Posting YouTube Videos of Minor Athletes

General
1

We’re moving this discussion to a new thread.

From our colleague, Marco:

"Please unhide the CCHS-Newport livestream.

"The WPEX restrictions regarding the posting other people’s videos is ridiculous and wrong-headed.

"First, technically the rule would apply to nearly every video on the internet. In the terms and conditions, all videos uploaded to YouTube become YouTube property. YouTube can monetize it, alter it by adding advertisements, and use it to train their AI models. Even if you shot it, edited it, and uploaded it, the video belongs to someone else with that someone being YouTube.

"Second, the video was a live stream. It is no different from a World Aquatics live stream of the U16, U18, and U20 World Championships that are also live streamed via YouTube. Nobody flagged the posting of any of the World Aquatics streams.

"Lastly, the ONLY person who should be given allowance to have that video stricken is the Cathedral Catholic parent who produced it. He has a user account here, does read WPEX and makes occasional comments. If he was the one who requested the video be redacted from the thread, then by all means take it down. If it was anyone else then the flag should be ignored.

“The WPEX rule regarding posting of videos should restrict the posting of videos that are unlisted or otherwise access restricted. Links to live events like World Aquatics, ODP Coaching tutorials, and club live streams open to the public should be allowed.”

Our policy is not to post or repost YouTube (or other videos) of minor athletes without reasonable assurances that the individual/organization that made or is making the video obtained media releases from the athletes’ parents or legal guardians. This policy is consistent with YouTube’s policy.

6 Likes
2

Personally I don’t have a problem with it being posted, but out of curiosity, what if it was flagged by a parent of one of the players on one of the teams?

I’m also guessing the coaches may not want that footage readily available for potential scouting by their next opponents. Maybe not a big deal tho. :person_shrugging:

3

This video was posted to youtube with no restrictions and is still available as of this posting. If an individual or team has an issue with it, the proper recourse is to flag it at the source which would be youtube.

If this were an “unlisted” video on youtube or a share/drive folder than I 100% support a takedown request on WPEX.

4 Likes
4

World Aquatics broadcasts, ODP coaching content, and club livestream video content is not posted or reposted on WPEX. The video content is hosted, served and owned by YouTube even when displayed via embedded player in a WPEX thread. Having the phone number for a local pizza place programmed in your phone does not make you a restaurant owner.

There is a reasonable assurance the YouTube videos comply with YouTube’s policy on account of the content being actively hosted and served by YouTube. If the WPEX policy is congruent with YouTube’s then posting a link to a hosted video marked as public is a nonissue.

Getting away from the technical wording of policy, I interpret the guidelines of this forum as an effort to create a positive experience and promote the sport. I fully support that. I feel banning reports of scandalous behavior reported elsewhere is fully justified as it does not line up with what I see as the very noble aims of WPEX.

It is weird to me to see labeling game footage of two of the top CIF programs in the state as scandalous or detrimental to the sport. Both schools publish full rosters and utilize social media to publicize their teams. On the contrary, I think being able to show how great players play the game is promotional to our sport. Cathedral Catholic and Newport Harbor are full of great players.

If the creator of the video marks it as unlisted or access restricted, then I think those expressed efforts should be respected. That is not the case with the CCHS - Newport game footage.

9 Likes
5

“Having the phone number for a local pizza place programmed in your phone does not make you a restaurant owner.”

This had me laughing!

4 Likes
6

You lost me a bit with the reports of scandalous behavior. What does this have to do with the video? I hope there was nothing scandalous happening in the water polo game. Definitely agree that we would like to watch the game between the two of the best HS teams and maybe even show to younger players. I recall you posting previously about this parent filming all the games but that once you posted about him videoing here on WPEX, you said something about he changed it to private or somehow restricted the access. I’m not sure how all this achieved in YouTube but sounds like you can lock all your videos into a private mode? Maybe this is something to do with the parent who is filing wanting to be private again.

