Your thoughts are in the right place, Eric.

Obviously, it's all about money, especially

when they sell TV rights. Or maybe it's about

image management like you imply...USDAA I'm sure

can justify how they "need" to make money, and

so can the NFL. Stake your ground and if they care

enough about it, let them sue you to stop, just like

every issue like this is solved nowadays. Basically,

it's a test of whether the money is worth being hardnosed

to everyone involved in agility. i.e. frisk people for

cameras and videocams on the way in, and deny admission

to those with that gear.

I think it actually puts pressure on USDAA to improve their

video product: i.e. make it more timely, and cheaper.

or improve the TV product.

As long as they can control the video competition, there's no

pressure to improve.

The money angle goes a long way. Lots of competitors

make their living at agility training, so there can be a reason

to argue for "supporting" the canned TV product, since

it plays to the agility "image" aspect.

 

I think your motivations are pure.

There's always two points of view. Stick to yours.

I think you've always tried to help competitors. I think having you

do whatever you want is always going to be a great thing

for agility.

 

I mean, making your entire video library available to all for

free is just so great, for comparing people's runs etc.

 

USDAA, like the record companies, should be asking themselves

"how can we be better than Eric (a 1-guy operation)" as opposed to

"how can we give Eric a hard time and protect the money/image flow

in the way we see it"

 

-kevin n.

Does Eric pay vending fees like all the other vendors?  I know I have had to pay for my dog  to be videod at the world championships in the past -  therefore, he is a vendor.  Ken does hire professional videographers and I am sure Eric has been considered - what then would the reason be for Ken not to hire Eric?  So, the options would be to pay to be a vendor like everyone else or to be hired by Ken. 

USDAA did not allow video vendors at Nationals this year. I would gladly pay if I could. USDAA website is down right now, so I can't provide the link.

Regardless this thread is not about being a vendor, it is about 'freedom of the press'. So please stay on topic.

If you may remember, Clean Run use to provide some coverage of USDAA Nationals a few years back, and actually all the video used in that coverage was mine. But they haven't since, mainly because Clean Run has gotten away from event coverge of any kind. But partly because Ken wanted them to pay money for the privelege and control every aspect of it.

Monica told USDAA that that is not acceptable, and also that Clean Run magazine has every right to come and cover the event like any other news organization for free and without restriction. They just choose not too.

I also had chosen not to provide coverage this year, because in doing so I am in a way supporting USDAA. It's like the old saying "If a tree falls and no one is there to hear it, did it make a sound?"

That is how a free press works, at least in the United States and Europe. I'm not sure how it works in Communist China, not very well I here.

I think it's not really a question of free press. There's plenty of organized events that prohibit cameras and video cameras and search people on the way in.

USDAA requires competitors to sign something that outlines restrictions on their behavior in order to compete. As far as I know, Eric got in the stands because he paid a spectator fee. I don't remember seeing any signs or contracts that limited spectator behavior. Just because people "know" Eric doesn't mean he should be treated differently then other people. He's not selling the video he's talking about here. He's not vending although I'd like him to be able to. That's a separate question.

I see USDAA trial video up on YouTube all the time, posted by competitors. That seems in violation of the agreement competitors sign. So basically there's not much enforcement of this stuff.

I see two paths here: USDAA looks at video technology and decides the answer is to spend money on Bruce Jenner and we should all like that. What a waste of money.

Eric decides to use technology to it's fullest and do whatever he can to support competitors, and try to cover his bills along the way. Eric provides immediacy.

Eric focus on the "real sport" aspect of agility. The competitor's viewpoint.

USDAA provides ego-stroking on TV.

Lots of people video and photo at USDAA trials. If USDAA decides that's bad, then let them pay for people to enforce their restrictions. Don't self-restrict. If they decide they want to create their RIAA equivalent content police for the web, wait for them to hire their lawyers and cite the law you violated as a spectator. Let them create the methods to enforce the rules. Don't be their enforcer for them.

Don't let them intimidate you for free. The nice thing you have, is not having to worry about pissing anyone off as a competitor.

Like I said before, your heart is in the right place.

USDAA should spend money on figuring out how to support you.

Other scenarios like this have shown repeatedly that it's always smarter to enable expanding the pie, not trying to control a perceived fixed size pie. If USDAA via Ken thinks it's right to hammer you down, and enable Bruce Jenner on TV as the right path...well that's pretty funny.

People talk about the future of agility. It's not about TV and junior handlers and all this other stuff people talk about. It's about enabling people like you and other things we can't even envision yet.

In the back of my mind, I think there's still something here where people didn't like what you did for the teeter flyoff comparison last year. That was great though. And your little blip on the judging on the dogwalk this year was great.

How come we don't see more of that from USDAA...Why? because you're better.

-kevin n.

It isn’t a question of free press. 

