Copyright Infringement Regarding F1 & the Internet

[Sam48]

I'll start by saying, I was almost certain this was going to happen.

Using a video capture device and a VCR with a tape running inside, I recorded and published the final laps of the F1 British GP on YouTube. Three days and nearly 700 views later, it was removed. I understand I do not have the right to the video, however, the exceptions they grant are quite odd, in my opinion.

For example, these ARE allowed:

(One of which is a non-English version and one which is recorded on a camera filming a TV)




However, this is NOT aloud: (My video which was just removed)



Why is that? Obviously, the first two videos did not get the FOM's permission. Notice I cropped out the F1 banner in the corner.

Also, wouldn't the FOM encourage online videos for the purpose of increasing popularity?

 

[Alex p.]

Oh God I missed the Brit GP, if I only knew you uploaded that!

 

[Stevisiov]

Also, wouldn't the FIA encourage online videos for the purpose of increasing popularity?

The FIA have nothing to do with it, its FOM who have the rights to F1 related media.

 

[Sam48]

The FIA have nothing to do with it, its FOM who have the rights to F1 related media.

Fixed, forgot about that

 

[Ardius]

Also, wouldn't the FOM encourage online videos for the purpose of increasing popularity?

No, because, FOM sell their coverage to TV stations around the world. If they allow any old person to upload and broadcast the footage for free on the internet, it rather undermines and devalues their product.

The reason some videos have not been taken down yet is that its impossible for FOM to find every single video ever. As I understand it, Youtube don't bother to do all the taking down themselves, or rather, do all the searching, FOM have to put in a request with Youtube for these videos to be taken down. So sometimes there are videos which slip through.
Not to mention there are users constantly re-uploading the videos anyway, its a constant running battle.

You can bet all the videos posted here will be taken down sooner rather than later now though because you have posted them here. Forums only make FOM's job easier, just the same with illegal online streams.

 

[Sam48]

At the cost of more fans? Why don't they have videos replays on F1.com either? It seems like once it's broadcast, it's done. You'll never see it again.

Also, my question about what is legit in regards to the format of how it is broadcast on the internet has not been addressed.

 

[F1 fan]

The commercial rights holders of Motogp do a somewhat better job. It's nigh on impossible to watch classic Motogp on youtube.

 

[Tired Tyres]

The commercial rights holders of Motogp do a somewhat better job. It's nigh on impossible to watch classic Motogp on youtube.

It's still self defeating though. It's free advertising for the sport.

The youtube clips are not full races and wouldn't even count as highlights as a TV programme so they are not hurting anyone.

 

[Ardius]

At the cost of more fans? Why don't they have videos replays on F1.com either? It seems like once it's broadcast, it's done. You'll never see it again.

Also, my question about what is legit in regards to the format of how it is broadcast on the internet has not been addressed.

Sure you will, your country's broadcaster (Speed I believe and Fox?) has the right to show highlights and classic races through their F1 license.
They do have video replays on F1.com, they have both a pole lap and a highlights video. Ok, they don't have a full race replay but I assume this is at each country's broadcaster's discretion to show this, otherwise the "F1 license" doesn't really give them much does it? In the UK, the BBC through their iPlayer product allow you to view a full race replay (and all the qualifying and practice sessions) for up to 7 days after the event.

I'm not fully read-up on the licensing details for F1, and I don't think its public information in any case. So I don't know the exact reasons why, but my guesses are to do with the agreements with the broadcasters and the need to make the F1 license actually have some value.

Nothing is "legit" for broadcast on the internet. You cannot stream, you cannot upload FOM broadcasts as video. The only things that I think you are allowed are trackside home video and your own photos, etc. But you cannot take the FOM World Feed broadcasts and put them on youtube as it breaches the copyright of the broadcasts.

It's still self defeating though. It's free advertising for the sport.

The youtube clips are not full races and wouldn't even count as highlights as a TV programme so they are not hurting anyone.

Its hurting the FOM's F1 license, what value does it have to the BBC, Speed, RTL, or whoever when people can then simply watch it all on the internet for free? The FOM would struggle to justify the very steep license fees they demand, which not only pay for all the very well produced coverage but also gives TV money for the teams, etc etc.

 

[Sam48]

I understand, I suppose.

Also then, why has almost every other major motorsport, like NASCAR, IRL, and ILMC, (At least in the US) taken a completely opposite approach, letting fans post as they wish? (I'm assuming they aren't part of the FOM)

 

[F1 fan]

I understand, I suppose.

Also then, why has almost every other major motorsport, like NASCAR, IRL, and ILMC, (At least in the US) taken a completely opposite approach, letting fans post as they wish?

