leaving Le Samuri's horrific breakdown on your video from last year and made money from it-where was your badge then?

Please be advised that this is America and if people do or don't want to view something-that is their right-especially when the person involved chooses to participate in a sport that is at this point being watched closely and highly scrutinized.



Sorry to sound insensitive as I too-hope Laine makes a fast and full recovery. However-lets not forget that her horse Frodo died for her and people need to see what is going on in this sport-the good, the bad and the ugly. The last thing the situation needs is to be hidden and swept under the rug.;)

P.S. I have not seen the video-nor am I interested in doing so.

well said

People buy the webcast not only to enjoy watching the sport that they love but for the educational value. We learn from the perfect goes, but even more from the difficulties encountered.

My heart hurts every time I think of Laine, Frodo, and the Quiet Man and the pain and heartache that they're people are feeling right now. I have teenage daughters who are showing at the lower levels and I did myself, also, at their age and I pray everytime that they go out that they will come back safely.
When the video went up on youtube, I was thankful for the educational opportunity and I had them both watch it. They, like many young people, tend to get caught up in the youthful feeling of invincibility. If seeing the video of Laine helps them to ride a bit more carefully and better understand the danger, then they need to see it.

When the video of Laine was cut out, in my mind it was a very short-sighted move by Carr-Hughes. It is a form of censorship, any way you look at it.
We learn from mistakes, our own or others. Laine is an amazing rider who was well prepared for the Rolex competition. What happened to her could happen to anyone, however, if watching the video inspires even one young person to understand the value of being well prepared and more careful, then something good has come from something very tragic.

[CANTEREOIN]

Edited to add: I double-dog dare all these weasel lawyers to take everyone's cell phones away from them on the way in the gate of every game, show, event, etc. Cell phones are all cameras now. As much as they'd like to try to suppress and own images of events that they sponsor, it's just not possible any longer. And trying just insults our intelligence.


They actually do this at PGA (golf) events. It clearly states that cell phones will are not allowed on course and will be taken away.

[Lori B]

After event organizers figure out how to keep spectators out of the galloping lanes when riders are coming through, they can start to worry about micromanaging my contraband camera. Until then, I'll do as I have done. And I strongly second the posts regarding the educational value of crash video.

[Nikki^]

Dear Rolex Fan,


<snip>
However, we have had to make an exception to our policy and as I’m sure you can guess, it has to do with Laine Asker’s tragic accident on Saturday. Due to the extreme graphic nature of the accident and video footage being placed on YouTube, Carr-Hughes took swift action to remove the footage from YouTube immediately, without first contacting the account holder. Waiting, in this case, a few days to clear this up otherwise, was simply not an option.

<snip)
Best regards,
Liz Hughes

Wow. I didn't know you were my mommy. I am an adult and do not like to be told what I can or cannot watch. Who in the hell made you the official "V Chip" of the horse world? And Liz, the footage is not graphic at all. It shows a rotational fall and the rider unluckily got underneath the horse. The footage did not show the horse trying to get back up, fall back down and go into a seizure.

And mommy....er Liz, where were you when the 2 Girls, One Cup footage was going around the internet? Now that is one graphic video!:lol:

[cmannphoto]

It's sad that Carr-Hughes Productions is being controlling. I hate controlling people. The videos were taken by people at the event with their OWN cameras and want to share the video. I read the comments and one named Mr.Moe was pissing and moaning about it.


I find it interesting that people don’t want to read the “Fine Print” of their ticket or online venues, which states:

“…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….”

http://www.rk3de.org/tickets.htm

This clearly states that that you cannot transmit, ie YouTube. Plus, YouTube itself has a clear Copyright Policy that help protect the rights holder, in this case Carr-Hughes. You accept these rules when you purchase your ticket, which is as someone else pointed out is common at many major sporting events and concerts. Additionally, you are violating 2 user agreements by posting a video.

