Copyright question re: Skate America videos on youtube

[Wrlmy]

whole post

I understand corporations refusing to compromise their rights since doing so would almost definitely lead to another loophole. But I totally agree with your post. No one is extracting any tangible/intangible profit by online distributing. It is completely different from the case of music or motion picture industry because those intellectual goods are available for sale while most old footages of this sport are not. This is really frustrating.

 

[Tonichelle]

but if someone is banned on youtube because of the illegal distribution of ANYTHING (like if they were posting Skate America 2008 vids) then everything goes away... it's not USFSA asking for Tonya Harding vids to be taken down, it's just how youtube's system works. if that user is no longer on the site, neither will their vids whether it is skating or their grandma's 90th bday

 

[mycelticblessing]

Why does U.S. Figure Skating also have the right to take down CoC videos? I clicked on a British Eurosport commentary Yu-Na Kim vid, and got: 'The video is unavailable due to a copyright claim by U.S. Figure Skating'. Do they mean the USFSA? I do understand them taking down IceNetwork and Skate America vids, but do they own the copyright to CoC vids and British Europort?:scratch:

 

[antmanb]

Why does U.S. Figure Skating also have the right to take down CoC videos? I clicked on a British Eurosport commentary Yu-Na Kim vid, and got: 'The video is unavailable due to a copyright claim by U.S. Figure Skating'. Do they mean the USFSA? I do understand them taking down IceNetwork and Skate America vids, but do they own the copyright to CoC vids and British Europort?:scratch:

I think, correct me if i'm wrong people, that US Figure Skating own IceNetwork. Ice Network, it seems, own the exclusive right to broadcast the GP via the internet. Youtube acting as a broadcaster of that by hosting the videos of the event are therefore in breach of that copyright.

Though i do question whether Ice Network does have the exclusive internet broadcast right since Eurosport are broadcasting all the GPs on their own internet player...?

Ant

 

[Tonichelle]

youtube is an American company,right? that may have something to do with it.

 

[antmanb]

youtube is an American company,right? that may have something to do with it.

My understanding is that youtube is owned by google so i suppose it must be an American company.

The thing about that though is that territories in these countries are usually defined by place of broadcast rather than nationality of the company committing the acts. This is where drafting contracts like this is very difficult because you can't carve up internet broadcast rights by region because of the very nature of the internet - it is accessible all over the world.

As a lawyer who practices in this area - whenever i have drafted contracts my advice has been - if it is in relation to internet broadcast you can only give the exclusive rights to one person because you can't carve up internet broadcast by territory.

The fact that Eurosport are legitimately broadcasting all of the GPs on their internet player is the thing that throws the spanner in the works in terms of trying to guess the potential terms of the contracts that are in place.

Ant

 

[dorispulaski]

Yay Eurosport

Yes. Furthermore, their content is a lot better and more interesting than ice network's, which is not free.

Ant, Thanks for the professional opinions you've given on this. My own thinking on it is very muddled.

What I find troubling is the chain of ownership here. I'm not sure how US Figure Skating can sell any event to icenetwork other than US Nationals, Regionals, and Sectionals, and possibly (but not surely) Skate America.

And it stands to reason to me, that either Skate Canada then owns Homesense Skate Canada, The Russian Federation owns Cup of Russia, and so on. Or else the ISU owns all the GP(including Skate America), Europeans, and Worlds. There isn't a clear picture of who owns what under what circumstances

And I always thought you couldn't sell what you didn't own.

Yet it seems to be US Figure Skating that has hired a team of phone cops to police youtube, and they are getting rid not just of youtube channels with Skate America (which they have some ownership, just maybe) but also youtube channels with Cup of China, and the Chinese seem never to have asserted any property rights over CoC broadcasts. (The stuff streams out for free. The only problem is finding the stuff when its all labelled in Chinese.)

Youtube, which doesn't want to spend a lot of time policing, just bans the user and takes down all his content. That includes vids of their kids and everything else The result is that all sorts of official websites of skaters that had videos have lost their videos, even when they are unrelated to season 2007/2008 (Skate Canada, Jr Worlds, US Nats) and season 2008/2009 (GP,GPF,Europeans,4Cs) which is all icenetwork owns.