The broadcast rights belong to USDAA.  Just like the software companies, PGA, or music recoding industry, decide when to prosecute for piracy, so to, can any organization.  USDAA entertains many various business agreements to share the rights of its property.  AgilityVision has always been able to enter into these agreements as well.  It is not discriminated against or “hammered down”.  Part of the difference between AgilityVision and the average competitor filming, is AgilityVision is a business just like USDAA.  The average competitor uses the video for their personal use.  AgilityVision makes its profits from the events promoted, sponsored, sanctioned and licensed by the USDAA.  How big a business enterprise is AgilityVision, is between Eric and the tax man, but it is a for profit concern.  It may be that the snippets this year are published without direct revenue but are still a vehicle to promote the individual user video service. 

The right, title and interest in and to the events at the <Cynosport Games>, including the property right in, and the sole right of, disseminating or publishing or selling, or licensing the right to disseminate, news, reports, descriptions, or accounts of events in such venues, during the playing thereof, is vested exclusively in the <USDAA>.  ( Pittsburgh Athletic Co. v. KQV Broadcasting Co)

In the past USDAA has made attempts to spend money with AgilityVision in the creation of various USDAA content.  After being thwarted, USDAA has had to resort to other entrepreneurs and businesses open to legitimate commerce.

I’m sure the USDAA would love to, once again, entertain a lucrative business arrangement for Eric’s services.  Come on Eric – step up!  Make them an offer.  It would surely pay more than the individual user video fees.

The case you mention is not relevant as it only deals with broadcasting an entire event live. I am not broadcasting. I am simple reporting what happened after it is over, ie the nex day. And only showing a very small portion of it.

A more relevant case is :

ZACCHINI v. SCRIPPS-HOWARD BROADCASTING CO., 433 U.S. 562 (1977)

Here are some excerpts from the ruling: "A TV station has a privilege to report in its newscasts matters of legitimate public interest which would otherwise be protected by an individual's right of publicity, unless the actual intent of the TV station was to appropriate the benefit of the publicity for some non-privileged private use, or unless the actual intent was to injure the individual."

"the press "must be accorded broad latitude in its choice of how much it presents of each story or incident, and of the emphasis to be given to such presentation. No fixed standard which would bar the press from reporting or depicting either an entire occurrence or an entire discrete part of a public performance can be formulated which would not unduly restrict the `breathing room' in reporting which freedom of the press requires." 47 Ohio St. 2d, at 235, 351 N. E. 2d, at 461. Under this view, respondent was thus constitutionally free to film and display petitioner's entire act."

To clarify a couple things, Agility Vision and Agility Video Service are separate entities. Agility Video Service is in the business of providing video services to competitors. Agility Vision (where the videos in question are posted) is an internet television station for dog agility.

So yes this is a question of freedom of the press. And I believe I stand on very firm legal ground.

There is some truth to what you (who are you anyways??) say at the end of your comment. "Thwart and resort" are strong words.

I love USDAA dog agility, and even use to be a judge. Next year is a long ways off, but I think I will take your advice and make an offer at some point.

If you know of any immediate need, please let me know.

After last years debacle I've decided to delete any comments that go off the very narrow topic of his post. Which is freedom of the press and its relation to coverage of live sports events.

You can actually find a very technical discussion of the matter at this link. As usual there is much debate about what is allowed and what isn't. 

Wow. Way to delete my post and not put it anywhere else.

We recently had the Rugby World cup in France, a huge event with 20 countries participating. This is the biggest sport in NZ. The governing body, the IRB, decided to restrict the pictures and video that the press could publish on the internet. As a result the press decided that they would not cover the event under those conditions - a ban by all of the major press companies.

The IRB changed their minds just hours before the event started. Be careful USDAA, you live by the sword, you may die from the sword.

I would have thought any coverage like Erics is good for the USDAA brand?

JMHO

 

Darryl

I think that is one reason that the FCI World Championship is such a big event and they actually have sponsors!

They love the press and want the press their. They treated us awesome and were continually coming around, giving us course maps, updated results, running orders, asking if we needed anything.

So now every video I shot from FCI has big Royal Canin banners in the background and others. Very visible to see while watching the videos.

It is a win win situtation for everyone: FCI, sponsors, the press and the agility enthusiasts and competitors. 

As a counter example do you see anyone making DVDs of the USDAA backed IFCS event, anyone posting videos from it, anyone even talking about it.  Does anyone even care.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, did it make a sound?? 

Freedom of the press is one thing...I support that.  In fact Annie DeChance was the media liason for the event and there were more than one local TV crews there.  I assume that if you wanted to be a reporter, that would have been welcomed.

 However the sticky wicket appears when you "cover" the event then charge money to users of the material...then you are a vendor.

 I can't tell what side of the coin you're trying to be on.  Do you want your cake and eat it too?

 

People get fixated on whether Eric is going to make any money.