My guess is because there isn't nearly as much money involved. F1 is only behind The olympics and the world cup in terms of global viewing. There's money to be made, so FOM don't want anything to jeopardize that. Nascar, IRL etc can afford to let people post videos in the hopes of attracting new fans.

 

[Ardius]

I understand, I suppose.

Also then, why has almost every other major motorsport, like NASCAR, IRL, and ILMC, (At least in the US) taken a completely opposite approach, letting fans post as they wish? (I'm assuming they aren't part of the FOM)

They use different systems of broadcasting, TV licensing and copyrights. All those series do not have "TV money" to pay the teams and operate allowing the TV companies to pay for and manage the recording and broadcast of the race.
So, for F1, FOM set up the cameras and produce, record and broadcast the race. The TV companies then effectively buy this broadcast (referred to as the "World Feed").
In most other series (and most other sports actually), the TV companies send their own crews and equipment to record the event and pay for all this themselves.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both systems. But I personally think the FOM way works quite well because in the past we relied on local TV companies to produce the race, so in Britain, BBC would record the race, in Japan, Fuji TV, etc...which would lead to some very poor directors either only following local drivers, only following the race leader, etc etc. FOM have completely transformed the coverage into a much more balanced broadcast.

Its not really an option for a series like IRL or ILMC to do this because they don't have the kind of popularity in the first place to start selling to TV companies with this system. They don't have the international audience which makes it possible either.

Same kind of for NASCAR, its still really a series stuck to the US.

So why don't the other series stop internet videos? Well because they aren't the ones who actually broadcast the race for one and for another, they don't actually sell their coverage overseas so much. NASCAR/Speed/whoever wouldn't lose money from videos on Youtube because in a lot of countries they don't sell a broadcast to anyway.

 

[FoolKiller]

I know that from the outside the statement, "But it creates more fans for them," sounds like it makes complete sense, but from a business perspective you have to look at it this way:

You Tube Internet viewership creates some new fans, which are each worth a couple of souvenir/merchandise sales.

Licensed broadcast fans are worth the same merchandising sales, plus their subscription fees to channels like Speed, plus advertising revenue, which is based on viewership.

They don't fight You Tube videos to be mean to the people trying to share one of their favorite sports, but to block off all non-profitable broadcasts. By making the only viable option the licensed broadcaster they push the You Tube viewers toward being worth more money.

As for why some non-English versions are still up, FOM has to request they be taken down. Many groups use software to scan sites like You Tube for their product. It is a sort of speech to text software that looks for keywords or phrases. We use something like it at work. The problem with this software is that for each language you almost have to have all new software, so on sites like You Tube where English is primarily used they may not be searching many languages outside of English.


Now, the issue I have is that Speed is where many racing leagues go. But Speed directs most of their attention toward NASCAR and will give preference to NASCAR over other things. I remember ALMS races being interrupted for NASCAR testing. And then a lot of that stuff is not made viewable online.

But I believe that ALMS has found the best way to go this year with their ESPN3.com deal. They still have Sebring and Long Beach up for viewing, as well as Lime Rock Park. And if you aren't in the US they have it available on the ALMS site. Five years ago I wouldn't have believed Internet only programming would be a good deal, but I think it works great for ALMS. I get to watch qualifying and I can go back and watch the races if I miss them. And from a broadcast and racing league business point of view it is working too. They picked up a new advertiser during the Lime Rock Race. And those advertisements are still in the On Demand feed after the race is over.

Give it some time and either Speed will realize they need to back off the NASCAR coverage or the racing leagues will realize the world is at a place where some regions will be better served by an online broadcast.

 

[F1 fan]

in the past we relied on local TV companies to produce the race, so in Britain, BBC would record the race, in Japan, Fuji TV, etc...which would lead to some very poor directors either only following local drivers, only following the race leader, etc etc. FOM have completely transformed the coverage into a much more balanced broadcast.

But there is still a separate director for Monaco, which is why the coverage of the Monaco Grand Prix is (arguably) inferior. He/She made some terrible decisions this year, such as cutting away from battles as they were happening.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Its hurting the FOM's F1 license, what value does it have to the BBC, Speed, RTL, or whoever when people can then simply watch it all on the internet for free? The FOM would struggle to justify the very steep license fees they demand, which not only pay for all the very well produced coverage but also gives TV money for the teams, etc etc.

No it is not. Youtube videos are not live TV nor are they replacements for watching either live TV or watching highlights on TV.

Who would disregard TV coverage in favour of youtube coverage?

It is free advertising for sport simple as that.

 

[FoolKiller]

Who would disregard TV coverage in favour of youtube coverage?

It is free advertising for sport simple as that.