6B. You shall be solely responsible for your own User Submissions and the consequences of posting or publishing them. In connection with User Submissions, you affirm, represent, and/or warrant that: you own or have the necessary licenses, rights, consents, and permissions to use and authorize YouTube to use all patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights in and to any and all User Submissions to enable inclusion and use of the User Submissions in the manner contemplated by the Website and these Terms of Service.
D. In connection with User Submissions, you further agree that you will not submit material that is copyrighted, protected by trade secret or otherwise subject to third party proprietary rights, including privacy and publicity rights, unless you are the owner of such rights or have permission from their rightful owner to post the material and to grant YouTube all of the license rights granted herein."

http://www.youtube.com/t/terms

How would you feel IF next year there was no web or TV coverage at all because Carr-Hughes Productions felt that they could not justify the expense of protecting their Copyright in addition to the Fees paid to get the rights and all the expenses to produce the web coverage, TV Show and DVD?

[moonriverfarm]

I agree with Nikki. But we are definitely in the minority since no one will even share a link to the supposedly-still-there video. Out of sight, out of mind mentality.

[LLDM]

Well, this is surely something that the courts will eventually have to decide. Not so much with this particular issue - but something similar.

Just because C-H asserts they own (or even can own) all of the rights they assert they do, doesn't mean they actually do.

Furthermore, the remedy they cite for enforcing their claims are the revocation of the ticket. Um, yeah, sure, they can have their tickets back now. :D

Oh, and Charlie - how come you get to sell your photos? Just curious about that particular mechanism and how it works. Does C-H get a cut?

Bottom line is that C-H is trying to enforce the unenforceable. I would have thought they had learned last year that it just pisses people off. When they are reasonable, they get a lot of support.

What worries me is now C-H is in the middle of some major goings on with EVENTING - affecting things they really don't know much about. This mess just muddies the water - and frankly makes it look like "eventing" is trying to cover up some horrible things.

So, who asked you, C-H, to pull videos NOT your own? And how sure are you that they are the people you should be listening to?

SCFarm

[cmannphoto]

Oh, and Charlie - how come you get to sell your photos? Just curious about that particular mechanism and how it works. Does C-H get a cut?
SCFarm

I can license my images to publications and other outlets because I have been credentialed through the proper channels and obey the rules that are set by the event. And no, C-H does not get a cut. This past weekend there was a photographer that had their credentials revoked and was escorted off the grounds because they did not follow the rules.

So we have rules to follow when we are credentialed to an event. We don’t always have free run of the place. Other sports are much more restrictive then equestrian sport.

And a final note, photographing the Olympics which have much stricter rules for the media then the Rolex 3 Day.

Charles Mann
Charles Mann Photography

[annikak]

Slightly OT...

I think not having the footage of falls up until every possible angle has been investigated makes total sense. Let the PTB to their work, and then have them available. Take everything they can get their hands on and look at each piece anew.

I also think that if Laines family wanted the footage removed, well, as a mom, I get that.:(

I shot video of the fall- from my camera phone, which was from almost the exact same angle as the Youtube footage. I can honestly say that those that saw it on the Jumbo-Tron vs. those that were looking right at the jump indeed did come away with different opinions of what happened. The rumors that were going around were insane. But the angle that one saw the fall from, and the ability to see the approach made things appear differently...even if the outcome was the exact same.

It is interesting too that many thought she got up- and heard it announced that she did. For those of us there, we know- she never moved. Frodo did indeed get up, but she did not.

I was reminded of a drivers-ed class I took where they showed an accident- and the people that saw it all had totally different stories.

I am sure there is video- lots of it- and i am sure that the PTB are watching each and every frame.

[horse-loverz]

I am interested to see if the video I purchased of cross-country (before the crash) will include the crash or will they edit that out too? Is it going to be the out of site out of mind theory?? If we take away all evidence it didn't happen??
Will Quiet Man's ride be edited out??? Will all the falls be edited out??? Where does it end? I agree that a lot could be learned from the crash for the rider as well as other riders. If you don't want to see it fast forward the rides go in order and once she starts her course forward past the fall if you don't want to see it. If Lainey's family wanted the you-tube video removed they could request it be removed from the person who posted it on you tube themselves. But if Carr-Hughes demands it to be removed and then edits it out of their own video's they are part of the problem as well. I am a grown woman and can determine what I can and cannot watch for myself.

[halla]

On many other threads here people have repeatedly discuss the need for more information and documentation of these falls in order to come up with ways to prevent them. It seems to me that the more that information is available, the higher the likelihood of coming up with a solution. Of course, the flip side of that is that decreasing the available information - i.e. pulling the videos - makes it harder to find a solution.

