Hacker News Reader

Comment by sharpn | Hacker News Reader

I had a similar experience, but the matching success was even more surprising:

I uploaded a home made video of a world cup goal as seen from a plaza screening the game. Loads of crowd noise, AND a big chunk of the video did not have the screen visible (though I guess the commentator could be heard). About 20 minutes later I got a similar email saying FIFA had claimed the rights & the clip is now restricted in some countries. I guess they could have data mined from the title etc., but that's still damn quick for a live broadcast match.

View on HN

Can a ballgame be copyrighted? I would assume that only a particular recording of it could be, and since you recorded this it would make you the owner. Apparently what makes FIFA the "owner" of the video is that they are a "Partner" ( http://www.youtube.com/t/partnerships_faq ). You have to meet some criteria, such as popularity and exclusively "owning" content you upload, to become a partner. The partner system appears to be stacked in favor of large entities, regardless of whether they truly "own" the content.

Let's say you had a popular channel though, and you submitted the homemade clip. Depending how YouTube's system works, it could have been FIFA's video that was flagged instead of, or in addition to, yours.

Edit: The logic's a bit circular isn't it? You have to own the content to be a partner, and you have to be a partner to own the content.

I would assume that only a particular recording of it could be, and since you recorded this it would make you the owner.

No - he recorded a broadcast as seen on a screen, i.e. made a vastly degraded copy of a specific live video stream.

Oh, I thought he had made a live recording of the game. My mistake.

No, brazzy is correct - sorry if that wasn't clear. The game was in South Africa, but I filmed a live screening of it in Mexico - a shot of the screen & stage as a goal was scored, then pan to the (Mexican) crowd reaction. I wasn't complaining it was blocked, I was (hopefully) giving colour to the original assertion & conveying how quickly the obscured 'owner' was identified. I understood this was as a result of a 'safe harbour' ruling, but I guess dmoney's point about YouTube's 'partners' also played a part. [edit] corrected attribution.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com