You are known online by your avatar so I would argue that there is no legal distinction. You are not know as Bob, but by kissmya$$. People fear you or play with you and you like that perception. Exposing your weakness(s) in a training video can hurt your ability to make money. And as kissmya$$, not as Bob.

There is no difference legally. But because there is no real jurisdiction, good luck doing anything about it. For now.

I do agree with your expectation of privacy.

i really wish i could get mike matusow to call you a freaking idiot right now.

you make me sick.

"exploitative purpose" means that you are making money by exploiting there image/likeness. Ex. you can't put MJ on a Wheaties box without paying him. These laws don't cover what you think they do. There would be a lot of jurisdiction issues too.

f the training sites

There are a ton of jurisdiction issues here which make it hugely unenforceable, this is why I offered "Doesn't Matter" in the poll.

These video making pro's absolutely NEED players to play against to make their videos in order to explain the thoughts and theories they teach to outplay this or that type of opponent. If the opponents are kept anonymous there really is no problem in my mind. But when the screen names and avatars of these opponents are used you really step into bigger issues of privacy and using someone's likeness to create content to drive traffic to your site and increase your site's sales. So this would be crossing into exploitation of people's likeness IMO.

The polls are still split right down the middle here, so this topic could also have more input from the voters and lurkers ITT.

please enlighten us that dont find it obv

this is so ******ed

Being in someone's video while playing poker online doesn't require any more effort from you than playing poker online without being video-recorded.

lol. so if a physical education teacher analyses the televised play of a basketballer to their class that school has to pay the basketballer something?

and as for the privacy issue. that is ridiculous. all players are private unless they have told someone their name. and then it is their own fault they are not private.

How is it ******ed? if you have to hide screen names when you do a video what about hand histories? And what about the stat tracking of websites and programs that are available if the hand history is in video format how is it different?

it doesnt matter since theres no way u could ever win a lawsuit about this

I think that this is why the thread was proposed. I'm not as confident as you that this would be true. It's clear you cannot use another's likeness for profit without their consent.

If only players could have used anonymous aliases instead of their real names, there wouldn't have been any conceivable issue here...

Also, I'm sure the "don't care"s should be added to the "no"s.

idk

Pretty close poll.

Wish we woud hear from a training site on this issue.

This seems a bit nitty IMO. Who cares? What are you losing here? Do you really feel like you get a huge disadvantage because of this?

Because if it's against the law, it's against the law. That's why people care.

You blindly follow the law even if it's a bad law?

If breaking the law hurts me more then following the law, then yes.

God damn nits...
This.

Id say its got to do with PUBLIC exchange and PRIVATE exchange... But i dunno the laws....

[ ] Thread Delivers

Yes, this thread has not delivered anything. I do believe, though, that players who have custom avatars or usernames that have strong brand recognition could have a real case.

the thread delivers a very controversial poll, a bunch of flamers and warrants more discussion.

I think b4 playing they should let you know that the session is going to be recorded for a training site and you can opt in or out.

if a tree falls in a forest..................