To me, the trade off would not be worth it. I'd rather have to look at horrifying footage (which I don't) if it means it's available for someone to come up with ideas from. Rather than removing it, I think someone should be actively gathering it and trying to compile as many views as possible. Put them in one place so anyone can find them, because who knows where the next good idea may come from - maybe some D level pony clubber's non-horsey parent has a bright idea one day. That seems like a vastly more mature way of dealing than telling everyone "close your eyes children".

[DLee]

I didn't buy last year's dvd, but I was wondering if Amy Tryon's finish was edited out as it was on the tv broadcast? Just curious, I saw it in person and don't need to see it again, but I wondered if they left it in or not.

[horse-loverz]

It was on there.

[Sannois]

From Rolex's website. Terms and conditions for ticket holders.

" Holder agrees not to transmit or aid in transmitting any description, account, picture or reproduction of this event in whole or in part. "
That all the thousand pics and videos that were taken last weekend were done so illegally? Not like a rock concert where you cant bring in cameras or Video equip. If that were the case there would be a person confiscating cameras at the entrance of The park. :no::confused:

[Phaxxton]

Quote:
Originally Posted by PineTreeFarm http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum/showthread.php?p=3176804#post3176804)
From Rolex's website. Terms and conditions for ticket holders.

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

That all the thousand pics and videos that were taken last weekend were done so illegally? Not like a rock concert where you cant bring in cameras or Video equip. If that were the case there would be a person confiscating cameras at the entrance of The park. :no::confused:

You are not allowed to TRANSMIT the photos or videos. You can take them for your own personal use, but posting them on the internet is transmitting them.

[Sannois]

Media and photographers are the exception. I was at Rolex with a media pass. I was NOT allowed to shoot video, but I was allowed to shoot and share photos. Video is a big no-no because Carr Hughes has the EXCLUSIVE on Rolex video. There is not an EXCLUSIVE photographer at Rolex.
All the people with Video Cameras all over the field were shooting at their own risk?? And still shots as well?? Whoa!:eek:
I did not see the cam corder police arrest anyone~! Man that means that I own TONS of illegal Rolex footage! Bootleg anyone?? LOL No sereiously is this just since Carr hughes or what??

[Phaxxton]

All the people with Video Cameras all over the field were shooting at their own risk?? And still shots as well?? Whoa!:eek:

No, see my post above -- You cannot TRANSMIT the photos or videos. My understanding is that photos for personal use would be fine -- but transmiting them (such as by posting them on the internet) violates CH's broadcast rights.

[Sannois]

You are not allowed to TRANSMIT the photos or videos. You can take them for your own personal use, but posting them on the internet is transmitting them.
I guess we are all criminals then! OH My god how pathetic! I'd like to see them enforce that! Why just since I have been home I have seen dozens of Rolex photos all over the boards! :eek::confused:

[Lori B]

They are welcome to come and arrest me, I'm about to send a CD of pics to a friend who couldn't go. Sounds like 'transmission' to me.

[Phaxxton]

I guess we are all criminals then! OH My god how pathetic! I'd like to see them enforce that! Why just since I have been home I have seen dozens of Rolex photos all over the boards! :eek::confused:

Actually, no, not criminals. It's not a crime. ;) It does, however, violate the company's civil rights, and the company has every right to enforce those rights.

As a general comment (not directed toward Sannois or anyone in particular): I understand that people are miffed, but we go through this same discussion every year. If you really think that intellectual property law is so evil, then try to change the law. Don't get upset when a company tries to protect its interests under the law, though. There are many legitimate legal reasons why a company must police its intellectual property - and the reason isn't generally that it's trying to be mean.

[cmannphoto]

No, see my post above -- You cannot TRANSMIT the photos or videos. My understanding is that photos for personal use would be fine -- but transmiting them (such as by posting them on the internet) violates CH's broadcast rights.

Actually, it is EEI's "terms" which is probably part of the aggreement between EEI and C-H Productions.

[Nikki^]

The video, all 9 seconds of it, was taken by a spectator. There were clips taken at different angels too. All taken off. They are not making any money off the clip nor are they asking money to view it. If they were selling the clip, yes then it would be naughty.