7

Youtube has three options:

  • public: discoverable; shows up in search; shows up on the accounts channel; anyone with a link can see it
  • unlisted: non-discoverable; does not show up in search or the account channel; anyone with a link can view it
  • private: user needs to be added to an ACL to see it. there is a max number of users you can add to a video
8

Hey folks, I want to orient us to the key part of Jeff’s message and clarify that it’s not YouTube’s policies that drove this decision:

Our policy is not to post or repost YouTube (or other videos) of minor athletes without reasonable assurances that the individual/organization that made or is making the video obtained media releases from the athletes’ parents or legal guardians.

9

If those are the policies, then they are what they are and I will respect them.

10

Links to the youtube video should be ok though?

11

To further clarify, it’s not about YouTube.

We need “reasonable assurances that the individual/organization that made or is making the video obtained media releases from the athletes’ parents or legal guardians.”

12

This makes no sense

If this were a CIF playoff game being streamed by NFHS network, would NFHS have obtained media rights waivers from parents? Of course not. They get it from the schools. Every school makes families sign them. In which case, a parent streaming a game can reasonably rely on those waivers existence and doesn’t need to actually obtain them.

Let’s be real here, some parents didn’t like how they were portrayed on the film so someone invented a nonsense legal argument to get the video taken down. Ridiculous.

11 Likes
13

The CCHS-Newport livestream video falls into a weird gray area as far a media rights is concerned, and that parent-created livestream may have full media rights.

All the kids signed media releases which gives the rights to CIF. Extending those rights to parents, commercial entities like GOLS or NFHS, and news media is the domain of the section of the host venue. In this case it is CIF-SS due to the host being Newport Harbor High School.

To obtain media rights for water polo in the regular season, CIF-SS charges $250.

It is a gray area because the livestream was not of a game in the regular season. It was a scrimmage prior to the regular season. It was a CIF event. CIF-SS has the media rights which cover the host venue and do not list a fee to obtain media rights for preseason scrimmages.

1 Like
14

Agree this seems so odd that it opens it up to being potentially for reasons other than what is being stated. This is an absurd defense of taking it down. That on top of the speed of which flags happen when certain schools get mentioned it feeds the narrative out there.

1 Like
15

I just searched youtube and there are plenty of CCHS games on there from last season. I didn’t find the NHHS game from this week though. Maybe they don’t want current season games being seen due to gameplanning/scouting?

If/when games show up on youtube, maybe we just say something like the video for this game might be able to found on another website? Trying to work within the rules here.

1 Like
16

Goodmorning everyone, we’ll take a closer look at this and get back to you shortly.

We’re aiming to provide a more precise policy on video sharing that’s aligned with our understanding of applicable rules and our team’s risk tolerance.

3 Likes
17

Thank you @clark and @jeff. In 2026, it is exceedingly rare for anyone to reconsider a decision on anything.

My last word in attempt to influence this policy is to point out:

  • Video is not being posted here. What is on WPEX is only links to third party content.
  • Section 230 gives broad immunity in this area.
  • The content being linked is promotional to the sport.

Even if you elect to reaffirm the original decision, thank you.

-Marco

10 Likes
18

Sometimes public links get changed to unlisted. By publishing an unlisted link, you are basically making someone else’s content public. I’m not saying that happened here. But, we dealt with this last year. There is a big difference between media companies who have obtained rights to publish content and parents who post user generated content. In some cases, ridiculously, those parents could be violating rules. No one wants to get them in trouble. Post your own links if you want. Don’t post other peoples. Just my opinion.

19

Hey everyone, I wanted to follow up with an update here.

We had a chance to closely review our policy concerning the posting of videos involving minor athletes. Here’s where we landed:

  1. Sharing videos of game footage will generally be allowed.
  2. We will review videos for moderation if we receive notice that a video has content that violates laws, commercial agreements, may present a legitimate concern for someone’s privacy, or was not intended to be shared by content owner.
  3. We will continue to apply moderation as necessary for any content that is inappropriate for the message board.

I hope this helps clear things up.
Please feel free to reach out to me or anyone on the moderator team if you have any questions.

17 Likes
20

Thanks Clark. Appreciate you taking a look at this.

3 Likes