Engadget Upset At E3 Video Appearance [UPDATED]

Wednesday May 17, 2006 5:03 pm

Engadget Upset At E3 Video Appearance [UPDATED]

Posted by Andru Edwards
Categories: Blogging, Business

Over the past day or so, I have been putting a little too much time into dealing with an issue brought to me by Engadget’s Managing Editor, Ryan Block. Let me first say that in my previous dealings with Ryan, he seems to be a good guy. I don’t have a deep-seeded hatred for Weblogs, Inc., Engadget, or any of their staff. However, yesterday put a different spin on how I view these guys.

Prior to E3, Microsoft invited us to a non-exclusive group interview with Peter Moore. We asked if we could record audio and/or video, and were given the green light. Later, right before E3, I confirmed this again. Lastly, when we walked in for the interview, we made one more request, to which Peter Moore responded “Of course!” We started filming the interview, and a few minutes later, Ryan Block came into the room to join those of us that were already there. The cameras kept rolling, even after Ryan walked in. About six days later, we posted the E3 video interview with Peter Moore. Within an hour, I got an email from Ryan Block.

Ryan’s email was short and to the point:

Hey Andru,

Hope you’re well. Saw your video; needed you to know that Chris, Vlad, nor I consented to being filmed by GearLive (nor anyone else), and would appreciate being removed and not named. Thanks!

Best, Ryan

Okay, fair enough I figured. I guess I need to get their consent. I replied:

Thanks for the message. Real quick, is there a process you guys have for getting your consent? Jake posted the audio to The Chris Pirillo Show feed, and he wrote up a similar intro, also naming and linking to your respective sites:
http://www.thechrispirilloshow.com/help/20060510_peter_moore_of_microsoft_xbox_on_e3.phtml Did they need a release for that as well?

This is where it started to get odd, as Ryan responded saying they wouldn’t consent to “being on” The Bleeding Edge:

The process is: you ask us for consent, we say yes or no. We did not consent to being on anyone’s show—so I suppose Chris and anyone else recording who publicly broadcast that footage would also have to edit it—or ask our consent.

And sorry, no, we do not consent to being on The Bleeding Edge, so please remove your media from public access as it currently exists until an edited form appears without our names, likenesses, trademarked brands, or anything else of the like. Thank you.

So, hold on. I need to stop the work I am doing to edit a video of a press event that Microsoft gave us permission to film (multiple times, mind you) because someone didn’t want to appear in the video. Note, while we were actually there in the room, no one said anything. Even after the interview, Ryan didn’t approach us and tell us he would rather not appear in the footage. That would have made this worlds easier. However, this was a press event that anyone in the room was free to record, just like any other press event one might attend. I let Ryan know this in my reply:

We didn’t use your likeness commercially (using footage on an ad-supported media outlet isn’t commercial use,) didn’t defame you, and it was public info according to the company [Microsoft]. Filming a press event like this shouldn’t be an issue, especially since we asked at the start of the meeting.

Within a few minutes, Ryan hit me with this:

According to my communications with Microsoft, there was no information given to indicate this was a public “press event.” Invite-only = exclusive, nothing that a “press event” necessarily entails. Public information disclosed behind closed doors does not mean automatic consent to appearance by all parties present. And just because you asked Moore if it was ok to film him does not mean you asked Vlad, which you did not. When Chris, Randall and I entered after filming had already begun, and were not asked by you or anyone in the room if we could be filmed. Assuming is the wrong thing to do.

So I decided to do some checking with Microsoft. I linked them to the footage, told them the situation, and they said they would get back to me. After a few minutes, Microsoft PR send me the following message:

Hi Andru - after doing a quick check, there is no reason for you to remove the video. You are free to keep it on your site. Thanks for checking in with me on this.

Then I get an email from Weblogs, Inc. CEO, Jason Calacanis:

Why would you run that video without our consent?

j

I explained the situation as best I could to Jason in an email response, telling him about the permission we received, the follow up info from Microsoft saying it was okay, and the fact that the interview was posted on The Chris Pirillo Show - including Joystiq and Engadget comments - about a week ago. Why is it okay there, but not okay on Gear Live? He responded back:

It’s a low class move on your part.

You always get permission and respect peoples right to opt out.

J

So, Joystiq not getting Konami’s permission, nor respecting their right to have something pulled from Joystiq means that Konami PR is full of idiots according to Jason. Yet, our coverage of a press event that Microsoft outrightly said we were more than welcome to film results in Engadget telling me to pull it. Huh??? So, any press conference that Engadget appears at, all other press venues need to go and get their consent to publish it if Engadget happens to ask a question (like they did at CES during the Google Larry page keynote)? Doesn’t that seem to be a bit much?

