Video Stealing

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

Mind you, you need to be that actual copyright holder for the material. If all you did was record the FIRST provided video stream, then it's probably FIRST that's the copyright holder, since they did all the production, etc. I think unedited, uncommented video from your own camera of an FRC event is probably shaky on whether you're the copyright holder. And something like RoboShow is very clearly original material that the RoboShow guys hold the copyright to.

It's actually more complex (and potentially annoying) than that.

Though FIRST is the video provider (e.g. through the AV hookups at the venue), their agreement with the film crew may not necessarily specify a transfer of copyright. In the U.S., absent a work for hire agreement, the person operating the camera is the copyright holder of the video.¹ (The lack of such an agreement would be unlikely, but to the extent that FIRST believed the webcast was a one-time event rather than a body of content that could be preserved and used forever, it's not inconceivable that the contract could omit this.) For the same reason, the person operating their own camera at a FIRST event owns the copyright to that video.

If there was editing and production work that was creative in nature, then there would be a copyright embodied in those elements, and separate from the camera work. Again, this could be assigned to FIRST by contract, and probably is.

The main complications arise as a result of the content of the video. FIRST has music playing in the background (which is presumably under licence); they don't own that copyright, and therefore can't transfer it.² To the extent that creative performances take place (perhaps in the form of a speech or the rendition of a national anthem, but almost certainly not gameplay), those are copyrighted by their performers, and FIRST can't transfer that copyright either. If you re-use that content, you have to be ready to assert that your use of the portions for which you have not secured copyright approval are fair use or de minimis infringement (too small to cause any meaningful harm). Or you have to hope they don't find out and start checking items off the list I provided above.

Another complication arises because the video host can terminate its agreement with the uploader, likely for little or no cause. Even if you legitimately own the copyright, the video host can (legally, but perhaps unethically) kick you off and take the video down. Users who are frequently the target of DMCA takedowns may find themselves in that situation.


By the way, don't file a DMCA takedown request if you're not the copyright holder. Misrepresentation will open you to liability for damages.

¹ In Canada, the law is a little more complicated, but ought to work out the same way in the case of a work for hire.
² In theory, they actually could write such a copyright transfer into the contract, but I doubt it's there. I bet the agreement only covers FIRST, not downstream re-users.

[Zach O]

Originally Posted by ScourgeDragon

I'm sure there may be others, but one culprit of video grabbing without permission is WatchFirstNow. You can see the conversation heat up halfway down the first page when team 1676 realizes all their match videos were ripped from their youtube and re-uploaded to WFN's private vimeo account: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=127932

And later on, when FiM realized they're doing the same thing

Originally Posted by Lucario

It can be reasonably argued that this work is for educational purposes (as it educates the public) and the website, seeing that it is devoid of advertisements, seems to be of a non-profit nature.

If it was devoid of advertisements, this might be true. But it's not. They're running advertisements for a Canadian hosting company at the bottom of every archive page. The other issue people have is that there is absolutely no attribution to the original source, and no one was contacted to see if it was okay to rip their videos and re-upload them privately to another video hosting website.

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

Not that it makes things right or anything, but an offended party that has had its video ripped and uploaded to a different video sharing site can always file a DMCA takedown with said video sharing site.

Or we can avoid a third party and settle the issue like adults. The administrator of the site has been contacted by several people about this issue, and this issue has been brought up publicly several times now.


This issue is pretty black and white. There should be no need for discussion about fair use or whether the videos are for "educational use". WFN is ripping other people's videos from websites, re-uploading them, displaying them as their own content, and serving ads on them. It's pretty safe to say no one is okay with this.

As Chris said (and as I pointed out in a private message to Adam - which like Hallry's email never got a response), the logic that there's "no source of income from the ad" doesn't mean they're not ads. Likewise, the logic behind planning to attribute people, but in the meantime not removing the videos or contacting the original owners and making sure it's alright if they re-upload the videos is flawed.

A quick solution for this would be for WFN to do the right thing, and just link to the YouTube videos on their website, like The Blue Alliance does. To Adam: If you need a programmer to replace the ripped videos with the proper embedded YouTube links, I'm sure we can work out a deal

[Michael Hill]

I knew FIRST was all about giving students "real life" engineering situations. It's now evolved to giving students "real life" legal situations

[Duncan Macdonald]

I'm not qualified for the legal discussion but I like the benefits of a stable video archive. Teams don't always last and don't always manage the transition of accounts. (There's an old 610 channel with a video of someone tripping that we can't remove for example)

The only reason we have the 1996 championship is because someone recorded it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8N6lnle1fc Is this ok?

