麻豆官网首页入口

I'm wondering if it's legal to take a snap of a match on your phone, and if it is, will the police come knocking if you later show other people the picture, either when you get home or down the pub

If user footage of football games is to be taken down, I wonder how in future years we'll ever be able to see footage of a memorable match.

YouTube is acting like a web archive in these respects.

Perhaps YouTube only want to host stupid lipsyncing or weird dancing videos, if this is this is the case there are many other flash streaming sites that people will flock to.

It would be interesting if you could find out from an independent source (麻豆官网首页入口 legal dept, maybe?) whether the FA/League really have a copyright claim here, because it's not at all clear that they do.

Copyright generally arises in creative works not just in 'stuff that happens', so the music or lyrics of a song are copyrighted by their creators (or their record company) even if you record footage of them yourself. A television program covering a football match is copyrighted because of the efforts of the camera operators, director etc.

There's no such thing as an 'image right' - if you see me walking down the street (or even dribbling a ball down it) you're free to film or photograph me, and the copyright's then yours. Similarly there is no creative step in a football match, so in the case of DIY recorded footage, like this, where does the FA/League think it gets a copyright claim?

It's a shame really that the biggest moments of our weeks or months, ie going to a gig or the footy, has to be monitored so stringently in this way. Especially in an age when almost everyone seems to be owning a portable camera and video recorder.

Understandably these people still need to make their money. It is just a pity that everyone has to suffer the sever warnings that are issued to scare the few that abuse the copyright system. It seems to take some of the excitement out of 'being there' and telling your friends about it.

@ewan It's not a copyright claim, its a licensing claim. The football league has sold exclusive rights to the images of the game to various media outlets, and as a condition of being allowed to enter onto their private property and view their private event you have to agree not to infringe o those exclusive rights.

Your ticket is merely a purchase of the right to view the match live and no more, just like a cinema ticket or concert ticket. You might think that's wrong, that the fans own the game, but that's no longer the reality, the big media organisations own it and their pounds on the table will out-weigh the fans every time.

A total over-reaction from the football league to be sure (who in their right mind would want to televise a league 2 game???), but well within their legal rights.

It just goes to show that football is corporate ''performance art'' and not sport ... ;)

You were lucky that they warned you, Rory... someone I know did something similar with a homebrew vid on Youtube, and the next time he tried to log in, his account was gone. No warning, no information, nothing.

The FA's stance on footage is ludicrous, although I guess it's Sky/麻豆官网首页入口/Setanta making the rules there. However, I just can't see how they're losing any revenue from someone posting a grainy 30-second clip of footage from the terrace.

I have a great idea. Don't send You Tube ANYTHING! Eventually they will start pleading with us to send them stuff. And if they don't, who cares? I certainly don't. I lived without You Tube for many years and I can do it again.

Rory... as far as I am concerned and after reading the terms and conditions of Youtube, you have not broken any copyright laws by uploading that video to the website.

Youtube states that you can upload a video if you prove that you have made the content entirely by yourself. As you recorded this on your own handheld camera, that footage is 100% your own content. Upon buying a ticket to see a football match, you do not sign anything stating that you will not record what you see.

I suggest you ask some of the legal journalist's in the 麻豆官网首页入口 to look very deep into this, as I believe the 麻豆官网首页入口 can expose the Football League of going beyond the limits of what they can do! You cannot upload video's of the highlights, however I do bel8ieve it is a legal right that you can kleep memories of

I don't think it can be illegal to upload or have a personally recorded clip of a football match on Youtube. Surely the TV deal has to do with rights to film the matches... so it's up to the stadium to not let people film the matches.

e.g most museums say "no photography" but they can't confiscate my photos once I'm at home.

I have taken a still camera to many sports grounds and have never had a problem, although I have overheard stewards asking people to stop using cameras. From experience the official line is that cameras cant be taken inside the ground, this is usually in the T&Cs when you buy the ticket. In practice it they are fine with people taking shots of the stadium, and even the odd picture of the players, as long as they are not trying to record the action.


You are right that removing 37s of action is a bit over the top, but as always the question is where to draw the line. (10 minutes, 20 minutes etc?)

#2 - I am not a legal expert, but I believe the difference between film shot at a football match, and film (or pictures) taken in the street, is that at the football match you are on private property. As a result you cannot take photographs without the permission of the owner.

