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.
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.
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.
Kinda. The https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
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.
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.
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.
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 
)
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?
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.
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).
Are you serious? Your site is being counteractive to the “message and unity” you seem to be promoting. Wouldn’t FIRST benefit more from having everything aggregated in one place with everythinf(match scores, awards, videos, basically TBA)?
I know 1676 pride themselves on the significant amount of match videos they post. Saying you “forgot to credit them” is just as bad as ignoring it completely. Its great that you webcast and archive all Canadian events, but is it necessary to host every other video?
Either way if you decide to start asking permission from other teams to host their videos, I can guarantee you’re going to have a hard time getting approvals from some people…
I for one love 1676s MARchives(can we please start calling them that?), as they’re an angle and quality better than most webcasts in MAR, and easy to watch since I barely have time to watch a full MAR webcast/follow the MAR teams I wanna follow.
Maybe I should have rephrased my question. I meant more:
In exchange for accreditation (or similar), would everyone be willing to upload it to a centralized location, instead of (only) their personal YouTube/Vimeo account? Or are there other factors involved?
after reading through this forum and discussing it with my English teacher he told me that what WATCHFIRSTNOW is doing is not wrong. YouTube is a public domain full of public files, the team does not have to post there videos to you-tube. therefore Watchfirstnow has every right to take videos of of you-tube for personal use as long as its for non-private. as long as the video is not copyright, they have all the right to take it and use it.
That is wrong, for one, the video is copyrighted and is not public domain
I’m not making commentary on WFN, but so this ^^ Just because something is public doesn’t make it public domain. The first is a measure of availability, the second is a measure of copyright.
Then I hate to be the bearer of bad news but your english teacher is wrong.
Compare what WFN is doing to something he MIGHT understand: I’ve got a lot of posts on here, some of which almost provide some educational value. Now, copy the text of that and put it verbatim into a book. Is it bad to do this without citing me? You bet it is. You’re taking my work as your own. Now, yes, that work is a derivative of other’s work. But the fact is that I am the one who wrote it originally.
Now, if I record an event happening is it really any different? Nope. I hit the record button, I set the angles for the shot, I did any required editing. Now, if someone takes it and uses it for their own gain (which this is undeniably doing) it is infringement. This is a really simple case.
Perhaps you should review the https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
[quote=“5. Your Use of Content”]
Content is provided to you AS IS. You may access Content for your information and personal use solely as intended through the provided functionality of the Service and as permitted under these Terms of Service. You shall not download any Content unless you see a “download” or similar link displayed by YouTube on the Service for that Content. You shall not copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, or otherwise exploit any Content for any other purposes without the prior written consent of YouTube or the respective licensors of the Content.[/quote]
Can we assume this is true? I’m not sure. Rogers v. Koons showed that selling a sculpture based on a picture is infringement, but in this case, WFN is not selling anything (except an ad, which might be a point of contention). It’s always the same ad, too, which seems to suggest that the money from that ad is not for commercial reasons, but merely to pay for web hosting.
I’ve been keeping a close eye on this thread, but have been trying not to post too much on it.
One of the many reasons why TBA is amazing is the ability for uploaders to voluntarily submit their match videos for an event. They can do it both on the site and it’s even easier to do so on this Google Doc, all they have to do is provide the link for the playlist and someone else will take care of sorting all of it. These videos are still hosted on the uploader’s channel so if a user clicks on one of the embedded videos, it goes straight to the uploader’s video page.
EDIT: Also found that there is a Facebook Group for coordinating TBA match footage as well.
One of the new awards last year was the FRC New Media Award, which “will recognize a team’s creative use of digital media and devices to create and distribute content that is used to promote the team’s profile, achievements, and outreach, along with the FIRST mission.” 15% of the grading for this award is Engagement, with questions asked such as “How did you track the results?”. If you look at the winning submission last year from Panteras](http://panterasup.com/en/resources/docs/file/171-media-and-technology-innovation-award-2013), one of the main ways they did this was providing statistics of views on their YouTube Channel. However, if their footage is stolen from them and posted elsewhere, their recordable reach of their content will decrease. This could hurt a team that’s in the running for this award.
And I also just want to put this out there: What if I go download all of WFN’s footage and then post it on my own personal account somewhere, and start advertising it like crazy on Chief Delphi as “Robotics Videos Online”. That would be perfectly fine under WFN’s beliefs, correct? (assuming everything else is disregarded)
That’s my $0.02 for now. I’ll see if I can dig up any more change in my pockets later.