[Bochek]

Everyone,

I don't have time right now to write an at length response to this entire thread. But I would like to make sure you all know that I am aware of the thread. I'm going to do my best with the time I have right now to respond to some comments, I will get to the rest later tonight or tomorrow.

If you read through my responses to the last thread I stated that

I have plans to add a "video provided by" line to the page, but things take time. I am not a programmer, I pay to have the site developed.

I understand that crediting the source of the videos is an important bit that I have forgotten when originally developing the site.

which like Hallry's email never got a response

I have responded to 2 emails from him. I have asked for proof of ownership of the YouTube account. I have not heard back yet. I will send him a PM tonight.


From what I can read, there are 2 main problems at hand. One is the fact that we don't credit the source, which I will fix. Second is the people who would rather fight to call something theirs (which I'm not trying to take away from them) instead of help the cause and help spread the word of FIRST.

Requesting video take downs is of benefit to no one.

If people have specific issues. Lets come up with ideas to solve them instead of just complaining.

- Bochek

[Hallry]

Originally Posted by Bochek

I have responded to 2 emails from him. I have asked for proof of ownership of the YouTube account. I have not heard back yet. I will send him a PM tonight.

What email account did you use to reply back with? I have not recieved a reply on either of the 2 email accounts that I emailed the administrator account with.

EDIT: I've check through all of the emails on both accounts...Can't find anything from WFN.

[Tom Line]

Originally Posted by Bochek

I have responded to 2 emails from him. I have asked for proof of ownership of the YouTube account. I have not heard back yet. I will send him a PM tonight.

This is fairly straightforward. You're breaking the youtube terms of service.

https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms
(section 4)

You're also connecting that breach with the FIRST name.

[Lucario]

Originally Posted by nuggetsyl

OK I am going to go post every episode of pawn stars and myth busters on YouTube. I won't ask for ads and just tell the discovery channel and history channel its educational so I won't get in trouble.

Just like Tristan said, you probably won't get sued because they don't care enough; but in this case, you're definitely affecting the potential market. Shows on the Discovery channel are of a commercial nature, and it would be financially viable for them to sue you if you're causing them to lose enough ad revenue from their TV showings.

Originally Posted by BBray_T1296

Can' tell if ignorant or joking.

Kinda. The Youtube Partner Program is a service people sign up for to get paid for videos. It's a reason why artists actually post music videos on YouTube and let you listen to them for free.

Originally Posted by Zach O

If it was devoid of advertisements, this might be true. But it's not. They're running advertisements for a Canadian hosting company at the bottom of every archive page. The other issue people have is that there is absolutely no attribution to the original source, and no one was contacted to see if it was okay to rip their videos and re-upload them privately to another video hosting website.

Ah, didn't see that- thanks for pointing it out. That does make it less okay, but who knows if they profit from it?
Also, attribution isn't connected legally to fair use, but it certainly is the morally correct thing to do.

[scottandme]

Originally Posted by Bochek

From what I can read, there are 2 main problems at hand. One is the fact that we don't credit the source, which I will fix. Second is the people who would rather fight to call something theirs (which I'm not trying to take away from them) instead of help the cause and help spread the word of FIRST.

Requesting video take downs is of benefit to no one.

If people have specific issues. Lets come up with ideas to solve them instead of just complaining.

Well, those videos are theirs, they filmed, edited, and published them in a medium of their choice (youtube). Sounds like you're the one fighting to call something yours, when it's clearly not.

If we're giving out gold stars for "spreading the word of FIRST" - who would you give more credit to...

A) The teams filming, editing, and uploading events - who work with the admins of TBA to link match results to match video.

or

B) Someone using a bot to download videos from youtube, upload them to a Vimeo account, and serving them on a superfluous website laden with ads.

If your view is that re-uploading videos to a separate account is beneficial - knock yourself out. But to do so without the permission of the creator (in this case the explicit disapproval of the creator), isn't the proper way to go about it. I know that team 25 has purposely not published their match video from Hatboro since they don't want you to rip and re-upload it. That's not a net gain for the FIRST community.

[Lucario]

Originally Posted by scottandme

If we're giving out gold stars for "spreading the word of FIRST" - who would you give more credit to...

A) The teams filming, editing, and uploading events - who work with the admins of TBA to link match results to match video.

or

B) Someone using a bot to download videos from youtube, upload them to a Vimeo account, and serving them on a superfluous website laden with ads.

I'd say, who cares? The easiest behavior to change is your own.

Instead of trying to shut them down, why not just roll with it? If you want to take credit for this worthy activity, why not just talk about how many of your videos are featured on the distribution site? Uploading credit is certainly something to ask for, but in the case of an uncooperative host, a small watermark in the corner will certainly do the trick.