And it was a low class move on our part to publish the interview that Microsoft outrightly said we could? I just checked with them again a few minutes ago, and got this back from Microsoft PR:

“These were not exclusive interviews. They were group press interviews.”

When the President of the US has a group press interview, I am sure that all the media outlets there don’t have to get specific consent to film other reports from other outlets asking the President their questions.

We have a ton more E3 content to get edited and posted. I told Ryan that we would work on a more Engadget-acceptable version ASAP (which he was fine with), but I have realized that this isn’t something my video guys can do immediately. We have to get other stuff up first. I can’t put our time and efforts into satisfying Engadget immediaetely when all signs say we didn’t do anything wrong. Once we get our other stuff up, we will work on that video. In the interim, we have removed all names and links to Engadget and Joystiq sites and bloggers. However, do know that they were put there not to imply affiliation, but rather to give them the credit they deserved for being a part of that interview.

Can someone tell me, honestly, did we do something wrong here?

UPDATE: As a matter of disclosure, allow me to make it clear that this post was meant to get an answer to the question above - did I do anything wrong? As of last evening, Ryan Block and I had ended our email conversation with what I (and he) thought was an acceptable compromise. When I got the message from Jason Calacanis calling the act of us publishing our video “low class,” that is when I decided to make this post. Upon further reflection, Engadget asking a professional courtesy isn’t a request that is out of line. We had the option to say yes or no - no threat of legal action involved. The difference between this and the Konami incident was that Konami was attempting to surpress news, while Ryan was making a request to have his image not appear in our footage.

Related Tags:

Comments

By Nate True at 5/17/06

Right on Andru. I’ve so far seen little to Engadget’s and its parent company’s credit these last few weeks.

What’s their issue, coming late to what they thought was an exclusive interview? Peter Moore isn’t exactly just another Microsoft head. If you get an interview with Peter Moore, you be on time, ya hear?

link to this comment
By Chris Cardinal at 5/17/06

It boggles the mind how people who claim to be open and enjoy networking with fellow bloggers think it’s an acceptable tactic to undermine a competitior or rival’s interview simply because they happen to appear in it.

Add to the fact that they were 5 minutes late, obviously disappointed and upset that it wasn’t an exclusive (http://www.valleywag.com/tech/ryan-block/engadgets-ryan-block-this-isnt-an-exclusive-174258.php) and just all around grumpy and it starts to look a bit suspicious.

Dear Engadget:
Just because you were present, doesn’t mean you get to be the only ones who can publish coverage. It also doesn’t mean you get to hijack other organizations (who were right on time) and their coverage at your whim.

I can just see you guys bouncing on camera with any interview Game Spot or CNN runs and then sending off a blitz of cease and desist letters to each of them crying that you didn’t give your consent. *That’s* classy, Jason. Brilliant, even. Next time, they’ll make sure to mosaic you and your “this isn’t exclusive?” aw shucks right out of the frame.

link to this comment
By Rob Stevens at 5/17/06

This is ridiculous, and probably borderline harassment. Why? Because of one simple fact ... Engadget’s staff consented to being filmed by ANYONE as part of thier entering the show. It’s a standard disclaimer they agreed to in the registration process. I’m working on getting confirmation of this from the ESA.

link to this comment
By Noe at 5/17/06

Oh! So you got mad that you couldn’t use their names for the video, and instead decided to make a *really* mature post about it using their email correspondence? Hey, maybe you’ll get some diggs out of that, at least.

link to this comment
By Devin at 5/17/06

That’s pretty much what I was thinking Rob. If any of them objected to being filmed they should have walked out as soon as they saw the cameras, or at very least stood all the way in the back of the room so that all the cameras were infront of them and their image was not being recorded. Either way, it doesn’t seem that being filmed was such a big deal to them at the actual event…

link to this comment
By Eric at 5/18/06

As a photojournalist having spent way too much time at press events myself from the President on down (not to mention I worked for the Freedom of Information Center when I was in J-School) I can say with confidence you did nothing wrong.

They would have a reason to complain if they had a reasonable expectation of privacy. At such an event? If someone were to say to me (and plenty have) “you can’t photograph me” I would laugh in their face if I were rude.

Microsoft’s PR office nailed it. You are free to use it. The rest of the characters here are an embarrasement to those of us who believe in openness in “the media.”

