IF IT WERE UP TO YOU...

After you finish reading the post below ("EVERYONE NOTIFIED? NOT REALLY..."), let's hear from you. If it were determined that Home Depot/Imre Communications violated the law in their conduct of this contest, what should happen? Let the winner's keep the prize? Award the prize to someone else? A YouTube "re-do"? What?

(UPDATE: Comments appear to be working again. Sorry for the inconvenience.)

EVERYONE NOTIFIED? NOT REALLY...

Be sure to scroll down to read all the posts regarding the Home Depot YouTube $25,000 contest.

So, we know Home Depot and their business partner, Imre Communications, are justifying the re-edit of the winning video (to avoid being disqualified) by saying it was an "opportunity that all submitters have had". How did they go about giving entrants this opportunity? According to Home Depot (on the now-scrubbed YouTube message boards, emphasis added):

"As background, we reviewed each video when it was submitted to ensure it complied with contest rules. When we found a submission that did not comply, we provided feedback to the submitter and gave them the opportunity to rectify ... Please note that if you did not receive an email from us at any point after submitting your video, your video was not disqualified."

Let's ignore for a moment the glaring questions about giving the winners the "opportunity" to submit past the deadline (unlike anyone else), and overlooking the view count judging criteria (which was ZERO upon their resubmission). It would seem cut-and-dry, right? They were notified, like "everyone", that they had some disqualifying issues, so Home Depot was just being fair, right?

But wait... there WAS another video that was disqualified. The Bork family from Buffalo, New York, submitted a video. Their contest entry was disqualified by Home Depot:

"We regret to inform you that the Bork family's video from Buffalo, NY was disqualified"

But according to the family, they were NEVER officially notified that they were disqualified. Were they given the same "opportunity" as everyone else? It would seem not. Granted, the circumstances are a little different, in that a family member worked for Home Depot. But Home Depot is offering this blanket excuse for their actions, and it doesn't seem to hold up.

When it comes down to it, contests are "ruled by the rules". So, Home Depot's contest rules are all we can refer to (they were removed from the Imre-managed website shortly after the contest ended, but are posted below). It is a contract, in essense, with everyone who enters the contest. As Home Depot said (about the Bork video, emphasis added):

"...we are legally obligated to follow the contest rules. It would be unfair to the other 260 entries to do otherwise."

Home Depot may justify this contest in whatever way they choose, but there is a passage in their rules that seems telling (emphasis added):

"Entrants are prohibited from submitting entries that: (i) contain material that is copyrighted, protected by trade secret or otherwise subject to third party proprietary rights, including privacy and publicity rights, unless the entrant is the owner of such rights or has permission from the rightful owner to post the material and to grant Sponsor and YouTube all of the license rights granted herein;"

As one reader put it (emphasis added), "Bottom line the word/phrase 'prohibited' says it all. Yes, Sponsor has the right to remove.,ie..the Bork video.. BUT the entrants are PROHIBITED from submitting entries..meaning before any judging begins. The Sponsors rights begin after the submission when the judging process starts."

If legally accurate, that would mean that it was in no way Home Depot's responsibility to make sure that entries were compliant with the rules. Rather, the entrant's are fully responsible. It would prohibit entrants from posting copyrighted material on YouTube without permission. So, what if an entry that violated these terms were to make it onto YouTube?

"Entrants agree that Sponsor shall have the right to immediately remove any entry and disqualify any entrant who has or is suspected of violating these Official Rules or whose entry infringes or potentially infringes upon the intellectual property rights or other rights of any person or entity."

So, they have a right to disqualify you for even being "suspected" of violating the rules. One other reader asked if this isn't a discretionary statement, giving Home Depot the flexibility to choose whether or not to disqualify the entry. First, go back to the above statement that says "entrant's are prohibited" from submitting copyrighted material. They shouldn't be submitted in the first place. Second, does the Sponsor's right to remove a disqualified entry give them the right to UN-DISQUALIFY an entry? If anyone can find a legal way to explain this all away, please do so.

As always, you are welcome to express concerns, offer tips and get involved at the email posted in the "profile" button to the right.