Just talk about how you're working with other teams/people to expand FIRST beyond your own personal capabilities.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by Lucario

I'd say, who cares? The easiest behavior to change is your own.

Instead of trying to shut them down, why not just roll with it? If you want to take credit for this worthy activity, why not just talk about how many of your videos are featured on the distribution site? Uploading credit is certainly something to ask for, but in the case of an uncooperative host, a small watermark in the corner will certainly do the trick.

Just talk about how you're working with other teams/people to expand FIRST beyond your own personal capabilities.

The people who spent the time collecting and editing the videos???

It is not the responsibility of the people "providing" (its not really providing at the moment because they were never asked) the content to talk about this on their own. This is the responsibility of whomever is running the website. How about I grab pictures of you off of Facebook (or other media site) and use them on a website for promotional work. I'm not going to ask you can just tell everyone that its you. This is not how the real world works.

What they are doing is great in that they are providing a database of videos for matches. While redundant since we have TBA they each have their own way of doing things, every good thing will have competition. With that being said, more people would be open to the idea of linking their match videos to these websites if they are 1. ASKED and 2. credit is given either by a disclaimer or a link to the original work.

To whomever is running this: please stop taking videos for the time being and resume once you come up with a process for asking for permission and giving credit where it is due. You are only hurting yourself more by creating a bad reputation of your website. I believe your intentions are good to create a better video database considering when you started your efforts TBA wasn't getting much new content.

[Lucario]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

It is not the responsibility of the people "providing" (its not really providing at the moment because they were never asked) the content to talk about this on their own. This is the responsibility of whomever is running the website. How about I grab pictures of you off of Facebook (or other media site) and use them on a website for promotional work. I'm not going to ask you can just tell everyone that its you. This is not how the real world works.

Legally, this is the way the world works in the case of fair use, which is why determining if it falls under that category is so pivotal in this discussion. I can take a photo off the internet and show it to a classroom for educational purposes- a case that definitely falls within the area of fair use.

Yes, credit should be given where credit is due, as I mention in my above post, but modifying their behavior is not something entirely within your control, while adapting to it certainly is.

(You also won't find me on Facebook- I have a thing against them )

[Ryan Dognaux]

Originally Posted by Duncan Macdonald

The only reason we have the 1996 championship is because someone recorded it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8N6lnle1fc Is this ok?

This. Oh how I wish WatchFIRSTNow existed 15 years ago & would have copied everything from the Soap108 database. I feel like we lost some great old footage because that original source went away. I know some of it is still floating around (http://firstvideoarchive.com/) but I also know this wasn't everything we had back then either.

It's an interesting time now. Back then I think the WatchFIRSTNow effort would be praised but with the advance of content copyright and online streaming, things have changed quite a bit.

Speaking of FIRST Video Archive, are there ways of linking those old videos to TBA? Or do they need to be uploaded to YouTube for that to occur? Would uploading them to a YouTube account spark the same kind of discussion we're having here?

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Bochek

From what I can read, there are 2 main problems at hand. One is the fact that we don't credit the source, which I will fix. Second is the people who would rather fight to call something theirs (which I'm not trying to take away from them) instead of help the cause and help spread the word of FIRST.
- Bochek

I'm sorry, but you don't get to claim the moral high ground here or try to shame people who are objecting to your appropriation of their hard work and effort to record matches. You don't get to decide for those people what the best use and display of their work is, because you didn't do it. Allow me to demonstrate:

I think because of the controversy over your site, your brand is compromised and could benefit from relaunching under a different name with different management to provide a clean break from said controversies. I demand you provide me all the supporting source of your site so I can make the necessary changes and relaunch it under my management as "ThisIsFIRST". Under my new management it will be much more successful at helping the cause and spreading the word of FIRST. So you should totally hand over all that source to paid to develop. I'll (obviously) just rip the content from your video sharing accounts myself.

[George Nishimura]

What is YouTube or Vimeo's policy on accounts that get deleted/banned? As in, if an account was deleted or banned, is there a way for the account holder to access (ie 'take back') the videos they uploaded on to the account?

Preface: This is not an opinion on WFN or their execution/implementation. I've only skimmed over the details of that case, so I'm not willing to provide an opinion on it.

In general, I agree that having one, centralized community-driven storage of videos would be useful. So that videos won't get lost, and are easier to access for people who want to design portals that showcase those videos (similar to TBA). For example, a rather simple implementation would be to have one YouTube channel called 'FIRST videos' that anyone can upload to.

Is there a particular reason why people who filmed/edited videos want to upload them? Do they get money from them? (I'm just trying to see what potential issues might arise from such a centralized solution, not attack anyone).