[WRC] Croatia Rally 2023

[Rallyest]

Neuville SS20 onboard https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upgb6ZIYCEk

Ogier/Tänak onboard SS13 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3xdxyEncjY

Love videos like this, 8:17 you can see how Ogier gave his advantage away with 1 hairpin, so close still everywhere

[J4MIE]

Glad we have so many legal experts on here that know better than pesky WRC Promotor's legal team.

As a competitor you are not allowed to share any of your own in-car footage you take on social media etc. But you can pay them €1,750 to allow it if you want (might have changed for 2023), but that includes any footage they get of you (if the cameramen hang around that long).

[denkimi]

Glad we have so many legal experts on here that know better than pesky WRC Promotor's legal team.

As a competitor you are not allowed to share any of your own in-car footage you take on social media etc. But you can pay them €1,750 to allow it if you want (might have changed for 2023), but that includes any footage they get of you (if the cameramen hang around that long).

As a competitor you have signed an agreement with the organisor of the rally. You have agreed to give away the rights to your own footage.

As a spectator that's a different story.

[drive]

wrc promoter CAN claim to youtube to take down any video from WRC event if its not approved by them, thanks god they do not use this power.... I have very sad experience with Dakar and ASO.... but wrc promoter sees some advantage from fans videos, for now, so they let them be... hope they wont get greedy and start blocking videos as greedy french Dakar rally organisers.....
anyhow, its not croatia rally issue, it is as it is in this digital world..

[J4MIE]

As a spectator that's a different story.

Spectators agree by attending.

[Kras]

Spectators agree by attending.

Why are you you so stubborn? Spectators ate not attending a stadium, they didn't buy a ticket and are spectating from either public or orivately owned land which isn't leased by the organisers.

In Croatia the promoter has 0 case to claim footage taken in public. If they want to own the footage they should lease all surounding land, build a fence around it and not let anyone in without a ticket. And even then, if someone films it from behind the fence they cant claim they own that footage.

It's like me filming your house from the street. It may be your house, but the footage is mine

[240RS]

Rallying, like City Marathons, present unique problems. One cannot legislate against filming or even spectating because shared common spaces are used even with those not particularly interested in the sport. So the question of spectators "agreeing" by attending does not arise.

Rights holders use a combination of event organizers and sports organisations to curtail ease of filming or broadcasting. However, even they know that they can't sue someone who chooses to film what is happening in open public spaces. The best they can do is intimidate or forcibly remove those who elect to film. Legally, though, they stand no chance of winning any cases.

[AnttiL]

I don't think it's reasonable to continue this discussion since it's clear that WRC Promoter does not ask to take down spectator action videos. They only did it for this fight video which was just bad publicity for the sport.

[J4MIE]

Rallying, like City Marathons, present unique problems. One cannot legislate against filming or even spectating because shared common spaces are used even with those not particularly interested in the sport. So the question of spectators "agreeing" by attending does not arise.

Rights holders use a combination of event organizers and sports organisations to curtail ease of filming or broadcasting. However, even they know that they can't sue someone who chooses to film what is happening in open public spaces. The best they can do is intimidate or forcibly remove those who elect to film. Legally, though, they stand no chance of winning any cases.

Legally though, the promotors own the rights to any footage of their championship. There may be an argument of whether you think that should be the case or not, but not that it is legally possible, public land or otherwise. You could have a similar argument about being allowed to stand in a particular location as its public land, so you shouldn’t need to buy a ticket.

[Kras]

Legally though, the promotors own the rights to any footage of their championship. There may be an argument of whether you think that should be the case or not, but not that it is legally possible, public land or otherwise.

Citation needed? according to which law in Croatia, or any other country where WRC happens??


You could have a similar argument about being allowed to stand in a particular location as its public land, so you shouldn’t need to buy a ticket.

You can stand on any land that is public or private and is not leased by the organizer without a ticket. Just like how you can watch a football match from your balcony if theres a clear line of sight to the field. organizers of any event have every right to try to obstruct the vision of anyone not paying, but they cant force you to look the other way if theres no such obstruction

[AnttiL]

Citation needed? according to which law in Croatia, or any other country where WRC happens??



You can stand on any land that is public or private and is not leased by the organizer without a ticket. Just like how you can watch a football match from your balcony if theres a clear line of sight to the field. organizers of any event have every right to try to obstruct the vision of anyone not paying, but they cant force you to look the other way if theres no such obstruction

It's more about content copyrights. Similarly you could record a song from the radio, which is free for everyone to listen, and put the recording onto youtube, and the artist's label could have it taken down.

[ouvreur]

It's a question of broadcast rights. Of course nobody can make you stop looking at an event on the day, or delete any footage or photographs you make on your own devices. It's yours, and you can watch it back a million times, and there's practically nothing they can do about it.

However, the moment you broadcast it in some way (for example, upload it to YouTube or social media), you're at the mercy of the owner of the broadcast rights.

Obviously, in the majority of cases, it's in the interest of the rights owner to leave any amateur footage of sports events online. More eyes on the product isn't a bad thing most of the time. It's only when that content causes them a problem (reputation / image-wise, or costing them money) that they'll take action against it.

OT - movies / TV shows / music area bit different, and studios / record labels tend to intervene very quickly, since the thing being uploaded and shared is the product itself, and every unlicensed broadcast effectively costs them money.

[the sniper]

Glad we have so many legal experts on here that know better than pesky WRC Promotor's legal team.

I don't think we know better than them, I just doubt their position would hold up in court universally, but it doesn't hurt them to try, though I imagine it's why they wouldn't try it too often. I think they'd know it's almost inconceivable that anybody would take them all the way to challenging their position in court, so they haven't really got anything to lose. Even if someone paid to go down that road, which nobody would at least on financial grounds, WRC Promoter could easily settle any odd case short of going to court, even likely just by relinquishing their claim on that individual's footage. If the law wasn't open to interpretation, there'd be a lot less lawyers in work...


Spectators agree by attending.

If you take footage of a McDonald's from the road, does McDonald's own that footage and have the right to stop it being distributed, because it features their IP? Particularly if the footage was actually being taken of a fight taking place on public or someone else's private land outside, particularly if being used for non-profit or reporting purposes and the McDonald's just happened to be in the background?


As a competitor you are not allowed to share any of your own in-car footage you take on social media etc. But you can pay them €1,750 to allow it if you want (might have changed for 2023), but that includes any footage they get of you (if the cameramen hang around that long).

Which is clearly entirely different to what was being discussed and I imagine they're well within their rights to hold you to something that you'll have signed by entering the event. Though I imagine they'd do everything possible to settle even that short of court, just in case it doesn't go their way.


It's more about content copyrights. Similarly you could record a song from the radio, which is free for everyone to listen, and put the recording onto youtube, and the artist's label could have it taken down.

I think redistributing a song, it's content having been written, performed, recorded, engineered/produced and distributed by the owner of the IP itself, is a far different case than a piece of self produced original content that happens to feature someone else's IP in a public place, to be fair.

I agree with Antti though that there isn't really much point in arguing about the rights and wrongs of it, as they don't regularly claim footage and they'll never get to court, so we won't get a definitive answer either way.