Engadget just lost a long-time fan in me. They’re no longer on my morning reading list. What a monumental ego.

link to this comment
By Hairy Jew at 5/18/06

Listen to Eric. The key phrase here is “reasonable expectation of privacy.” At a public event such as this, unless specifically stated in a waiver, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Even if it were an exclusive event, it is an exclusive press event where recording of any nature should be expected. No reasonable expectation of privacy unless specifically stated by the host.

This is not the first time I have seen Engadget bully and belittle their cohorts, and it shouldn’t be tolerated. Unfortunately, it’s a quality site that happens to be run by a gathering of egocentric individuals who have yet to divorce themselves from the arrogant, childish days of before the bursting of the dot.com bubble.

As a side note; Noe, if you don’t have anything interesting or constructive to add to a conversation, do yourself a favor and keep your mouth shut. You’re not helping anyone, least of all yourself, by sounding like a moron.

link to this comment
By Jessica at 5/18/06

wy were they complaining itsa presseventyouwere there tovideo the event, people are boundtobeseen in it they are total idiots

link to this comment
By Peter at 5/18/06

I don’t know who FuckGadget and Inspector Calacanis are, but they sound like a bunch of fuckin no talent ass clowns to me. F*ck those losers. If someone was that rude to me I’d blast that #### all over the internetosphere and make sure everyone knows what fuckwads those losers are. WATB MF’s. Diaper-fuckin-wearing pantywaists. Gawd, that sh*t pisses me off. Give me freedom from these fuckin assh*les. Sh*t.

FREEEEDOM!!!!!

link to this comment
By lunacy8m at 5/18/06

http://tinyurl.com/835eu
http://tinyurl.com/5rl2x

Welcome to the club.

link to this comment
By Freed at 5/18/06

>Peter

Not so roughly… It would be nice to teach you good manners

link to this comment
By Shikoku88Henro at 5/18/06

Read it fools:

A person’s right to privacy is not absolute. Examples given by the court where a person’s photo could be published without consent are where one is “engaged in a public activity, or has acquired a certain notoriety”, or those whose professional success depends on public opinion or where “a previously unknown individual is called on to play a high-profile role in a matter within the public domain, such as an important trial, a major economic activity having an impact on the use of public funds, or an activity involving public safety.”

link to this comment
By Jason Murphy at 5/18/06

Wow, way to stay your ground Andru and not be bullied by the WIN team (who go for the WIN, not win-win).

BTW - I found this on digg (didn’t submit, but certainly dugg):

http://digg.com/links/Engadget_Mutters_Over_Non-Exclusive_Interview,_Request_Rival_Site_Pull_It

link to this comment
By Ricky at 5/18/06

Andru...don’t give in to their dark side. I’d say to the folks at Engadget: Don’t be such big babies. You are the #1 gadget blog (cluttered no less with links and links never letting the reader leave your site to actually visit the sites you pulled the info from with your tractor beam in the first place) with more readership, and yet you take the time to jump on little Andru. Are you the next Microsoft of the gadget blogs?

link to this comment
By Rob Stevens at 5/18/06

I heard back from the ESA today. Not only do all Attendees consent to being filmed/photographed/recorded, but Exhibitors sign a CONTRACT to that effect as well.

I can’t remember if Joystiq/Engadget had a booth or not (I don’t beleive they did but they might have been partnered with someone that did), but as I suggested before, just by walking into the facility, they consented to being filmed.

End of story.

link to this comment
By Kikkichano at 5/19/06

Nice story

what places did you visit ?

link to this comment
By tinuron at 5/19/06

Andru
I have been a photojournalist for six years and built news sites for about five years. Like Eric I have covered almost every kind of news conference, presidential, sports, corporate. You name it.

A persons “reasonable expectation of privacy” is defined very very narrowly. I can photograph you though an open window in your home as long as I stay off your property. If the windows open...you have no expectation of privacy.

Also only the Microsoft Rep. has any authority, its his gathering/event. Ryan is just another guest. If he doesn’t want to be filmed he needs to leave the room. Thems the rules.

You should not edit the video. It ruins your future credibility and it shows people you can be pushed around.

Sometimes being journalist means telling someone - “I’m sorry that you feel that way, but I can’t help you with that.”

sorta like STFU, but nicer.

link to this comment
By jc4dummies_by_dummies at 5/20/06

**From the weblog of Jason Calacnis**

http://www.calacanis.com/2006/02/08/dealing-with-dummies-for-dummies/

Dealing with Dummies, For Dummies***

As you can imagine I’ve gotten a lot of legal letters over the past 10 years, but this one might take the cake.

