Video redux

[Chemist]

Videotaping in a concert and some of the professional sports is often prohibited. There are signs everywhere reminding you on this. I don't recall reading any rules in Friend at Court that are about videotaping a match. We have to sign a liability waiver before our kids play their first match. Oftentime that form also contains a section that we give the tounament the right to take photo and video of our children. Nobody said a word against a gentleman who took pictures of players, boys and girls, as well as spectators during the Winter National and posted them on Tennis Talk.

I don't think that kids who like to cheat or of bad sports would like to be taped. Some parents may read too much about illegal videotaping of professional football team practices. My son lost to one of his friends more than a dozen times in a row in the past 3-4 years, knowing exactly his friend's strength and weakness. He finally beat that kid early this year because he has improved his game more than his friend.

BTW, the Dayton national open taped every match and sold DVD for about $60 each match to the parents. This is a really good way for tournament directors to increase their revenue.

For the kids who want to play college tennis, the best recruiting video is to show how you chase down balls or finish off a point with a volley winner.

[OneTennisParent]

Originally Posted by Alohajrtennis

I think it's more that people want to videotape their player playing a good player as there is more to learn. Watching videotape of your player beating an opponent 0,0 might be fun, but there's not too much to learn from it. Watching the videotape of you player lose to a better player definitely yields more insight onto your own player.

I suspect there are players and parents in all sports who don't appreciate being recorded; however, tennis appears to be unique in taking a stand against it, at least in some sections or locales. Which I think is a shame because it is probably the sport that has the most to gain from it, for several reasons, including in that it is also unique in its prohibition against coaching and one of the few sports where kids "officiate" there own matches.

In the first regard, having videotape is much better then the coach saying "remember when it was 30-0 in third game of the first set and you.." after the match.

With regards to cheating, videos cameras can serve as a deterrent. In fact, each section should have a supply of a couple dozen Bloggie or flip video cameras and mounts and should have two cameras mounted, one each side, for each round of sixteen match and above at a L3-L5 tournaments.

Agree on all points. I actually had one dad pitch a fit about recording a match, and when asked why, he stated that his older daughter was caught cheating 4 times in a match and her opponent posted the bad calls on YouTube which embarrassed her and damaged her college options. I was stunned. Not only did he not repudiate her behavior, but he all but stated that his younger daughter was going to do the same thing, and he didn't want it revealed. The ref backed him up, and I had to pull the camera down.

However, the USTA is not really interested in preventing cheating. They are revenue-focused.

[OneTennisParent]

Originally Posted by Chemist

Videotaping in a concert and some of the professional sports is often prohibited. There are signs everywhere reminding you on this. I don't recall reading any rules in Friend at Court that are about videotaping a match. We have to sign a liability waiver before our kids play their first match. Oftentime that form also contains a section that we give the tounament the right to take photo and video of our children. Nobody said a word against a gentleman who took pictures of players, boys and girls, as well as spectators during the Winter National and posted them on Tennis Talk.

I don't think that kids who like to cheat or of bad sports would like to be taped. Some parents may read too much about illegal videotaping of professional football team practices. My son lost to one of his friends more than a dozen times in a row in the past 3-4 years, knowing exactly his friend's strength and weakness. He finally beat that kid early this year because he has improved his game more than his friend.

BTW, the Dayton national open taped every match and sold DVD for about $60 each match to the parents. This is a really good way for tournament directors to increase their revenue.

For the kids who want to play college tennis, the best recruiting video is to show how you chase down balls or finish off a point with a volley winner.

Video at pro events, concerts, and movies are prohibited because they are for-profit events that will sustain damages if the images are released without compensation. Junior tennis events are not in the same category.

[OneTennisParent]

Originally Posted by Alohajrtennis

As much as I empathize with you, and although I am not lawyer, I don't see how this is a first amendment case. It's a USTA rule, not law passed by the government. I think they have as much might to say you cannot videotape as to say you cannot coach your kid or that you only get two serves. As long as they are not violating anyone civil rights then I think they can ban videoing, by parents or anyone affiliated with the player.

That said, I think it's dumb. Every other sport has sidelines full of parents video taping every game. And if the event is held on public courts, then any random stranger, including the aforementioned pervs, CAN videotape the kids, and there is nothing they can do to stop them. So really, if the true concern is stopping pervs, than this rule stops everybody but the pervs.