My particular unhappiness is with them taking down the account of tripleaxel96 who had CD footage back to the dark ages, not to mention other wondeful old videos of Men, Ladies and Pairs. I use this stuff as illustrations in articles on the CD's. It's very helpful to be able to compare Suzy Smith and Johnny Jones to an actual video of Torvill and Dean, for example, when they are executing exactly the same steps.

I do think that some kind of notice, even if such notice was on the US Figure Skating Website or on icenetwork, or both, was called for before such a purge was undertaken. (as a matter of etiquette, if not of law) and a list of exactly what competitions they are asserting property rights to.

I dunno. As I said, I'm quite muddled about this, but I have some suspicion that USFS is totally overstepping their bounds, and that they're going to get away with it because no youtuber is going to sue them, even if they have a legitimate case.

 

[antmanb]

Ant, Thanks for the professional opinions you've given on this. My own thinking on it is very muddled.

You are very welcome - i try to help where I can but bear in mind that all of my knowledge is based on English law rather than any US or other international law. The contracts I draft i always make subject to English law and obviously all of these things are open to interpretation. I'd be very interested to see the contracts though!

What I find troubling is the chain of ownership here. I'm not sure how US Figure Skating can sell any event to icenetwork other than US Nationals, Regionals, and Sectionals, and possibly (but not surely) Skate America.

And it stands to reason to me, that either Skate Canada then owns Homesense Skate Canada, The Russian Federation owns Cup of Russia, and so on. Or else the ISU owns all the GP(including Skate America), Europeans, and Worlds. There isn't a clear picture of who owns what under what circumstances

And I always thought you couldn't sell what you didn't own.

Yet it seems to be US Figure Skating that has hired a team of phone cops to police youtube, and they are getting rid not just of youtube channels with Skate America (which they have some ownership, just maybe) but also youtube channels with Cup of China, and the Chinese seem never to have asserted any property rights over CoC broadcasts. (The stuff streams out for free. The only problem is finding the stuff when its all labelled in Chinese.)

I think the confusion might be coming because (and this is something that was said earlier in this thread and on which i asked for clarification asi don't know for sure) US Figure Skating owns IceNetwork. If US Figure Skating own IceNetwork, and i don't know if IceNetwork is a separate legal entity, or whether it is a trading name for US Figure Skating when acting as an internet broadcaster. But if US Figure skating own IceNetwork, then it will be US Figure Skating alleging the breach of their rights to (exclusively?) broadcast the events on the internet. This scenario presupposes that US Figure Skating acting as IceNetwork has done a deal with each host federation to obtain the (exclusive?) rights to braodcast the events on the internet.

In the example of youtube hosting a video - there are possibly two or even three lots of copyright breaches going on. Take the example of a video of a program that pops up on youtube that is clearly the Eurosport broadcast of Cup of China. In this example you could have (1) the Chinese federation who put on the event claiming a breach of the rights they licensed as the ultimate owner of the rights; (2) Eurosport claiming a breach of the copyright they paid for the right to use in their Territory as licensee (along with possible Trade Mark breaches in the unauthorised use of their logo that appears on screen); and (3) Ice Network's claim that their licence to (exclusive?) broadcast on the internet has been breached as licensee.

Youtube, which doesn't want to spend a lot of time policing, just bans the user and takes down all his content. That includes vids of their kids and everything else The result is that all sorts of official websites of skaters that had videos have lost their videos, even when they are unrelated to season 2007/2008 (Skate Canada, Jr Worlds, US Nats) and season 2008/2009 (GP,GPF,Europeans,4Cs) which is all icenetwork owns.

I agree it is very heavy handed but that is simpy a case of youtube enforcing it's terms and conditions of use. It is harsh but looking at it from the other side - youtube has how many millions of users? These people are generally orindanary every day people who, for the purposes of litgation don't have any money. Youtube is a company with an awful lot of money. If every single breach of copyright was sued for (regardless of quantifying actual loss which you would have to do in order to win damages, which as many have pointed out is nil in old skating footage) then it could potentially easily make youtube bankrupt. My advice as a lawyer is always - put strict user terms in place regaarding breaches of law (which let's not forget does not just include breaches of copyright, but people making defamatory statements etc etc) you reserve the right to cancel anybody's account if they break the law. I would often say a zero tolerance policy is the safeest for the company. It seems that youtube have a three stikes before you're out policy which seems reasonable enough.