Speed is a premium channel with premium fees. I don't have Speed because I refuse to pay their price to essentially get a NASCAR channel with other series races mixed in at 10PM.

 

[Ardius]

No it is not. Youtube videos are not live TV nor are they replacements for watching either live TV or watching highlights on TV.

Who would disregard TV coverage in favour of youtube coverage?

It is free advertising for sport simple as that.

Because we/the OP was talking about why full race coverage is available for other series and the differences with copyrights, licensing, etc.
Yeah, sure, people aren't going to ditch live TV coverage for a bunch of little clips on Youtube, but FOM have a legal obligation with the licenses they have sold to the TV companies to attempt to stop and take down these videos. It might seem petty to you and free advertising, but its genuinely damaging to the license.

The BBC actually cut out any F1 material they use in their programming such as TopGear and many documentaries after they have been shown live because of their licensing agreement with FOM. These are mostly short little clips that obviously wouldn't replace watching a live F1 feed and are free advertising for F1....but quite clearly there is a restriction here for a very good reason.

FOM don't make money from Youtube is effectively the simplest answer and NASCAR and all those other series don't particularly care because they don't make huge amounts of money in TV licensing fees in the first place.

You cannot watch F1 in any country without paying (be it live, highlights, small clips, whatever). But with Youtube you can.

 

[Sam48]

I guess I'll be recording the race from a hand-held next time.

I think there's another exception as well, and that is, major highlights. If I google a race finish, odds are I won't find it. If a google a highlight, like "Mark Webber Valencia Crash", I get hundreds of what I'm looking for, and not just poor quality ones by people recording on their TVs. So there must be some exception there, but I'm not sure what exactly.

 

[Ardius]

I guess I'll be recording the race from a hand-held next time.

I think there's another exception as well, and that is, major highlights. If I google a race finish, odds are I won't find it. If a google a highlight, like "Mark Webber Valencia Crash", I get hundreds of what I'm looking for, and not just poor quality ones by people recording on their TVs. So there must be some exception there, but I'm not sure what exactly.

I don't know the details of the copyrights and licensing involved, but I would have thought simply pointing a camera at your TV isn't legal either (for the purposes of re-distribution on the internet).

 

[Sam48]

Apparently, it is

 

[Pupik]

Apparently, it is [...]

You're missing the point; re-distributing and re-duplicating copy-written works by any means is still illegal, regardless if it's an F1 broadcast, my daughter's paintings, or your cousin's piano recital. Talking about or discussing the race online is another matter, and is not the same thing.

A short clip serves to demonstrate and explain what Formula One racing is, which may/may not constitute Fair Use. But recording 10 minutes of continuous racing laps is a patent copyright infringement for the purpose of what can only be described as re-distribution, for which you do not have permission to do.

Yes, some things are going to slip through the cracks, because it's the Internet. You mow the lawn, but the grass grows back. The only solution is to replace it with a rock garden, and then you're fastidiously pulling weeds. Much of it can be caught, but never 100%.

I don't know the details of the copyrights and licensing involved, but I would have thought simply pointing a camera at your TV isn't legal either (for the purposes of re-distribution on the internet).

It isn't. If I skillfully re-draw a photograph you've created, and I re-distribute it without permission, I've broken copyright law. The only exceptions would be if the works didn't have a copyright on them. Removing the copyright or deriving the work in another fashion (like filming it with a video camera, changing the color to sepia, or putting your website name on the video [which is now bordering on evil, in my opinion ]) is a derivative work that is illegal. The cars, drivers, and the racetrack are not under copyrights; so one could attend the race and take pictures or video (if it's permitted at the track) of their own as that's fine. The broadcasted images are under copyright, so technically even still images of the race on TV are not permitted.

 

[Sam48]

You're missing the point; re-distributing and re-duplicating copy-written works by any means is still illegal, regardless if it's an F1 broadcast, my daughter's paintings, or your cousin's piano recital. Talking about or discussing the race online is another matter, and is not the same thing.

A short clip serves to demonstrate and explain what Formula One racing is, which may/may not constitute Fair Use. But recording 10 minutes of continuous racing laps is a patent copyright infringement for the purpose of what can only be described as re-distribution, for which you do not have permission to do.

Yes, some things are going to slip through the cracks, because it's the Internet. You mow the lawn, but the grass grows back. The only solution is to replace it with a rock garden, and then you're fastidiously pulling weeds. Much of it can be caught, but never 100%.

Yes, what I meant was they do not bother with some (Understandably). Now, what about for personal use only? If I record the race on my VRC, can I watch it again? (And what if there are other people watching the replay with me? Is that technically illegal?)

