137 replies to this topic

[ProfPorter]

Being a newbie both to F1 and this forum, I was interested in what others thought about this whole business of fan videos being removed from YouTube. I came across it on the F1Fanatic blog, which contains the link to the original blog about the Melbourne GP.

http://indolentdandy...ment-and-i-won/

It's not just the issue about who owns the copyright. What I can't understand is why you'd want to restrict access to images of F1. Surely FOM should be encouraging more viewing to get more fans. If I see a shaky video of an exciting race, it makes me want to go see the real thing.

Also, what do the advertisers say about this? They pay phenomenal sums to advertise on the cars and around the tracks. They'd get a bit more free publicity if fan videos were more widely available.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Copyright, plain and simple. You don't have the rights to broadcast F1 footage, even if you record it yourself.

[ProfPorter]

Except that copyright isn't so plain nor simple. For instance, there's this little thing called "fair use".

[Ross Stonefeld]

Good luck beating FOM in court.

[potmotr]

Originally posted by ProfPorter
Being a newbie both to F1 and this forum, I was interested in what others thought about this whole business of fan videos being removed from YouTube.

Bernie and co and charge a massive premium to broadcasters for TV rights.

Their work to take down youtube postings reflects their desire to protect the exclusive nature of their sport product.

They also wish to protect how their sport is portrayed.

For instance, a TV crew in the Formula One paddock is not allowed to shoot anything other than what goes on in the pitlane or paddock.

On track action can only be taken from the official F1 feed.

It isn't at all unique to top level sport. Premier league football, for example, also works extremely hard to protect its rights, reflecting their value.

[ProfPorter]

Hmmmm. I understand why Bernie and co do what they do, but I can't help concurring with the Australian bloke that they're a bunch of dinosaurs. I can't be the only person in the world who not only doesn't have a TV but wouldn't want to sit and watch it when the races are on. I like to choose when I watch.
As a new fan, you have to work really hard to actually get interested. The only "action" I've seen so far has been thanks to Top Gear, the Frankenheimer film and a YouTube video about the Monaco GP.
I've found some great blogs, and joined a couple of forums, where many fans complain about the TV coverage. I'd happily save up to go watch a race for real, but I'd like to see what I'm getting first.

[wewantourdarbyback]

It's exactly the same as the FA, English Premier League and Football League having videos taken down. You have the rights to any video of the action you produce, you want to be paid for it.

[Latos]

Here's my F1 2010 video review. Hope you like it

[F1Newbie]

Here's my F1 2010 video review. Hope you like it

Nice

[johnmhinds]

Most of the videos they take down are of crashes, which I guess reflect negatively on the sport.

When Kubica had his big crash at Canada 2007 they took down every single video of it.

Edited by johnmhinds, 15 December 2010 - 14:56.

[rolf123]

FOM are major a-holes. I could understand if they had a decent offering online or some special subscription but all they have is the regular terrestrial free to air live show. So who gives 2 hoots if someone puts some coverage on YT?

Apparently though, Bernie can't do anything about pre-1980 stuff? Is this true?

[Captain Cranckcase]

Surely the more exposure of f1 or any sport for that matter on youtube will bring in new fans and maybe even sponsors. f1 is still a minority sport really, it needs exposure. Remember the pay to watch f1 channel? What the hell was that about! £15 to watch a race when you could watch it for free on tv. Mental!

[Koen]

F1 videos bring more viewers to Youtube,
more viewers mean more cash from ads,
FOM wont let anyone make money on their show

[Ellios]

I think FOM should make race edits available from the F1 website without the requirement to sign up (I'm aware sign up/login takes a small amount of time), additionally make some shortened version available from youtube and similar video distribution sites - an FOM youtube channel? seriously...

it's theirs, they own it - but they really should make more content available across a wider medium

[flyer121]

FOM are major a-holes. I could understand if they had a decent offering online or some special subscription but all they have is the regular terrestrial free to air live show. So who gives 2 hoots if someone puts some coverage on YT?

Apparently though, Bernie can't do anything about pre-1980 stuff? Is this true?

Exactly .. And I think the OP has a very valid point about FOM being so finicky about youtube delayed videos.