Also, there are clips from the Rolex of the other horses and they have not been taken off. There are even ones of the rider almost falling and there is one clip still up of Boyd Martin fall. So why the Frodo fall clip? It's not graphic. There isn't blood, guts and mayham.

It's not about the accident clip anymore. It's about C-H stepping on toes and trying to control the internet (YouTube etc...). There are lots of photos/videos of Rolex 2008 on Photobucket, Shutterfly etc taken by spectators and you don't see C-H productions taking them down. Nobody is asking for money or making money off these clips.

Again I say it:

You see, instead of C-H being pansy like about the footage, how about they post their own footage of the whole event online for everyone to watch. Then every time someone clicks on the website, $5 or $10 dollars goes to Laine for her medical bills. If C-H is so concerned about Liane, then how about they step up to the plate and donate!

[Phaxxton]

Actually, it is EEI's "terms" which is probably part of the aggreement between EEI and C-H Productions.


Okay, then it's EEI's broadcast rights that they licensed to CH... ?

[bambam]

I didn't buy last year's dvd, but I was wondering if Amy Tryon's finish was edited out as it was on the tv broadcast? Just curious, I saw it in person and don't need to see it again, but I wondered if they left it in or not.
the daily dvds are basically unedited I believe and yes Amy's last few fences were on there last year. I do not know if Laine's fall is on this year's daily dvds because I have not had time to watch them yet but since they have those puppies turned around by 9:00 am Sunday morning I suspect it might be because there was little to no time for editing.
I assume Amy's was edited out of the final highlight's video and I would also expect Laine's fall to be cut from this year's as well but I am guessing on the highlight video because I don't buy it and I have not seen it.

[zagafi]

Hell, even discussing what we saw, we're violating that agreement. We are, after all transmitting descriptions and accounts.

[moonriverfarm]

I bought the DVD last year and Amy's ride is on there. The whole thing.
I agree with the poster who suggested the pay-per-view. Let's hold our breaths and see how long it takes CHP to respond. Not.

[arnika]

It is interesting too that many thought she got up- and heard it announced that she did. For those of us there, we know- she never moved. Frodo did indeed get up, but she did not.


Once I saw the second video I realized clearly that there was no way that Laine was going to be getting up under her own power. I saw the fall live via webcast and was astounded when the commentators announced that they were both up. I believe I phrased it as a miracle at the time and I meant it.

Looking back I can't help but be very disappointed that the fall was minimized by all the announcers and that includes DOC. For him to state that Laine had "a broken jaw" and was "conscious, talking and able to move" while most likely true, it was a huge dumbing down of her status and injuries. I understand that he didn't have a portable xray in his pocket but there could have been NO way for him to be unaware that she was gravely injured. Just to state that alone and ask for people's kind thoughts would have been a decent thing to do, rather than sweeping her and Frodo's injuries under the rug.

Then to have C-H delete all footage and mention of the falls seems to be sanitizing even farther. I guess they must think that out of sight, out of mind.

[RugBug]

So why the Frodo fall clip? It's not graphic. There isn't blood, guts and mayham.

I found it quite horrific...which then leads me to graphic. Graphic doesn't have to mean blood, guts and mayhem. You don't find it graphic. Others do. :shrug: Knowing that you are watching a fall that killed the horse and seriously injured the rider, is graphic.

IMO, the video should be pulled now...then possibly released in a few months. That's when the learning will be done. Time allows us all to distance ourselves from the emotion...which clouds judgement.

[annikak]

IIMO, the video should be pulled now...the possibly released in a few months. That's when the learning will be done. Time allows us all to distance ourselves from the emotion...which clouds judgement.

I totally agree. We need to see it in order to understand it- and I want to understand it, so I can somehow try and prevent it. Seeing it now is just hard and emotional and somehow irritating.

I have one other small peeve on that issue of announcing things and rumors- It was rumored that he fell right on her. I cannot imagine this, for a couple of reasons, primary is that she was on her side (probably thankfully) until the tarps went up. No idea after that. If he had landed totally on her, the injuries would have been, I would think, MUCH worse...and she would have been...well, not on her side I would think. She and he fell HARD- and I can only imagine if he had landed full on her. I have to say that horse was so brave and honest and true.:cry: :cry::cry: I really loved Frodo- he was one of the best.

