Who owns the racing data

[apracing]

<br>Nor1,

I do have access to the Weatherbys database, although not all sections of it, as an owner willing to pay. There isn’t actually much on there that isn’t available elsewhere. The most useful data is the program of future races, but you can only access that if you already pay for the printed version! I use it mainly for tracking entries, declarations and jockey bookings for races involving my own horses.

At a guess, it’s isn’t open to the wider racing public for reasons of capacity – it’s a small computer site at Weatherbys – security, and probably the fact that it’s a work in progress with new features being added at regular intervals.

AP

[wit]

……possibly too – but i don’t know – there may be some contractual commitments made to certain of the reselling buyers to get a higher price from them.

there’s an interesting description in the very first William Hill judgment:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"The racing information contained in the BHB database is of interest to a wide variety of different users of the information.

First, and foremost, essential extracts from the database are made available to the participating elements of the racing industry itself, including representatives of the different racecourses around the country, racehorse owners, trainers, riders and their agents, the Jockey Club, pedigree compilers and overseas racing authorities.

The information is made available to these parties each day by way of the joint Weatherbys/BHB Internet website @ http://www.bhb-weatherbys.racingadmin.co.uk and via a database site on the Prestel network, plus each week within BHB’s official journal, the Racing Calendar.

In addition, the racing information is of interest to radio and television broadcasters who cover different race meetings around the country;

Similarly, it is used by publications such as The Racing Post, Timeform and local and national newspapers who need to provide to their readers information concerning forthcoming race meetings;

information services such as Ceefax and Teletext also need access to the racing information;

the information is also, of course, of interest to members of the public who follow horseracing."

The information, or selected parts of it, is also supplied to other interested parties, including bookmakers.

Among the methods of distribution, two are relevant to the issues in this case.

First data are made available to a company called Racing Pages Ltd which is controlled and owned by Weatherbys and the Press Association jointly. Racing Pages Ltd forwards data to its various subscribers which include some bookmakers. In particular Racing Pages, on behalf of BHB, makes available to subscribers in electronic form, normally on the day before a race, what is called a Declarations Feed. This contains an accurate, up-to-the-minute list of races, declared runners and jockeys, distance and name of races, race times and number of runners in each race together with other information.

Secondly data are supplied to a company, Satellite Information Services Limited ("SIS" ), which is allowed to use data from it for certain purposes including for onward transmission to, and use by, its own subscribers. The supply from SIS to its own subscribers takes the form of what is called a raw data feed ("RDF" ). <br><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cg … method=all

best regards

wit

[Sal]

Nor, Seagull, wit and Ap.

http://www.bloodstockreports.com is the Weatherbys site of racing and breeding information that is open to everyone (not just owners/trainers) – however, this is totally separate to the BHB data rights issue as it does not carry decs or form guides.  

There are some free reports and some that can be accessed with credit card payment.  It also combines information from the Racing Post and the US Jockey Club.

[wit]

hi Sal,

thanks for that.   my first stop on that side would usually be

http://www.pedigreequery.com/

but i guess they’re slightly different offerings.

best regards

wit  

[Nor1]

Thanks wit for the interesting first William Hill judgement.<br>I still think it is unfair that WH & co can use information, compiled and sorted by others, for free.<br>The Weatherby admin site does contain Handicap ratings, provisional entries, non runners, etc. I think it’s the immediacy of the info (rather than waiting and getting it second-hand) that would be of interest plus the accuracy (apart from very late jockey changes).

[empty wallet]

Seems the info is scattered here, there and everywhere

Why hasn’t the HRA got a site like HKJC, NTRA  or Emirates Racing?

(Edited by empty wallet at 11:57 am on Jan. 17, 2007)

[empty wallet]

Quote: from Nor1 on 11:47 am on Jan. 17, 2007[br]<br>I still think it is unfair that WH & co can use information, compiled and sorted by others, for free.

<br>Totally agree Nor1

<br>How the feck they won i ain’t a clue, surely the info belongs to Owners, Courses etc

[Seagull]

Wit,

If there were for example 15 on course bookmakers standing again for example at Lingfield and between them they mark up prices they are offering and after the averages have been taken into account this information is transmitted as the ‘starting price’ and will eventually go down in the official results and also be reported in all national newspapers.<br>This information surely must be worth something as it would be used by bookmakers throughout the world when settling bets.<br>It would also be used by punters throughout the world that had winning bets in order to calculate what they had won.<br>Without the 15 bookmakers on course (and until ‘industry prices’ are the norm) no one would know what the prices were and  the bookmakers on course must be devoting time and effort in deciding prices.<br>Is it not then feasible that the 15 providers of this information cannot claim a sum between them as a copyright fee?<br>Barry Dennis has I think mentioned this subject in the past.

[Zebra]

Seagull – I think you’ll find that they are paid a fee by PA in return for any rights they may have in the SP

[wit]

Hi Seagull

There are two cases that I know of in the law reports.

In 1936 in Odhams Press v London & Provincial, the Court was asked to make a declaration that copyright existed in the SP.   The first instance judge declined to do so; so did the Court of Appeal.

The actual decision was that they needed evidence of a specific infringement to decide on, and were not about to make a generalised forward-looking statement, so they did not meet head on the question whether copyright could exist in the SP as a compilation.

The first instance judge though was firmly against the notion.  

The Court of Appeal seemed unable to make up its mind:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I cannot help thinking that, both from the letters which I have read and in the form of the claim, there has not been that precise distinction which is proper between information which is not the subject of copyright, and documents which are the subject of copyright….and it is not at all clear whether rights are being claimed by the plaintiffs……in respect merely of the information and not in respect of the literary copyright in the strict sense of the term.

As to the decision of the learned Judge in this case, I think I ought to say, without expressing any final view, that I should hesitate very much before I arrived at the conclusion that these particular entries or books which have been put before the court are not capable of being the subject of literary copyright.

They appear to beâ€â€Â

[Seagull]

Wit,<br>Thanks again for such a detailed reply.

[Author]

Posts