Any streaming service lives off either or both the ways of revenue generation . Advertising OR subscription.

Since FOM do not have any online subscription system , it should simply make it available freely to generate more eyeballs for sponsors.

Moreover , only realtime videos are really worth paying so why bother scouring the cyberspace for any links to the much delayed videos.

And to think that they actually employ at least one department ( going by their efficiency in blocking videos in quick time) to look for these videos and block them.

More generally , the whole business of copyright ownership is up for a major overhaul because its a bit of a mess now. Embedded advertising may be the way to go.

Edited by flyer121, 15 December 2010 - 15:53.

[Captain Cranckcase]

F1 videos bring more viewers to Youtube,
more viewers mean more cash from ads,
FOM wont let anyone make money on their show

I doubt f1 is even in the top 500 things searched for on youtube.

[paulrobs]

We live in a world where joe public and the media think they have a right to publish anything and everything. I think that's plain wrong and I don't have an issue with F1 or indeed any other sport or spectacle protecting it's income and how and where it is portrayed by the media.

[Don_Humpador]

Since FOM do not have any online subscription system , it should simply make it available freely to generate more eyeballs for sponsors.

It doesn't even have to be free. I'd gladly pay a decent sum of money for a service that lets me

a) watch all current season races on-demand
b) watch the previous season's races on-demand
c) watch highlights of many other races in history
d) has several other types of F1-related shows
e) has a good quality stream with video and audio options

[BullHead]

There's lots of fan cam home videos from the trackside and grandstand. Some of them are good, and even revealing.

[arknor]

F1 videos bring more viewers to Youtube,
more viewers mean more cash from ads,
FOM wont let anyone make money on their show

i dont understand why FOM dont put videos on youtube itself and get youtube partner status so they get revenue from ads...

[BullHead]

Well, they want the money and traffic entirely to themselves. All videos are there on the F1.com website. Any ad money they make is all theirs from that site.
Still, I do think they could put out little teasers and clips on YouTube. Might actually increase their traffic somewhat.

[johnmhinds]

i dont understand why FOM dont put videos on youtube itself and get youtube partner status so they get revenue from ads...

The amount they'd make from youtube adverts would be spare change compared to the huge amounts they make from the TV fees.

And it would probably cost FOM more to produce the videos for youtube than the small amount they would get back from advertising anyway.

Edited by johnmhinds, 15 December 2010 - 19:45.

[Alx09]

Some of Lewis overtakes from earlier this year that I made:


Had to cut off top and bottom of the screen to not get it removed. (the f1 logo is there, which I guess they might match it with)

What I can't understand is why you'd want to restrict access to images of F1. Surely FOM should be encouraging more viewing to get more fans. If I see a shaky video of an exciting race, it makes me want to go see the real thing.

Couldn't agree more. It's a very strange "marketing" approach.

Edited by Alx09, 15 December 2010 - 23:46.

[Les]

Not quite F1 (the copyright issue is a minefield as well as a pain in the arse) but related to. Here's great video of Senna launching an assault on Brundle at Oulton Park in F3.

[fastlegs]

Anybody remember the days before the Internet came along?

If you wanted to follow F1 on a regular basis you had to go out and buy a magazine.

[Watkins74]

We live in a world where joe public and the media think they have a right to publish anything and everything. I think that's plain wrong and I don't have an issue with F1 or indeed any other sport or spectacle protecting it's income and how and where it is portrayed by the media.

Well said.

[Raelene]

We live in a world where joe public and the media think they have a right to publish anything and everything. I think that's plain wrong and I don't have an issue with F1 or indeed any other sport or spectacle protecting it's income and how and where it is portrayed by the media.

agreee - it's no different to a designer/recording star etc protecting their copyright

[Rybo]

We live in a world where joe public and the media think they have a right to publish anything and everything. I think that's plain wrong and I don't have an issue with F1 or indeed any other sport or spectacle protecting it's income and how and where it is portrayed by the media.

If the person is redistributing their (the FIA or their related properties)work, then they should take it down. However if it is created by a fan who has taken video trackside then they shouldnt take it down.

Things that happen in a public domain are just that. Public.