#9 You are right that the museum cant confiscate your photos, but I am pretty sure they can take action if you publish those photos on the internet.

under the CDPA a photographer owns the rights in any photos that he takes, and a director/producer own the rights in any film that he shoots

i guess it comes down to whether these rights are waived by the terms and conditions on an entry ticket for a football match

Taken from the terms and conditions for Wembley Stadium. As far as I know this is standard for most venues:

18 No person (other than a person who holds an appropriate licence) may bring into the Ground or use within the Ground any equipment which is capable of recording or transmitting (by digital or other means) any audio, visual or audio-visual material or any information or data in relation to the Event or the Ground. Copyright in any unauthorised recording or transmission is assigned (by way of present assignment of future copyright pursuant to section 91 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988) to WNSL.

"#9 You are right that the museum cant confiscate your photos, but I am pretty sure they can take action if you publish those photos on the internet."

Can they if you haven't taken any pictures of copyrighted material?

I believe there is also a case on this point - Creation Records v News Group Newspapers. Newsgroup took a photograph of the set-up for a photoshoot for the album cover of an Oasis album. Creation then sued Newsgroup for infringement of their copyright in the set-up. Newsgroup won on the basis that no copyright exists in the set-up itself. I believe the same would be true here, unless a game of football could be considered a "performance", which is unlikely.

In which case this would essentially be a breach of the license, as odysseus_nz points out. However, this would then be essentially a contract issue, which is between the two parties (Rory and the football club). The football club therefore have no right to take down the material (IMHO!).

If the football stadium exercises this legal right, then surely they should be legally bound to make it very clear to the punters? "No photography" and "No filming" notices should be displayed.
By the way, isn't it ironic that this should happen at a time when Google is posting pictures of streets with folk walking about or standing in their own doorway?

Whilst I accept that it's perfectly within the licence holder's legal rights to act this way, this is still a silly way to implement your rights.

Just because you're allowed to do something, doesn't mean you have to do that.

A little bit of individual discretion and intelligent/sympathetic application of the rules is required, rather than just walking all over us with their large corporate shoes.

If the big companies paid their customers a bit more respect, gave a little reasonable leeway, they might get a little back in return...

I went to Upton Park a few months back, and was told at half-time (while taking some pics of the people I was with) that I wasn't allowed to take any pics of the match due to copyright. Wasn't aware that photography was not permitted, until I read the back of the ticket which stated cameras were not allowed in the ground. Quite how they can enforce that on mobiles with them built in is beyond me. I do have some pics of the match, but they've never left my camera for fear of litigation. What is the world coming to when you can't take a few snaps of your favoured team and stick them on Facebook or Fotopic without some paranoid 'copyright' holder suing you? I fail to see how you can copyright a football match unless it is all pre-planned? It's not like people posting the stuff are professional photographers/videographers who we use the results to make money, they're just fans who want to be able to show people what happened when they went to a football match (that they coughed up a fortune to go to!).

Here are my team's (Arsenal) T&Cs which are similar to Wembley's:

2.4 Save as set out in clause 2.5 below, you shall not bring into (or use within) the Ground any equipment which is capable of recording or transmitting (by digital or other means) any audio, visual or audio-visual material or any information or data in relation to a Match or any aspect of it.

2.5 Mobile telephones are permitted within the Ground, provided that they are used for personal and private use only.

At least they list mobile phones as an exclusion since just about everybody in the stadium is likely to be carrying one, and nearly all will be capable of "recording... visual... material".

The reality is that stewards don't like you taking lots of photos of action - particularly with "professional" camaras. That is, DSLR cameras. A friend of mine had his DSLR confiscated before last night's Chelsea game (he got it back).

If you take photos of the ground before or after, nobody's going to complain.

But it's a condition of entry that you don't take photos or video of the action, irrespective of signs pointing it out or not.

That said, I've put plenty of photos on Flickr in the past and nobody's complained. But I know I'm probably breaking the rules.

Interestingly, I recently went to a Wasps game and sat in the front row with my massive DSLR lens and nobody was remotely bothered that I was getting photos.

I think it's hilarious that a 麻豆官网首页入口 blog should complain about licensing by the Football League when they themselves lock their own content up then slap a bright pink DOG on it for good measure.

What aspect of copyright law are you infringing here?

A live football match does not fall into any of the categories covered by copyright (literary, CG, dramatic musical or artistic work, crown or parliamentary copyright, database, sound recording, film, broadcast, cable or published material). You should dispute this with youtube and force the FA to prove their claim.

The T&C mentioned by others are between you and the club. If the club or the FA think you've breached those T&C its still not a copyright matter but a contractual dispute.

#20 and others

All this confusion stems from the absence of any specific laws governing or controlling photography in the UK.