 

[HippieGiraffe]

Yes, what I meant was they do not bother with some (Understandably). Now, what about for personal use only? If I record the race on my VRC, can I watch it again? (And what if there are other people watching the replay with me? Is that technically illegal?)

Not technically, it is. No different than downloading a CD for personal use. Posting anything online (or snail-mail, or selling on a street corner) is distrubution and is also illegal. For it to be "okay" by Bernie & his cronies, you would have to pay them for the rights. This is also likely the reason why you don't see many F1 highlights on stations such as ESPN, or your local news recap... $$$.

And just to throw in, the far extreme would be having a bunch of races on VHS (or otherwise) which is okay, up until the feds come a knocking. If your caught with those tapes/recordings, jail and probably a massive fine.

 

[Barra333]

And just to throw in, the far extreme would be having a bunch of races on VHS (or otherwise) which is okay, up until the feds come a knocking. If your caught with those tapes/recordings, jail and probably a massive fine.

My understanding of copyright rules is that you can record the material off the TV, and watch it yourself as many times as you like. But the second you broadcast it publicly (eg. youtube) or charge someone to watch it (sell a DVD) you have broken the law.

After some looking:

You may make a copy of this content for your personal non-commercial use only, provided that you keep all copyright and other proprietary notices intact and you agree not to modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, frame, post, transmit or distribute by any means or in any manner, any material or information on or downloaded from the Site including but not limited to text, graphics, video, messages, code and/or software without our prior written consent. No right, title or interest in any material or software is transferred to you as a result of any such downloading or copying.

This applies to the material on the website, but I'm pretty sure the wording on the TV feed would be very similar

 

[HippieGiraffe]

This applies to the material on the website, but I'm pretty sure the wording on the TV feed would be very similar

Don't take things out of context, you skipped over the key: "...provided that you keep all copyright and other proprietary notices intact...". He admitted in the very first post he cropped the F1 logo out of the frame. He also uploaded it, which is distribution. That's two strikes. And quite frankly, by ridding the logo, he more or less distributed bootleg material which is a completely different can of worms. Video-taping your screen is also the same, as it is for those folk who take camcorders into movie theatres.

Some reading... here & here.

 

[Sam48]

Don't take things out of context, you skipped over the key: "...provided that you keep all copyright and other proprietary notices intact...". He admitted in the very first post he cropped the F1 logo out of the frame.

Now, what about for personal use only? If I record the race on my VRC, can I watch it again? (And what if there are other people watching the replay with me? Is that technically illegal?)

I was referring to the actual possession of the VHS, not my uploaded edited version. (Which is now gone)

 

[Barra333]

I was referring to the actual possession of the VHS, not my uploaded edited version. (Which is now gone)

As was I. Which is what the bolded bit mainly pertains to in the point I was making.
Besides, if I was going to quote it out of context, it would have been more along the lines of

You may make a copy of this content for your personal non-commercial use only, ... you agree not to modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, frame, post, transmit or distribute by any means

I just didnt bother to highlight to watermark part, it is still there in its original place, in context of the passage.
The presence or not of the watermark on a youtube clip is kinda moot anyway, since the material was unquestionably distributed without permission of FOM.

 

[HippieGiraffe]

Some reading... here & here.

I was referring to the actual possession of the VHS, not my uploaded edited version.

All right, fair enough. But check those links, both cover entertainment/personal usage for the most part. And if not mistaken, I'm sure both the DMCA and the EUCD may cover it.

(Which is now gone)

"This video contains content from Formula One Management, who has blocked it on copyright grounds."

Ah.

As was I. Which is what the bolded bit mainly pertains to in the point I was making.
Besides, if I was going to quote it out of context, it would have been more along the lines of
I just didnt bother to highlight to watermark part, it is still there in its original place, in context of the passage.
The presence or not of the watermark on a youtube clip is kinda moot anyway, since the material was unquestionably distributed without permission of FOM.

Certain parts of the quote are in bold, which any reader will immediately be drawn too. Watch the news, read the paper, listen to the radio... the most of them do it around the clock nowadays. Eh, not trying to be an ass about it, just pointing it out

 

[RTSolvalou]

I prefer to call it a 'digital backup of my memory', but as we all know, the system doesn't apply logic unless it stands to gain from it.

What if I developed a machine that could turn my thoughts into video, could I then freely distribute the video that is generated 100% by my memory. The answer is yes, but the system of course would say they own the rights to it.

 

[Pupik]

American law does permit the recording of live broadcasts, and even backing up your own personal collection of video tapes, DVDs, et cetera with a single archival copy. This might vary in other countries, though.

Selling it, renting it, broadcasting it, uploading it, et al...are all illegal.