It turns out the dummies at Wiley don’t want bloggers using “For Dummies” in their blog post titles--and they are searching the blogosphere looking for folks putting that in the title! One of our blogs, TVSquad, used “For Dummies” in a title recently and I had the email exchange below. Now, there is a long standing tradition of publications using slogans and trademarks in headlines (think of all the “Empire Stikes Back” headlines about Microsoft in tech magazines). That is *not* a trademark violation and it does *not* require trademark attribution--it’s a news headline. You are allowed to use a slogan or trademark from Coca-Cola or Pepsi in a headline as well. I hate these chilling effects bozos… get a clue dudes!

What next?!?!? Perhaps we should monitor chat rooms, message boards, and Skype conversations for people using “For Dummies,” and when they do we can force them to use the “FOR DUMMIES® is a registered trademark of Wiley Publishing, Inc.

link to this comment
By kristan at 5/22/06

they want everything now they are doing dupilcates stroys and engadget helps out engadgetmobile in the search engnies it is a extremly unfair for people who have only one site looks at this

http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2006/05/22/sony-ericssons-w42s-3g-walkman-phone-for-japan/

http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/22/sony-ericssons-w42s-3g-walkman-phone-for-japan/

so now if you are getting use to see ing engadget at the top now getuse to see two engadget sites at the top of search results with engadget mobile why do they do the same product twice for because they want everything for themselves this is judt pure greed

link to this comment
By Ian Bell at 5/23/06

Just thought I would throw in my support. Jason and Ryan are just using bully tactics to get your video removed. If they have a problem, direct them to your attorney. I would not even bother responding to the rest of their e-mails.

Great video, keep up the good work, you havea wonderful site.

link to this comment
By Bob cooley at 5/23/06

Andru,

I’m another photojournalist (20+ yrs).

You were at a press event held by MS.

Anything you recorded there was fair game, and you don’t need consent/releases.

Jason/Ryan had no expectation of privacy, and if they didn’t want to be shot, they shouldn’t have been in the room. Had they been worried at the event, they could have ASKED you ahead of time not to use footage of them (which would still be up to your discretion).

You published/aired the video for reportage/news gathering purposes, so you have the right to show the footage if shown for the purposes of reporting a story.

Of course, this is based on the info as you presented it; but you seem to be in the right.

Remember that ultimately everything you get here is just advice from people on a blog, but you’ve gotten some very sound advice from several photojournailsts who are working every day with precisely with the scenario you are asking about.

cheers!

link to this comment
By Casey McKinnon at 5/30/06

Some people take things to the extreme. While I’m glad that videobloggers are now considered media in the court of law, I’m also sad because it means that I too will have to start worrying about getting written consent from everyone appearing in my video footage. As someone who does this as a hobby/passion, I just don’t have time to worry about ######## like this…

Best of luck with your truce!
Casey

link to this comment
By Eric at 5/30/06

Casey,

Don’t worry about getting written permission. You don’t need to. Unless you’re now producing marketing or advertising websites! For editorial use (such as blogging) you don’t need written permission for anything except for if you were to photograph (or videotape) them while you were standing on private property. And even then they’d have a hard time doing anything to you. But better to be safe and only videotape with permission when you’re not on public property.

In fact, check out this website:

http://www.photoattorney.com/

link to this comment
By Juan at 5/31/06

By the way you tell how everything happened, you have done NOTHIGN WRONG.

I would say that “this” person made a mistake, and that is that he shouldn’t have entered the room (or be part of the intervew) when he saw that there were cameras “rolling”. I mean, if he knows that he isn’t going to give any consent, why doesn’t he SAY SO at that moment?????

link to this comment
By Hector Martinez at 6/8/06

Andru, they’re just haters. And it sounds like you’ve done all on your end to be as courteous as possible. I wonder if the other site took down their video as well. Yes, I’m still alive and well guys.

link to this comment

Social

follow AndruEdwards at http://twitter.com

Recent Galleries

Recent Users

Statistics

Total Posts: 115
Total Comments: 193
Total Trackbacks: 42
Total Members: 11313
Members Online: 0
Guests Online: 25
Anonymous Members: 0
Most Visitors Ever: 5394
Current Members Online:

Site Links

All About Gear Live

Gear Live Tools

Check out the Gear Live Touls that let you integrate Gear Live into your site.

Advertise

You can buy advertising on Gear Live through our advertising partner Federated Media.

Gear Live Social

Check us out on:

Gear Live Store

New! Get GearLive hats, shirts, hoodies and more at the new GearLive Store thanks to our pals at J!NX.

© Gear Live Media, LLC. 2007 – User-posted content, unless source is quoted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Public Domain License. Gear Live graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, videos, articles, blogs, forums, scripts and other service names are the trademarks of Gear Live Inc.

Wednesday May 17, 2006 5:03 pm