Basically the law has not caught up with the digital age. Legally, you have a perfect right to take photographs of anyone or anything (even small children) in any public place. And you retain the copyright of any photographs you take, whether it is in a public or private location, unless you have specifically assigned or waived those rights.

Moreover, the Police or private security people are committing assault if they confiscate your film or digital card, assuming you don't let them mislead or bully you into handing it over.

It is the USE of those photgraphs that it the more contentious issue.

If you are at a football ground or a concert venue you are on private property and may well be in breach of an actual or implied contract term.

Whether a court would regard such contract terms as "enforcable" or "unreasonable" is a different question, and depends on the circumstances. The courts have in the recent past ruled against celebrities and musicians (and the Spice Girls) in cases about publication of unauthorised photographs, because they held that there was no implication that the persons portrayed endorsed the images.

And taking a photograph is not the same as publishing it. In these circumstances, much would depend on whether the photographs or video was being used for commercial or private purposes. YouTube are almost certainly within their rights in taking down Rory's video. But I think it unlikely that any court would rule against you for printing up a picture you took at the footy or a gig and sharing it among friends for non-commercial purposes.

This whole area has recently been discussed on Mark Easton's blog and elsewhere in relation to Google Street View and other new technology applications of still and moving photographs. Several bloggers insisted that they had control over the use of their image until they checked the legal position and found that they had not.

As I said at the time, whether the legal position is "fair" is a different issue. But most people seem to assume the law is on the side of the person in front of the lens; actually, it is on the side of the photographer.

At the start of the season I was at a Derby match. The security people saw me taking photos before the game started so I was told that:
"The use of camera's are prohibited due to the TV rights to the game, but there is no problem with taking pictures on your mobile instead."
With the performance of some modern phones, you have to wonder where the difference is?

If you upload (say) last week's Match of the Day to YouTube, you are breaching copyright. If you attend the football match yourself and take a video, OR a picture (the law makes no distinction), and subsequently upload it, you are not violating any copyright. There is no creative element, as the images are all your own work.

However, licensing is a completely different matter. Licensing is very distinct from copyright. Upon your ticket will be ters & conditions, and one will be something along the lines of "you may not use any kind of audio-visual recording equipment". When you purchase a ticket, you are entering into an agreement to abide by the rules printed upon that ticket.

While usually this interpreted to mean "no videoing", it can actually be used to disallow any photography, still or moving.

Here's the interesting thing - if you sneak into the match, or are granted free entry, or are perched in an overlooking tree or a handy block of flats, a hot air balloon, whatever, then you have no ticket. You have not purchased one, and are under no obligation in terms of licensing should you video what you can see. The image remains uncopyrighted. So, if you don't buy a ticket, or if you video it through the gates, the images are yours to distribute as you wish. If you make this explicit when uploading the video, the football league / FA / Sky / whoever have no right to ask YouTube to remove the footage.

Of course, YouTube's terms of service allow them to remove anything they like, whenever they like, and if they are asked to remove something by any kind of organisation, they usually do - fear of lawyers.

I wonder what the situation would be if you recorded it from your flat (if you overlooked a football ground)

Surely then you are outside the ground and it's laws ....

Nigel

I think Dr_John_B @12 has identified the source of the copyright claim - there's no copyright in the match itself, but Rory created one in his recording, then assigned it to the club (assuming Rory's club used similar terms). I suspect that a contract written that way would be unenforceable in practice, but no-one's going to find out for sure without going to court over it.

Strictly enforceable or not, it's an ingenious little legal hack.

I have a ticket for that game, away end being an Exeter supporter.

This ticket is sold subject to the bye-laws and regulations of the Football Association and the Football League. It then goes on about refunds for postponed matches and then adverse weather and restricted viewing. No mention of cameras whatsoever. Maybe all supporters are expected to carry the Regulations Handbook with them to games. The Football League are quite pathetic sometimes.

#24

#23 has answered your question succinctly.

#22 and others who have raised the issue of mobile phones.

This illustrates my point that the law (and the event organisers!) have not caught up with digital technology.

Modern mobile phones can be up to 7MP or more and ones with optical zoom lenses are now available. They are high quality cameras in all but name.

The genie is out of the bottle and can't be put back in without a major new legal framework.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Hello.

Allow me to introduce myself. I am from the Thought Copyright Police.

We have been made aware that you are harbouring memories, and more specifically images, from a recent football match you attended. You will have seen signs at the event advising that "enjoyment of this event is only permitted on these premises".

Please could you promptly forget these memories and cease telling others about them, as they are property of the Football League.

Thank you.

Thought Copyright Police.