I belive that the helmet company does look at every serious fall- in order to improve design. Bravo to them. Cannot imagine that it's an easy job...but according to a rep at Rolex, they went to Redhills, and other events where things have happened. Amazing what happens towards the ends of safety that we don't even think about, eh?

(God, really OT again...sorry... but it all does involve video....)

[JER]

Looking back I can't help but be very disappointed that the fall was minimized by all the announcers and that includes DOC. For him to state that Laine had "a broken jaw" and was "conscious, talking and able to move" while most likely true, it was a huge dumbing down of her status and injuries. I understand that he didn't have a portable xray in his pocket but there could have been NO way for him to be unaware that she was gravely injured. Just to state that alone and ask for people's kind thoughts would have been a decent thing to do, rather than sweeping her and Frodo's injuries under the rug.


My guess is that DOC was misinterpreting medical information. A trauma with two collapsed lungs and a 'severely' broken jaw, is not really in condition to talk. (EMS protocols also say that if a broken jaw or collapsed lung is indicated, you should discourage the patient from talking.)

DOC probably heard that LA was 'responsive' which, in EMS terms, is not the same thing as 'talking'. 'Responsiveness' is a scale that describes what types of stimuli a patient responds to. Likewise, 'able to move' is also not a medical term, we check for circulation, motor and sensory response in the extremities but we do not ask patients to 'move' when spinal injuries are a possibility as in LA's case.

This is why Rolex should have a medical director giving this information and not DOC. I mentioned this on another thread -- if you can have a trained person making accurate statements (which they can clarify if necessary or possible) from the start, you'll cut down on confusion.

[arnika]

Frodo fell directly on Laine's torso and head with his torso. Terribly hard blow, the horse bounced off of her. I watched it live from the side view and was astonished that she survived it. I saw it again on the frontal view from youtube and had the same conclusion. She was on his back until just before(a fraction of a second) he hit the ground. There was no possible way for her to get out from under before the impact.

[caffeinated]

Not to focus too much on it, but annikak, the photos I saw, snapped by people who were right there at that fence, showed the horse did land at least partially on top of her initially. Not as bad as it could have been, for sure, but it did happen at least to some extent.

I know rumors suck, and there are a bunch of different takes on what happened- everyone sees things a little differently- some are swearing he chipped in, others that he took off long, etc, etc... not really trying to add to that, but it looks like that did happen from the photos I saw. :(

[SoNotaDQ]

As a devils advocate, think of it like this. You go to work, it is a really long tough week At the end of the week, after you put in your best work ethic for your employer, your paycheck comes. You look at it and can't believe it is so low!! Where is the rest of your paycheck??? I mean, you have a contract with your employer, what's the deal?

You go in the office and ask and the repsonse is "Well, someone else came in while you were working and did a halfway decent job, not as good as yours, but, since they did it all for free, we figured we didn't have to pay your for the stuff we felt they did ok. I mean, hey, it was free! I don't LIKE to pay money for services!"

When people give away things for free, why bother to pay for something? This is why photographers and Video production companies have exclusive contracts. It isn't being mean, it is trying to be paid for their work. Not work for free.

[Lori B]

SoNOTaDQ, if you would carefully read this thread, no one who is advocating the open dissemination of private video of this event is saying they want to make money off of it. Carr-Hughes is more than welcome to sell their no doubt far higher quality footage to all and sundry, and I don't think anyone here is questioning that, or planning to try to market along side them. The question being discussed is that C-H doesn't have a copyright to video shot at the event by other people, who wish to share it non-commercially. Sharing of this video is being suppressed by C-H for what some of us believe is a well-intentioned but inappropriate desire to ban the general public from re-viewing footage of Laine & Frodo's terrible accident.

[caffeinated]

As a devils advocate, think of it like this. You go to work, it is a really long tough week At the end of the week, after you put in your best work ethic for your employer, your paycheck comes. You look at it and can't believe it is so low!! Where is the rest of your paycheck??? I mean, you have a contract with your employer, what's the deal?

You go in the office and ask and the repsonse is "Well, someone else came in while you were working and did a halfway decent job, not as good as yours, but, since they did it all for free, we figured we didn't have to pay your for the stuff we felt they did ok. I mean, hey, it was free! I don't LIKE to pay money for services!"