My particular unhappiness is with them taking down the account of tripleaxel96 who had CD footage back to the dark ages, not to mention other wondeful old videos of Men, Ladies and Pairs. I use this stuff as illustrations in articles on the CD's. It's very helpful to be able to compare Suzy Smith and Johnny Jones to an actual video of Torvill and Dean, for example, when they are executing exactly the same steps.

I do think that some kind of notice, even if such notice was on the US Figure Skating Website or on icenetwork, or both, was called for before such a purge was undertaken. (as a matter of etiquette, if not of law) and a list of exactly what competitions they are asserting property rights to.

I dunno. As I said, I'm quite muddled about this, but I have some suspicion that USFS is totally overstepping their bounds, and that they're going to get away with it because no youtuber is going to sue them, even if they have a legitimate case.

I also lament the loss of tripleaxel96, I am, afterall a skating fan , because of my job I understand the reasons these issues come up and I agree I think it seems pretty petty in terms of old footage that is not really available anywhere else. Also as has been mentioned the actual loss to the copyright owner is nil - unless they plan to everntually release all of the old footage themselves - somethign which can simply not be true.

But you must remember seeking an order for damages is only one remedy provided by copyright legislation. The main other remedy is injuctive relief for any unauthorised copying of the owner of any copyrighted work. To my mind it would be far better for a single authorised company, be it USFSA or otherwise to to be licensed with all of the old footage and host it/sell passes to it/set up an itunes type system $0.79 per program and set price for an entire event? I think it's a hole that is best plugging rather than the over zealous policing.

Apologies for the long post!

Ant

 

[dorispulaski]

Apologies??? No, deep thanks. You have clarified my thinking about this situation, at least somewhat.

Three other questions?. What would you say is the status of the exhibitions? Icenetwork has chosen not to air any of the exhibitions from the GP (at least to date). I'm assuming they have the rights even if they chose not to exercise them, and so banning for posting exhibitions is also going to happen. It's hard to tell, since youtube puts the same notice on all the removed footage, and the ban could have been for SA competitive footage, but the youtuber had the exhibition as well.

Since youtube is being sued by Viacom (completely independent of USFS/IN) , I am not surprised that they have a take no prisoners attitude. However, there are other similar video sites that are not based in the US. What would be likely to happen if USFS pulls the same deal with dailymotion.com, for example, which as far as I can tell is a France-based site which has English skins so that it is very usable for English speakers. BTW, it has some nice British Eurosport footage of the 3 GP events, and I'm considering linking to them in future Event previews. However, I really don't want to call the attention of the phonecops to the existence of dailymotion (or any other vid site) if we're just going to get a repeat of the same scenario?

The poster at dailymotion with the GP footage is Swiss, BTW.

Similarly, what about a Chinese or Russian video site? (I would have to ask the help of Chinese or Russian speaking friends to find the links though.)

In general, excerpting is legal in the creation of critical or other work, provided proper credit is given to the party owning the work quoted. In articles, there is a standard of two paragraphs, roughly, I believe.

How many minutes of video footage would be considered an allowable excerpt? I create articles, which contain video links. I'm willing to edit a program to a short enough length to be an excerpt, but I need to know what the standard is. For CD's, the point can be made in one iteration of the dance, which is about 1 minute long or less.

Doris P

 

[antmanb]

Three other questions?. What would you say is the status of the exhibitions? Icenetwork has chosen not to air any of the exhibitions from the GP (at least to date). I'm assuming they have the rights even if they chose not to exercise them, and so banning for posting exhibitions is also going to happen. It's hard to tell, since youtube puts the same notice on all the removed footage, and the ban could have been for SA competitive footage, but the youtuber had the exhibition as well.

Again it depends on the rights that have been bought by IceNetwork. The exhibitions are still part of the event and rights can be sold like any other part of the event. If IceNetwork choose not to show them then it still doesn't change the fact that the they can claim a breach of the licence if it appears on youtube. That does sound really harsh but it's the same criticism people have of record companies who sit on a recorded album of an artist and then decide that ti just won't make them enough money and don't bring it out. The artist is then left with no avenue to release the record as the recod company own the copyright.