Any restriction of expression (including video) is a violation of our first amendment rights. It need not be a law. If you were entering a football game wearing the opponent's jersey, and were refused admittance, that would be a violation of your first amendment rights. If Burger King refused you service because you wore a McDonald's hat, you would have a case. Both examples are of company, or individual restriction, not govt. laws.

But I fully agree and applaud your pointing out the idiocy of preventing parents from full-court video, while allowing anyone to take pictures of players with cameras, or cell phones. One venue I was at recently has signs up at the bathroom stating that it is a violation of federal law to enter the restroom with any device capable of capturing images, including cell phones. However, they offer no solution re what to do with your device when you enter. I guess you should just trust in your fellow man and leave them outside.

[TCF]

==========================.

[Alohajrtennis]

Originally Posted by TCF

Football stadiums have refused entry many, many times to people in opponent's jerseys citing safety concerns. As long as the policy is enforced evenly.

Burger King can refused service for any reason not associated with the federal civil rights law against refusal of service based on race, disability, and the like.

Burger King, or any private enterprise, would be well within its rights to refuse service to a customer who came in wearing a shirt for its competition. Its highly doubtful such a hypothetical would ever happen, no use having bad PR if the person went to the media.....but no violation of law would have occurred.

The USTA also is perfectly within its rights to ban video taping, as would any tennis club where a tournament was held. As long as the rule was enforced evenly, with no discrimination based on things covered in the civil rights act, there are no 1st amendment issues.

Corporate entities are considered 'people' in many ways. They have rights too under the law to make rules as they see fit, as long as those rules are not discriminating against a protected group under civil rights statutes.

OneTP,

I have to agree with TCF on this. USTA is a private entity , not a governmental organization. Furthermore, your football fan analogy is flawed becuase you are not just a fan of the event, you are a participant and a guardian and/or affiliate of a participant in the event. It's more like you are a player for the 49'rs and not being allowed to wear a Cowboys jersey.

You and your player sign an agreement to abide by USTA rules in
order to play in the event. You do not have to sign this agreement or play USTA events. But if the rules say you to have to do hand stands and sing a Bette Midler song after you get aced, and you signed the agreement, than you gotta sing.

It's still a ridiculous policy, but I don't think it a first amendment case. As I said, if the event were held on public courts, than any stranger walking by could videotape the players and there would be no legal way to stop them. Not so if the event were at a private facility though.

[OneTennisParent]

Originally Posted by Alohajrtennis

OneTP,

I have to agree with TCF on this. USTA is a private entity , not a governmental organization. Furthermore, your football fan analogy is flawed becuase you are not just a fan of the event, you are a participant and a guardian and/or affiliate of a participant in the event. It's more like you are a player for the 49'rs and not being allowed to wear a Cowboys jersey.

You and your player sign an agreement to abide by USTA rules in
order to play in the event. You do not have to sign this agreement or play USTA events. But if the rules say you to have to do hand stands and sing a Bette Midler song after you get aced, and you signed the agreement, than you gotta sing.

It's still a ridiculous policy, but I don't think it a first amendment case. As I said, if the event were held on public courts, than any stranger walking by could videotape the players and there would be no legal way to stop them. Not so if the event were at a private facility though.

You may both be correct. I don't pretend to be an attorney, so I won't argue further. Your logic seems sound, but I would love to have an authority give an opinion.

[tennis5]

Originally Posted by Alohajrtennis

OneTP,

I have to agree with TCF on this. USTA is a private entity , not a governmental organization. Furthermore, your football fan analogy is flawed becuase you are not just a fan of the event, you are a participant and a guardian and/or affiliate of a participant in the event. It's more like you are a player for the 49'rs and not being allowed to wear a Cowboys jersey.

You and your player sign an agreement to abide by USTA rules in
order to play in the event. You do not have to sign this agreement or play USTA events. But if the rules say you to have to do hand stands and sing a Bette Midler song after you get aced, and you signed the agreement, than you gotta sing.

It's still a ridiculous policy, but I don't think it a first amendment case. As I said, if the event were held on public courts, than any stranger walking by could videotape the players and there would be no legal way to stop them. Not so if the event were at a private facility though.

I think this is spot on. And I will take it a step further.

Tournament in Mobile, Alabama which is run in a big public space has special southern USTA rules on dress code.
If you want to play in this USTA event, then you must follow their dress code.

No vollyeball shorts, video, etc = it's their rules if you want to play.
I think this is a dead issue for a lawsuit.

[tball2day]

Thank you moderators for pulling threads. This forum is becoming a joke rather than useful information.