When people give away things for free, why bother to pay for something? This is why photographers and Video production companies have exclusive contracts. It isn't being mean, it is trying to be paid for their work. Not work for free.

Well, honestly, I'm not sure how well that applies to Rolex- people taking lots of pictures and video has been a part of Rolex forever, and as best I can tell, the prevalence of amateur photos/video actually tends to get more people interested in what happened- so there are more people likely to go the following year and those that don't are more likely to purchase the coverage packages. I know three people who subscribed to the online video feed coverage because of the pictures they saw from last year's event. I really think, if anything, in this case C-H stands to gain from people sharing their little clips and photos. I could be totally wrong on that point, but I think that's part of the reason they altered course and decided to not go after all the content that people post online this year (except, of course, for the accident videos)

[wanderlust]

While the fall is horrific and took my breath away, I was glad I got to see it personally instead of relying on all of the witness accounts, and the accounts of those who heard it from witnesses. All of which, vary, btw. Some folks say she made a grave, stupid mistake, others say it was a freak accident.

Having seen the video, I got to draw my own conclusion... which is that I also saw the distance she was riding to. The horse very mistakenly thought there was one more. IMHO, freak, freak accident. My expectation is that the horse would have jumped that out of stride with no issues- perhaps a bit of a flyer, but shouldn't have turned out the way it did.

[RugBug]

SoNOTaDQ, if you would carefully read this thread, no one who is advocating the open dissemination of private video of this event is saying they want to make money off of it. Carr-Hughes is more than welcome to sell their no doubt far higher quality footage to all and sundry, and I don't think anyone here is questioning that, or planning to try to market along side them. The question being discussed is that C-H doesn't have a copyright to video shot at the event by other people, who wish to share it non-commercially. Sharing of this video is being suppressed by C-H for what some of us believe is a well-intentioned but inappropriate desire to ban the general public from re-viewing footage of Laine & Frodo's terrible accident.

The have DO have rights, Lori B. Think of it this way. Can you go to a concert and video/tape the show? Not legally (for the most part). Can you take that tape and make copies of it? No...even if you're just giving it away. It is owned by someone else and they get to determine how it is distributed.

The owners of the Frodo footage aren't being asked to destroy the footage...they are allowed to have it. They just aren't allowed to SHARE that footage except for home use. Youtube IS NOT home use....and it IS potentially cutting into profits. They GRACIOUSLY allowed private video to be shared last year. They've decided they don't want this particular footage shared at this particular time...so they have exercised their exclusive video rights and asked that it be taken down.

Anybody who wants to see the footage so badly just needs to track down someone who has it...and go to their house to watch it. There's a solution for y'all. :winkgrin:

[Lori B]

But reality, in the form of the internet and cheap and widespread video technology, intrudes on what is really not enforceable anymore. We live in a 21st century world with 19th century intellectual property laws. C-H is selectively trying to enforce those laws to satisfy a point of view (that the footage is not appropriate for public dissemination). It's like standing in the middle of a raging river and trying to stop a cupful of water here and there from getting past them. It's just silly. I object to them making that decision for the general public, and putting it behind an intellectual property figleaf.

[RugBug]

But reality, in the form of the internet and cheap and widespread video technology, intrudes on what is really not enforceable anymore. We live in a 21st century world with 19th century intellectual property laws. C-H is selectively trying to enforce those laws to satisfy a point of view (that the footage is not appropriate for public dissemination). It's like standing in the middle of a raging river and trying to stop a cupful of water here and there from getting past them. It's just silly. I object to them making that decision for the general public, and putting it behind an intellectual property figleaf.

I agree with your river analogy but that doesn't make it any more or less legal. People like to draw their own line in the sand of copyright law...and stand by it...whether or not it truly is legal. At the present time, it is illegal to distribute (with or without monetary gain) footage that someone has exclusive rights too.

[Sannois]

Once I saw the second video I realized clearly that there was no way that Laine was going to be getting up under her own power. I saw the fall live via webcast and was astounded when the commentators announced that they were both up. I believe I phrased it as a miracle at the time and I meant it.