Since youtube is being sued by Viacom (completely independent of USFS/IN) , I am not surprised that they have a take no prisoners attitude.

I think they are also being sued by the UK Premier League (football/soccer) and by a group of high profile football clubs in the UK too so i assume there must a numerous cases on the go.

However, there are other similar video sites that are not based in the US. What would be likely to happen if USFS pulls the same deal with dailymotion.com, for example, which as far as I can tell is a France-based site which has English skins so that it is very usable for English speakers. BTW, it has some nice British Eurosport footage of the 3 GP events, and I'm considering linking to them in future Event previews. However, I really don't want to call the attention of the phonecops to the existence of dailymotion (or any other vid site) if we're just going to get a repeat of the same scenario?

In practice there is no difference at all, however, the USFS would surely never make a deal with another company if it own IceNetwork would it? I suppose if daily motion tried to take some of the market away from IceNetwork by pitching to the organisers of the events and offering more money? I don't suppose it wouod remain free (if indeed it is free) though. At the moment - events showing up on dailymotion must cause USFS more difficulties if it is a french site as they would have to instruct French lawyers to threaten and/or issue legal proceedings against dailymotion. It isn't as simple as getting your in-house lawyer to fire a threatening email to youtbe which will usually lead to the video being taken down.

Similarly, what about a Chinese or Russian video site? (I would have to ask the help of Chinese or Russian speaking friends to find the links though.)

Again it make no difference - just i suppose it makes it far harder to USFS to search those website that do not use the same alphabet, however, it still remains a breach of their rights and the diffiuclty in threatening/issuign proceedings is the same as the exmaple for a french company above.

In general, excerpting is legal in the creation of critical or other work, provided proper credit is given to the party owning the work quoted. In articles, there is a standard of two paragraphs, roughly, I believe.

This is where the UK and US differ. The defence of fair use in the US is more developed than in the UK. There are specific exmeptions for, e.g. parody, which we don't have in the UK. There are many specific exmeptions in the UK, however, the main one is the exemption for criticism, review or news reporting provided that it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement. Now for this to work there has to be something added in terms of criticism/review or reporting. There is a wealth of case law setting out how much you can reproduce. The offence of copying in the UK is "copying the whole or a substantial part of..." the copyright work and the case law makes it clear that substantial is a qualitative test rather than a quantitative test.

How many minutes of video footage would be considered an allowable excerpt? I create articles, which contain video links. I'm willing to edit a program to a short enough length to be an excerpt, but I need to know what the standard is. For CD's, the point can be made in one iteration of the dance, which is about 1 minute long or less.

This i really don't know. I would think that showing an entire program would be "substantial". Showing one circuit of the CD - depending on the purpose might be ok - especially if it is as criticism or review. Ultimately it is a very fine line, and one that you should local law advice on, to be certain. If you are based in the US and are potentiall using videos and the craetor of those is American then US law will apply.

Ant

 

[dorispulaski]

Strictly speaking, a program would be the skates of some 30 or 40 teams (worlds) down to as few as 10 teams (GPF), plus the intervening commentary and replays while they wait for the scoring. In the case of worlds, an event consisting of 3 events with 40, then 30, then cutting to 24 (or whatever the number is) teams, one CD with no commentary may be an excerpt in and of itself. I am fairly sure one circuit ought to be, which doesn't mean that it is.

You are right that I should get some US advice, though.

And thank you! 1000 times!

 

[fiercemao]

Similarly, what about a Chinese or Russian video site? (I would have to ask the help of Chinese or Russian speaking friends to find the links though.)


Doris P

I know a Chinese video site which also has tons of FS videos. However, it's very slow.

http://www.tudou.com/

 

[dorispulaski]

Weirdly enough, I was able to find some on it!

Thank you.

 

[fiercemao]

Weirdly enough, I was able to find some on it!

Thank you.

Do you mean the Chinese site? Is it very slow?

 

[visaliakid]

Antmanb - U.S. Figure Skating is the sole owner of IceNetwork and contracted Major League Baseball Media Marketing (MLBMM), the premire webcasting company in the U.S, to design, build, maintain and operate IceNetwork.com. IceNetwork is in their second season of figure skating coverage, and this is the first season where U.S.F.S. acquired the rights to webcast all ISU sanctioned Grand Prix and International events.

