Antron OK after round 1 accident

[racer83]

Out of respect to all involved, I really wasn't going to get inolved in this discusion. But since any shred of respect flew out the window several pages ago, here I go.

I think this topic should be taken off of here right away. After reading the majority of the comments made here, I think 95% of you are out of your minds. I applaud those trying to make suggestions to try to prevent something like this from EVER happening again, the rest of the comments here are pure drivel.

For Christ's sake, somebody was killed in this incident. The Schumacher team is going through hell as is the family and friends of this poor lady. I'm concerned about what Antron is going through. Yet that doesn't really seem to be all that important to all of the experts, engineers, and lawyers who have posted here.

The big concerns appear to be about some video on youtube that was taken down, what NHRA's rights are, and when is somebody offically dead.

First, if you didn't see the video on youtube, so what? By missing out on seeing this video, do you feel slighted in some way? What will you gain by seeing it?

Next, from what I've read here, it would seem that NHRA should just let the fans run the series and they should just sit back and do nothing. While the question about NHRA doing nothing is an arguable point, the bottom line is that they still run the show. It's their ballpark and their ballgame - a fan is just a guest at the event (whether you paid to get in or not). While I don't always agree with what NHRA does, they must have reasons for doing what they do when it comes to videos, broadcasting, etc.

Finally, the question was asked about when the person was offically dead. I won't speculate in regards to this lady because I have no idea what REALLY happened. As far as why isn't somebody pronunced dead at the track and only at the hospital, I don't know. It probably has to do with that somebody has to be "offically pronounced" by a Doctor type. There is a debate about if this lady died at the track or at the hospital because it was stated she was pronounced at the hospital. The official report said Scott Kalitta was pronounced at the hospital, I can promise you, Scott died at the track. I'm guessing there are some legal reasons for doing it this way. I do have one question though, WHAT THE HELL DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE TO YOU WHERE THE PERSON DIED?

So after all of the thoughts expresed here, what have you accomplished? Do you feel better about the accident? Does it make this tragic event look better? Enough already, let this alone.

Dave

Dave, I don't always agree with you but you hit a home run with this post. Maybe some of the "experts" will take the time to read it...
Thank You

TK

 

[Triple Nickel II]

The reporter in this video said tires like the one involved in Sunday's accident are 2 feet wide. Exaggerate much???

For the 'unwashed masses' who were viewing a local news broadcast, missing by less than 2-1/2 inches isn't much of an exaggeration.

According to Goodyear, the sectional width of the Top Fuel/Funny Car 2550 tire is 21.6 inches.

http://www.racegoodyear.com/tires/pdf/drag.pdf

For those who were debating the weight, the tire by itself weighs 49.1 lbs according to Goodyear.

 

[.]

NAPSTER... free music from people who bought the CD and posted for people to get copys of for free....

FREE part gone ..now you pay because it was determined just because you have the CD it does not give you the right to distribute copys with out written permission or a FEE.... court ordered...

But you can still use sections of the song or music video under "fair use" for the purposes of

commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship

This guy didn't post up the full ESPN show, he posted his video (he owns the copyright) of the crash, which was only a few seconds long, not an entire 3 hour show. NHRA was completely wrong to make a copyright claim to YouTube for something they do not own. If the guy had simply used a snipped from the ESPN show he still would have been within his rights to use it under "fair use." I don't understand why so many people are so dumb about this concept.

 

[.]

There is a difference between owning the copyright to an image and having the right to use or sell that image.

A photographer or videographer owns the copyright to any image or video they create. That means know one else can use or sell that image without the photographers permission.

Not quite true. You can use another persons work under "fair use" rules.

The "fair use" exception is codified at 17 U.S.C. § 107, and states that "the fair use of a copyrighted work ... is not an infringement of copyright." The section lists four factors that must be assessed to determine whether a particular use is fair.

United States copyright law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, having the copyright does not mean that a photographer or videographer is free to see an image or video clip. In many cases, the photographer or videographer also needs signed releases from people who appear in the image(s).

If the photos or video are of news events and are used for news purposes, the photographer or videographer owns the copyright for his or her image(s). No personal or property releases are necessary in order for the photographer or videographer to sell the image(s) for use by news media.

If the photos or videos are not being used for news purposes -- such as a poster or a highlight tape -- the photographer or videographer owns the copyright for his or her image(s). However, he or she cannot sell the image(s) without a signed release from anyone who is recognizable and the owner of any property included in the image(s).

Jim

I think I agree with what you said here. I photographed an apartment fire 2 years ago and my photos made it onto all four Portland, OR TV channels and their websites. Quite a few people were in my shots but I didn't need any release forms because it was a newsworthy event and it was a public setting.

 

[Crazy Craven]

I'm actually the owner of the video that was aired on FOX news which they took after asking me if I would give them a copy in HD, I told them NO but they still aired the video I later found as they ripped a copy from youtube prior to it being brought down.

I've appealed with YouTube as there are quite a lot more videos of the same event on youtube.

My reason for showing the video is I felt I had a good shot of it with good sound, I didn't show it because you see the tire hit the stand, I honestly didn't even see that until I got home and checked out my camera.

I fought with Fox for 3 days to remove the video, they finally called after this to say they will gladly remove the video, I did DVR it and also too screens off the myfoxphoenix website as it made the top story for 3 days on their site and in the news on TV.

I wanted to go after FOX just for the sole reason that they did it after asking me and were told no, I can't find an attorney (copyright) that will do it for less than $5k down, so I'm giving up, although they all claim I have a solid case.