THIS IS WRONG!
Even a clip of Jack Dee's comedy "Lead Balloon" has had 2 seconds of "Make Me Smile" by Steve Harley and Cockney Rebel removed and replaced with something anonymous (on the official 麻豆官网首页入口 channel). It takes something away from the clip, ever so slightly, because the inappropriateness of that song while accidentally ramming a car into your friend just adds to make the situation even more funny.

I can only assume it鈥檚 for copyright reasons (but I don't know that for sure), just as some other TV shows have to change their background music when released on DVD.

I don't blame YouTube or the 麻豆官网首页入口, they are just covering their backs against getting sued.

While removing a short clip from a league 2 match is an over-reaction - preventing somebody from streaming live footage of a game would not be.

The difficulty is to formulate a set of laws which prohibit the latter, but allow the former. It would be easy to draw up some guidelines based on common sense, but the problem with common sense is that it is not all that common - particularly in the courts.

Remember also that given the volume of clips on youtube, they do not have time to discuss in depth the content of every single clip.



#27, it is off topic, but I have to disagree with your comments about mobile phones. Yes some have 7MP or more, but as anything over 4MP makes no difference unless you print your pictures at A4, that is just garnish.
The size constrains on the lens and sensor in a mobile phone mean that they are a long way short of the quality from a proper digital camera.

It seems to me that the terms and conditions printed on a ticket are very similar to an EULA on shrink-wrapped software. You don't get to see and agree to the Ts & Cs until after purchase.

If you are not made aware of any restrictions before purchase, and without a tacit agreement by the purchaser, then surely it is a unilateral contract of dubious legal merit.

The comments above are broadly correct in that Rory owns the copyright to the footage, but was in breach of contract (with the football club) when he took it. This leaves the actual video in legal limbo. In theory the club could claim damages from Rory, although it is unclear how that might be assessed. In practice if they were to take offence they could ban him from attending future events.

YouTube does not have a licence to broadcast videos of the match, and could be sued by the owner of those rights.

However the key element is that under the EULA that Rory agreed to when he set up his account YouTube has the rights to remove any content and suspend or close accounts at will, irrespective of any copyright or license considerations. How and when they chose to use these rights is entirely up to them. If you don鈥檛 like it I suggest you try your luck with another video hosting site.

#31

I agree that mobile phones are not as good as modern cameras - I have one with over 12MP - but they are getting there fast. They are already as good as cameras of c.4 years ago and some have optical zoom lenses and fast enough shutter speds for quite good quality.

And the number of pixels DOES make a difference if you are enlarging a section of the image, as will often be the case of a picture taken on a phone by a passer-by - e.g. of a police assault, a celebrity being sick outside a nightclub, a RTA or something similar. Especially if you want to identify the number on a policeman's epaulettes at ma demo. or a car licence plate at a crime scene.

Moreover, to get back to the point of Rory's blog, modern SD card high-definition video cameras are so tiny that it's impossible to to stop people taking them into events or indeed notice that people are using them in a crowd - they are little bigger than a mobile phone and literally fit into your hand.

No, the world has changed whether event managers like it or not.

Also #32 is right - the conditions printed on the back of tickets are probably legally unenforcable as they are not sufficiently prominent and may also be unreasonable contract terms. At my local ground you are not given a ticket anyway - you still pay at the turnstile.

I am quite active on YouTube myself and I have received similar copyright notifications.

On one or two occasions I had to hold my hands up and accept that I used copyrighted content without the creator's permission, and accpet that I had to remove said content or use their "AudioSwap" feature to replace it with approved content.

But I have also received misidentified copyright claims. Once I posted an exerpt from President Obama's inauguration speech, and commented on it. Not only was this clearly "fair use", but on top of that, copyright was claiimed by a UK news provider when the logo on the footage clearly showed that the footage was taken from an American broadcaster.

On another occasion I got a copyright claim on background music from a completely different band claiming it was a completely different song.

On both occasions I disputed the copyright claim and the dispute was upheld.

If you took the footage, YOU own it, and nobody else. Do not feel afraid to dispute a mistaken copyright claim.

Here is a recent example of someone disputing video shot at an F1 race having their video re-instated to YouTube.

The first video removed on youtube from my account was something I got from the 麻豆官网首页入口 website on the 2006 world cup (ripped the stream)... wasn't a game though.

My other video which was removed was a Simao goal for Portugal from the stands at the Euro 2008 qualifiers. I just wanted people to see the celebration atmosphere from 'my point of view' but it was still removed just because you could see the goal.

And now a lot of the content is blocked geographically.

If YouTube were consistent in blocking/removing videos half of it would dissappear.