Looking back I can't help but be very disappointed that the fall was minimized by all the announcers and that includes DOC. For him to state that Laine had "a broken jaw" and was "conscious, talking and able to move" while most likely true, it was a huge dumbing down of her status and injuries. I understand that he didn't have a portable xray in his pocket but there could have been NO way for him to be unaware that she was gravely injured. Just to state that alone and ask for people's kind thoughts would have been a decent thing to do, rather than sweeping her and Frodo's injuries under the rug.

Then to have C-H delete all footage and mention of the falls seems to be sanitizing even farther. I guess they must think that out of sight, out of mind.
As a matter of fact I was very surprised to learn the extent of her injuries after the watered down description. :no:

[LessonLearned]

Amen. I have a background in communication (a doctorate). My department has an advisory council made up of high powered people in the public relations, media, and political worlds. They all say the same thing. Copyright is a dying concept in this age of digital technology. There is only so much raging against the dying of the light that corporations can do.

The thing is, there is still a market for what Carr-Hughes produces (god knows I stood in a long enough line to pick up my dvds). They get good footage and provide it in a variety of formats for public consumption. There is no way that a grainy hand-held can compete with that. Somehow, I don't think their advertising revenue will suffer for it -- are people not going to watch the NBC coverage because they saw it on YouTube? I think not.

Carr-Hughes has traditionally edited out anything they find problematic. There is a distinct difference between their coverage of events and coverage of Badminton and Bughley (which generally shows falls, etc -- however, they also have a sense of decorum if a horse or rider is seriously injured they don't show it).

I can think of a few reasons for this. British audiences are much more tied in to equestrian sports. They understand the risks and therefore are not as sensitive about seeing them -- there is even a British produced Thrills and Spills compiliation which has some very scary falls (although they indicate the horses and riders were not seriously injured). For general American audiences, mention eventing and the responses will usually be about Christopher Reeves and dead horses.

I understand the quandry faced by Carr-Hughes. They are looking to "put eventing on the map." They are fighting to make a space for it amongst mainstream sporting events (I remember a few years ago there was a thunderstorm in a remote area close to here and they kept interrupting Rolex to cover it. They got several angry calls and the idiot weather guy apologized for interrupting our "horse race" -- he came back on a few minutes later indicating that as the result of more angry calls he now knew it was called "three day eventing." They never once interrupted the hockey game that came on next). If they show the falls, etc they may turn off that mainstream audience they are so desperate for. If they don't (or they dumb it down too much -- as has been the case in recent years) they risk alienating the eventing crowd. It was my understanding that the "unedited" footage was to be a response to that, but they seem to be rather quick to make cuts there as well -- even when horse and rider aren't hurt. I can see why that wouldn't make the highlights, but why cut it from the "unedited" dvd?

Personally, I am thankful when anyone pays attention to eventing. Let's face it, the Olympics used to be the only place you could see eventing coverage and you generally had to get up at 6 a.m. to watch that. However, given that the genie is out of the bottle, so to speak, it would behoove both Carr-Hughes and the governing bodies of the eventing world to wake up to the fact that their choices are no longer occurring in obscurity. They need to be media-savvy and public sensitive. I did a Lexus/Nexus search today and found that newspapers across the country are covering this situation. It has been on several local and national networks. A press release just doesn't cut it any more, nor does pretending that dramatic or damaging situations don't exist.

If eventing wants to play with the big time, it needs to respond to the big time. And playing big time means making sure you have the resources to respond to a variety of publics -- especially in cases such as this. From what I can tell as an interested observer that there is really no communication infrastructure to deal with these sorts of crises.

The powers that be ignore this at their peril. It would be in the best interest of the sport (on all levels -- participants, fans, general audiences) to bring in PR reps, media consultants, or crisis communication practitioners to help them craft messages and make a meaningful response, rather than allowing conjecture and poor reporting (has anyone else noticed the number of factual errors in the newspapers??!!?!?!) to spin public sentiment against eventing as a cruel and dangeous sport.


But reality, in the form of the internet and cheap and widespread video technology, intrudes on what is really not enforceable anymore. We live in a 21st century world with 19th century intellectual property laws. C-H is selectively trying to enforce those laws to satisfy a point of view (that the footage is not appropriate for public dissemination). It's like standing in the middle of a raging river and trying to stop a cupful of water here and there from getting past them. It's just silly. I object to them making that decision for the general public, and putting it behind an intellectual property figleaf.