The implication is that he would get money (indirectly I get thru his ads or something, not directly), that somehow would have gone in USDAA's pocket if he did nothing.

i.e. he's "stealing" money that would otherwise end up in USDAA coffers.

That's what's so old-school.

The pie gets bigger. The pie is not fixed size.

Are people against Eric being able to make money? Or do they think USDAA makes more money by restricting him? Since USDAA sells TV rights, maybe it's that deal that makes them constrain Eric. So then the question really is: is the TV coverage good for agility..i.e. is it what the competitors want.

The main problem is it's late. And then if you want to see your run on video you have to wait wait wait for the DVD, and then pay a lot.

All I know, is that at this year's nationals, one of the heavily promoted vendors over the loudspeakers was a psychic. USDAA is more willing to promote psychics then Eric.

I don't think USDAA cares about the competitors. It appears USDAA is small-minded and old-school in their strategic thinking about expanding their business.

Or maybe they just want the money Eric might get (indirectly) and not skilled enough to figure out how to earn it.

 

Just to play devil's advocate about the thing... the Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine and your local paper all have press credentials. However, they also sell their news product. I suppose that would make them vendors as well. No?

OTOH, the USDAA probably has the right to reserve ownership of the images and accounts of USDAA competitions. It's a bit of a complicated issue, to be sure.

Bud Houston
dogagility.org

Perhaps paying vending fees has been abused in the past.  Maybe when people try to take advantage and not play by the rules everyone pays the price.

Oh yeah the old USDAA is evil and doesn't care, blah..blah...blah.

The USDAA is a business, just like CPE, AKC and NADAC.  Yet they are always singled out as the bad guys for wanting to make a profit.  The other organizations have modeled themselves after the USDAA program (albeit with their own classes and rules) and relish the success USDAA has enjoyed.

Now, perhaps it's an ego thing.  I know that another person involved with video was turned off by USDAA because he wasn't courted to come and that USDAA wanted to have their way...it's their perogative isn't it? 

 It reminds me of the NFL/MLB not allowing videos of their product on You Tube, yet the NHL didn't care and there are all kinds of hockey things on You Tube.  I don't think anyone has posted a whole game, but practices, a certain play whatever.

I think the issue here is that if Eric wants to be a reporter he classifies himself as one, if he wants to be recognized videographer of the event with a product to sell, he plays by their rules.  If they don't want another videographer other than the lame one with Bruce Jenner...then they obviously have a different view of wht they want.

 

What am I missing?

As a reporter, I got the impression that they didn't want me reporting. I have already outlined in the above comments and initial post why I believe I have the right to report and post what I did.

The vending thing is entirely different issue. I have never contested USDAA perogative about video vendors. I'm not complaining about not being a recognized videographer, or vendor

People keep bringing up all this other stuff, when all I'm doing is asserting "Freedom of the Press".

I'm not even that keen on being on vendor at Nationals, I would only do it mainly as a favor to my regular customers.  After to you add up all the expenses (huge vending fee, travel, hotel, etc) and the fact that I can only cover 1 of the 6 rings. I wouldn't really make any money.

I can only presume that there are real legal restrictions on

"freedom of the press" that prevent the use of video, otherwise

I fail to see why every TV / newspaper website isn't posting video

highlights of all major sporting events...

 

There must be some legal distinction between writing about and using

a photo of an event versus using video of it. Or maybe the event

organizer has the legal right to protect certain media??

 

 

I could believe the "USDAA is just a business and no one should bitch about them acting like a business" except for one thing: they sure do depend on a lot of volunteers.

If it's just about money and who makes it or doesn't make it, then why volunteer to work at trials? For raffle tickets?

 

Ah well, all the agility organizations do this.

 

They are all out to make a buck.

 

 

Okay, I get it now.

That is a good question since there were more than one TV station there covering the event.  Perhaps that's where USDAA needs to clarify what the difference is.

Maybe you need to go through Annie next time.

 

 

 

I said before that YouTube has plenty of USDAA video.

Here are links to some runs at the nationals

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8K_1j5k0W0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHkHWsuIG7s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0mAvW1r0Q4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DLieJxDzTM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0dnKGfd0Ro

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS0AQivqnXI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCAs-iiZJ_E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxySkCJZVUQ

and if it's Cynosport overall:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0hmBzlJj5E

:)

Were they posted/video'ed by spectators or competitors? I don't know.

 

Note that if one is obsessed about money, and thinking "if the video goes up on the web, someone's making money and I don't like it" then Eric obviously has competition.

Eric does a good job competing. Quality of video, quantity, editing, comparisons.

Competition is always a good thing.

USDAA can fire off cease and desist notices to YouTube every time someone posts a video. That would be cool. It would help get people pissed (or not) about this issue (which won't go away...the problem is that the technology is too cheap and accessible and the bandwidth is there nowadays.

Welcome to the future.

Woo hoo! I wish I were a geek of your stature!

Bud Houston
dogagility.org