[Raelene]

If the person is redistributing their (the FIA or their related properties)work, then they should take it down. However if it is created by a fan who has taken video trackside then they shouldnt take it down.

Things that happen in a public domain are just that. Public.

So if I make my own "Hugo Boss" tshirt for example, and then reproduce them for lots to wear - even if I don't seel them that would be ok? I can tell you, Hugo Boss wouldn't think so, neither would the courts (in Australia at least)

Or if I go to a concert, record it and then publish it - that would be ok?

Edited by Raelene, 16 December 2010 - 01:12.

[Louis Siefert]

Except that copyright isn't so plain nor simple. For instance, there's this little thing called "fair use".

listen... next time you go to a baseball game in ameikka read the back of the ticket
it says in some legalese about not having the right to "transmit" the game in any form

I read that to be
film, video, or even verbal...

edit:
this example goes as far back as the early eighties

Edited by Louis Siefert, 16 December 2010 - 02:32.

[Louis Siefert]

i dont understand why FOM dont put videos on youtube itself and get youtube partner status so they get revenue from ads...

uhh maybe because then they can control the content and preserve the brand rather than some yah-hoo watering it down with questionable material
such as death, injury, or the facilities or spectacle being shown in a bad light

[Meanbeakin]

It doesn't even have to be free. I'd gladly pay a decent sum of money for a service that lets me

a) watch all current season races on-demand
b) watch the previous season's races on-demand
c) watch highlights of many other races in history
d) has several other types of F1-related shows
e) has a good quality stream with video and audio options

Yeah I think it's inexcusable FOM don't offer something like this, they're missing out on another revenue source as well. I agree stuff shouldn't be free but not having something like a pay service is a bit baffling.

Edited by Meanbeakin, 16 December 2010 - 02:27.

[aditya-now]

Anybody remember the days before the Internet came along?

If you wanted to follow F1 on a regular basis you had to go out and buy a magazine.

Well said! And sometimes you would get precious little coverage of certain races. In Austria F1 was fine since 1970, as most GPs got televised (thanks to Jochen Rindt and then Niki Lauda), except for a hiatus 1979 - 1980 (I think contractual reasons). But before 1970 there was nothing.

[arknor]

So if I make my own "Hugo Boss" tshirt for example, and then reproduce them for lots to wear - even if I don't seel them that would be ok? I can tell you, Hugo Boss wouldn't think so, neither would the courts (in Australia at least)

Or if I go to a concert, record it and then publish it - that would be ok?

your allowed to record concerts aslong as its not with profesional cameras etc..

look on youtube theres loads of handycam footage of concerts....

its ridiculous that fom rip everything off youtube , do any other sports do this?

[SimMaker]

F1 should start its own YouTube channel. Simple.

Where people can go watch classic races.

[slideways]

Damn, I thought potmotr was back.

[Latos]

Here's my F1 2010 video review. Hope you like it

This video has just been deleted because copyright claim by Formula One Management. To bad, bot not unexpected.

[Alx09]

My video was deleted as well. Guess there are som FOM guys lurking the forums. Sad really, should never have posted it here.

Edited by Alx09, 16 December 2010 - 12:16.

[Ross Stonefeld]

You're posting links you created in a thread entitled F1 VIDEOS ON YOUTUBE on the forum of one of the most recognised motorsport magazines in the world. The only way you could have made it easier for FOM is if you had called them yourself. Jesus.

[wingwalker]

Just wanted to say the same thing - if you like an F1 video on YT, this is the last place on the interwebs to post a link to it.

edit: <waves to FOM employess>

Edited by wingwalker, 16 December 2010 - 12:24.

[paulrobs]

If the person is redistributing their (the FIA or their related properties)work, then they should take it down. However if it is created by a fan who has taken video trackside then they shouldnt take it down.

Things that happen in a public domain are just that. Public.

I disagree.

I think the whole YouTube thing has gone too far. We have to accept that we just can't take videos of everything and anything and publish them however we see fit. I'm pretty sure that every bona fide F1 reporter/tv cmpany that takes photgraphs/video/etc and publishes that work has an agreement with F1 to do so. What makes joe public any different? I have taken video at Silvertsone, Hockenheim, Spa, The Nurburgring and Donnington and I watch it at home but I recognise that I do not have the right to hold public viewings of that video because I don't think I have a right to do that nor do I think it is correct to do that.