They paid alot of money to get those rights, and in an effort to attract a maximum subscriber base, decided to keep their yearly subscription rates the same as last season. To succeed and grow as the U.S. webcast entity for figure skating they must make a maximum effort to keep free unauthorized viewing of these events by anyone in the U.S. from limiting their growth potential.

I have talked at length with the Director of Media Marketing at U.S. Figure Skating about these efforts and they are very serious about controlling their product... and they should be. BTW USFS has no control over YouTube use agreement policy... they just ask YouTube to remove illegally posted videos. Since IN has exclusive web rights for viewing in the U.S., videos posted by other webcast entities outside of the U.S. that can be viewed by anyone in the U.S. also comes under their exclusive rights in U.S. agreement with the ISU.

The problem stated earlier in this thread is that YouTube does not have the ability to filter viewership by nation or contractual areas. This is the nature of the internet, and until international legal remedies are crafted and agreed to, this situation will be the norm for all videos presented illegally on the internet.

What I did learn, was that U.S. Figure Skating is studying the best way to archive and present their skating streams, by event, or by individual programs. Regardless, the On Demand viewing of said streams will only be accessible by subscription.

Regarding those YouTube account holders that had uploaded skating programs as far as three and four decades ago, U.S. Figure Skating never has had any legal claim to them.... except those from club or regional and sectional comps. All others were owned by one of the three Television Networks who originally telecast them (most by ABC TV and then ESPN). U.S. Figure Skating did not ask YouTube to remove anything but videos they claim rights to. If subscribers to YouTube having many older videos on their sites, had heeded the initial warnings and had stopped posting those from this season, the remaining videos and their accounts would still be online.

I have no sympathy for those who (for whatever reason) feel it is their right to record, upload and post skating videos for folks to see free, when I subscribe to view them on IceNetwork. Furthermore, even the poorest of diehard skating fans can save up $29.50 a year to purchase an annual subscription there. For those who are unfortunate to live in an area where High Speed Internet connections are not yet available, I can only say I wish it were. There are always going to be a few still left unable to have the opportunity to have a subscription. But you know what, that is life. It is not fair, and life never will be.

 

[fiercemao]

I .

I have no sympathy for those who (for whatever reason) feel it is their right to record, upload and post skating videos for folks to see free, when I subscribe to view them on IceNetwork. Furthermore, even the poorest of diehard skating fans can save up $29.50 a year to purchase an annual subscription there. For those who are unfortunate to live in an area where High Speed Internet connections are not yet available, I can only say I wish it were. There are always going to be a few still left unable to have the opportunity to have a subscription. But you know what, that is life. It is not fair, and life never will be.

First of all, the quality of IN's videos is very poor. It is also impossible for subscribers outside of US to watch those events via IN. Well, yes life is not fair, that's why IN's heavy-handed approach will backfire tremedously on them. Diehard fans will always find ways to do battle against them. Instead of cracking down on youtube videos, how about spending more time solving their technical glitches, or maybe fire those useless internet cops to save some bucks and cut costs? I predict their dictatorship & censorship will doom to fail and they will suffer tremedous financial losses in the end. I will have no sympathy for them as well.

 

[Tonichelle]

well said, Pete!

unfortunately there will always be those that feel they are entitled and as such they will make the rest of us suffer in their tirades.

 

[R.D.]

entire post

People who copy Ice Network vids and upload them to Youtube? Fine. Go after them.

People who post the NBC telecasts on Youtube? Hmm...OK, go after them as well.


But how about the people who upload vids from the European or Asian broadcast of the events? Unless the events are from SA, I can't see how USFS can claim that footage as theirs. It's not THEIR recording, and it's not THEIR event. So what do we do?

(As an aside, USFS needs to have those "copyright notices" that the NFL, NBA, etc. have during their sports telecasts to make it clear that the vids should not be shared.)

 

[fiercemao]

post deleted

 

[Tonichelle]

(As an aside, USFS needs to have those "copyright notices" that the NFL, NBA, etc. have during their sports telecasts to make it clear that the vids should not be shared.)

Like THAT stops anyone.