Printable View
Is it your guess or has it been written somewhere in black and white? For sure it is forbidden to upload All-Live material but when I go to rallies, I haven't seen any signs that tell me I can't film here or when I buy the ticket then I have to agree somewhere that actually every video I take of a moving rally car, actually belongs to WRC Promoter.Quote:
Originally Posted by AnttiL
on main page for spectators.....
They probably don't have the legal grounds to take amateur footage down. It's just youtube siding with the publishers by default. They count on noone beimg willing to go trough the trouble of taking them to court over it
I think it would depend on whether the event is ticketed or not. In which case it's probably in the standard terms and conditions for entry when purchasing a ticket.Quote:
Originally Posted by flat_right
You Tube and Facebook generally don't like videos that show fighting / violence, so I imagine they didn't have to work very hard to get that video taken down.
I think it was in the terms written of Ypres Rally that it was forbidden indeed.
Verstuurd vanaf mijn 2201123G met Tapatalk
Mystery is solved, according to this photo these are probably paper plates sticked on some branches :DQuote:
Originally Posted by ReRe
Attachment 2422
J-records vid
https://youtu.be/yK9-ZBI0sao
My best of :D
https://youtu.be/yumirQ1-6Pc
Attachment 2423
All WRC web pages have it in the spectator sections now, this is taken from Rally Finland page;
https://sectorallyfinland.fi/en/taking-pictures-videos/
All rally fans are free to take photos on the special stages – in the areas where spectators are allowed – and share their photos in for example social media. However, please respect the privacy of other rally-goers. The safety stewards and other Rally Finland officials have the right to prevent picture taking in certain situations, for example if there is a safety risk involved in taking a photo.
Rights to all moving images are the property of WRC Promoter GmbH. Any video-footage shown outside your own home requires an agreement with the rights holder, who also have the right to request the removal of unauthorised material from any website or other distribution channel.
I highly doubt their claims would stand up legally in many countries where the footage was taken in a public place (definitions of a such will vary by country), at least. They've just copied this from sports that take place in/on private venues and have truly controlled access. I think they're pushing their luck as it is, I doubt they'll go much further with their claiming of footage beyond attempts to erase some of the more ugly incidents from the most public platforms. Not that I agree with their dubious attempts here to control the image of the sport. If there were to be graphic footage of a fatality at a WRC event floating about though, I would be more understanding of their efforts.
Zeroundersteer vid
https://youtu.be/nieb-bGcDhk
I don't remember anymore from where I read it, but the point was - all the footage from WRC event belongs to promoter.Quote:
Originally Posted by the sniper
that what they say but i agree with user The Sniper, im also sure it isnt that black and white
Different story from Dirtfish regarding the much discussed incident with spectators. They claim that their sentence was in fact a week in jail, instead of the 700€ fine Croatian media published.
https://dirtfish.com/rally/wrc/why-t...s-were-jailed/
It was 700€, or a week in jail. Most sentences for minor offences are given that wayQuote:
Originally Posted by macebig
It kind of is, they can take it and use it if they want to without asking, which has happened before, but usually you get paid with a free year of WRC+ if you get something really good and send it in. Red Bull Media claimed lots of video's by a mistake some years ago but we got them back within some days. The free promotion and extra eyes out there is very valuable for the WRC, i think they understand that, on a track it's a bit different.Quote:
Originally Posted by meh
They can try and claim that, but that doesn't make it legally true.Quote:
Originally Posted by meh
If you have bought a ticket to get to view the cars they might have some basis, although dubious. But they can not put any legal claim onto someone who has not done so, as they have no contract with them whatsoever.
This is not a closed circuit, these are public roads, there are people living there. If they want to claim all video material they will have to make sure nobody without a ticket is able to film anything.
Legally, not a chance would they win a case in any court.Quote:
Originally Posted by denkimi
Footage taken and beamed by the host broadcaster is their property. Likewise, footage generated by any fan or professional is their own as well. Beaming to an audience, via whatever media, remains the prerogative of the owner of the footage. The FIA and the officially contracted rights holder wield the stick on event organisers as well as non-factory competitors to ensure they maintain some public beaming exclusivity. This has in the past hampered event organisers and local, non-factory drivers from generating much needed content for their own publicity.
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 everywhereQuote:
Originally Posted by EstWRC
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by J4MIE
As a spectator that's a different story.
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..
Spectators agree by attending.Quote:
Originally Posted by denkimi
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by J4MIE
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
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 240RS
Citation needed? according to which law in Croatia, or any other country where WRC happens??Quote:
Originally Posted by J4MIE
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 obstructionQuote:
Originally Posted by J4MIE
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kras
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.
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by J4MIE
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by J4MIE
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by J4MIE
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by AnttiL
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.