[Taxi]

I disagree.

I think the whole YouTube thing has gone too far. We have to accept that we just can't take videos of everything and anything and publish them however we see fit. I'm pretty sure that every bona fide F1 reporter/tv cmpany that takes photgraphs/video/etc and publishes that work has an agreement with F1 to do so. What makes joe public any different? I have taken video at Silvertsone, Hockenheim, Spa, The Nurburgring and Donnington and I watch it at home but I recognise that I do not have the right to hold public viewings of that video because I don't think I have a right to do that nor do I think it is correct to do that.

I understand you view. But FOM takes also they 'r protection to far. Just see: Apart from youtube they have strict contracts with TV's. It's ridiculous to watch the Formula 1 news at Eurosport: They show the results, the interview AND NOT A SINGLE PLAN OF A RACING CAR!. Other tv's like the spannish TVE make reports of the Alonso fans and show  some indirect plans. They film the television the fans are using to watch the race! For me to watch the races legaly in Portugal I have to pay EXTRA 25 euros month apart from the normal tv cable price.





In all, this politics are making me and a lot of fans to divorce slowly from the sport: This year I only watched  3 or  4 races. 

[paulrobs]

I understand you view. But FOM takes also they 'r protection to far. Just see: Apart from youtube they have strict contracts with TV's. It's ridiculous to watch the Formula 1 news at Eurosport: They show the results, the interview AND NOT A SINGLE PLAN OF A RACING CAR!. Other tv's like the spannish TVE make reports of the Alonso fans and show  some indirect plans. They film the television the fans are using to watch the race! For me to watch the races legaly in Portugal I have to pay EXTRA 25 euros month apart from the normal tv cable price.





In all, this politics are making me and a lot of fans to divorce slowly from the sport: This year I only watched  3 or  4 races. 

Sorry to hear that you don't get to watch many races

[Latos]

Reading Formula Money's 2010 financial report, it's really funny that FOM takes down youtube fan videos. It's from fans, the same people that spend a lot of money on f1 merchandise and race tickets. I don't know...

[Ross Stonefeld]

Because they get a significant portion of their money from TV rights, and allowing videos online weakens the value of that.

I hope you didn't pay for Formula Money. The (lack of)accuracy usually isn't worth the price.

[fastlegs]

It seems several posters are unclear as to the meaning of "copyright'.

Definition of COPYRIGHT

A bundle of exclusive rights granted to the author of a creative work such as book, movie, song, painting, photograph, design, computer software, or architecture. These rights include the right to make copies, authorize others to make copies, make derivative works, sell and market the work, and perform the work. Any one of these rights can be sold or licensed separately through transfers of copyright ownership. Copyright rights are acquired automatically once the work is fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Registration of the work with the Copyright Office offers additional benefits to the copyright owner.

http://www.nolo.com/...right-term.html

[MadYarpen]

It seems several posters are unclear as to the meaning of "copyright'.

Definition of COPYRIGHT

A bundle of exclusive rights granted to the author of a creative work such as book, movie, song, painting, photograph, design, computer software, or architecture. These rights include the right to make copies, authorize others to make copies, make derivative works, sell and market the work, and perform the work. Any one of these rights can be sold or licensed separately through transfers of copyright ownership. Copyright rights are acquired automatically once the work is fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Registration of the work with the Copyright Office offers additional benefits to the copyright owner.

http://www.nolo.com/...right-term.html

Well, it is not totally complete definition.

[Race Aficionado]

Well, thank goodness, this one is still up:

[olliek88]

Well, thank goodness, this one is still up:

Ditto, stunning video, love about 5:30 in when webber says RBR ave the best spirit in the pitlane, cue the turkey clash, lol, thinking it might be the FIA season review vid they put up on thier website too.

Found it thanks to james allen's twitter.

[ArnageWRC]

F1 should start its own YouTube channel. Simple.

Where people can go watch classic races.

Exactly!! Lots of sports have a You Tube channel. F1/FOM aren't really with it when it comes to new media, technologies, etc All they're interested in is making money by traditional ways.