Owners permission

[Lovely bubbly]

3 minutes ago
Hi!
I’m wondering if anyone can help me... we recently took on a sharer who initially asked if they could use our horse for a bit of you tube. I jokingly said sure but if any money was made, we’d like a cut.
This has now become a bit out of control using our horse to advertise all sorts of equestrian products and is continuously popping up with sponsored ads on most social media platforms. It’s since been brought to my attention money is being made by using my horse who has become quite famous in their own rights.
Although I am happy the sharer has become a popular YouTuber and has become extremely successful on other platforms being an ambassador for many different companies, I’m a bit upset to not to have been asked permission.
Now the sharer wants their own horse, understandable, however, I’m not comfortable with my horse continuing to line their pockets when it’s my horse which has put in just as much hard work as they have.
I’d like all adverts and magazine articles regarding my horse removed.
Any advice or opinions would be greatly appreciated.
TIA!

 

[shamrock2021]

I actually think I now who you’re talking about. If I am correct on who I am thinking I think you’re pissed that the share is ending the loan because it wasn’t a problem when these person were sharing. Honestly though you’re gave permission to do YouTube . I actually think it awful thing to do to someone when you agreed to it in the first place.

 

[TheMule]

I'm struggling to see the issue here. You say they asked your permission and you gave it?
She owns the content so unless it is defamatory towards you or otherwise harmful then you would have no grounding to have it taken down.

 

[Lovely bubbly]

I actually think I now who you’re talking about. If I am correct on who I am thinking I think you’re pissed that the share is ending the loan because it wasn’t a problem when these person were sharing. Honestly though you’re gave permission to do YouTube . I actually think it awful thing to do to someone when you agreed to it in the first place.

Not at all pissed it’s ending....!!!!!! And did not give permission

 

[Lovely bubbly]

I'm struggling to see the issue here. You say they asked your permission and you gave it?
She owns the content so unless it is defamatory towards you or otherwise harmful then you would have no grounding to have it taken down.

Permission for one page!!

 

[shortstuff99]

This sounds like you are annoyed they've made money and you would like the money to be honest. I'm not sure how a horse has put as much effort into being an influencer.

You could always start your own channel if he has become so famous, make your own money.

 

[Gloi]

If you were bothered you should have had a written agreement at the start or kept a tighter control on what was going on. Bit late now.

 

[Archangel]

It is a bit cheeky of the sharer and overstepping fair use boundaries but these things can blow up out of nowhere.

I guess intent is the root of the problem - do you think they took your horse on to enjoy hacks etc and the online stuff just snowballed somewhat unexpectedly or was the real reason just to get a horse to promote stuff online.

As always communication, or rather lack of it, is the key. The sharer should have kept a dialogue going about how things were developing and perhaps you should have kept yourself more in touch. This could be one of those live and learn moments, but goodness knows how you could have seen it coming.

So, can you make money from a horse on YouTube?
Asking for a friend whilst eyeing up retired horse in field.

 

[Ish2020]

As someone who is a YouTuber I think this goes under fair use so you can’t actually do anything about this and plus you can’t really argue since you’re sharing the horse which could be classed as half ownership. So you cannot really win in this case. Once she gets her new horse all the attention will turn to the new horse. So you don’t have to worry it’s a lesson learned at the end of the day . That’s why written agreements are so important when it comes to YouTube and horse sharing. It not worth falling out with someone over social media posts and plus it will make you look bad . The share should have told you that she is doing it as a business/ job she could be doing so she can afford a horse of her own. It to late now I would just leave it be Pm me if you have any questions I have watched a few of her videos .

 

[Circe2]

Trying to put myself in your shoes, I can understand the feeling - but my discomfort mainly stems from being a relatively private person when it comes to pictures etc. Like I cringe when people post pictures of their young kids publicly/use them as an advertising stunt, or their animals etc. But that’s just me, I admit it’s not fully rational. I think I would freak out a bit knowing so many people have seen my yard/horse/belongings in that level of detail or heard of my horse (might even have an opinion of its upkeep?) - for example, I wouldn’t mind my sharer having pictures of my horse /and her on her private IG or Facebook or whatever, maybe a couple of training videos posted on YouTube for fun. Also, do you feel like there might be a false representation involved at all? Like she’s pretending to her followers that your horse is her horse? I know that sort of thing would miff me, if it came to happen. So all in all I think you have a right to tell her to rein (pun unintended..) your horse’s exposure in a bit. Surely she can get her own horse for all of this. It feels like she’s put you in a position where you’re basically her “brand” sponsor, by providing her with the equine prop..

To summarise, I think some people would be comfortable with this and even delighted, and some people are just a bit more private/wary of social media and it doesn’t sit terribly well with them. I don’t think there’s a right or wrong, and your feelings of discomfort are as valid as anyone’s.

 

[Circe2]

As someone who is a YouTuber I think this goes under fair use so you can’t actually do anything about this and plus you can’t really argue since you’re sharing the horse which could be classed as half ownership. So you cannot really win in this case. Once she gets her new horse all the attention will turn to the new horse. So you don’t have to worry it’s a lesson learned at the end of the day . That’s why written agreements are so important when it comes to YouTube and horse sharing. It not worth falling out with someone over social media posts and plus it will make you look bad . The share should have told you that she is doing it as a business/ job she could be doing so she can afford a horse of her own. It to late now I would just leave it be Pm me if you have any questions I have watched a few of her videos .

Not trying to be argumentative, but I absolutely don’t agree with the statement here saying a sharer agreement makes her qualify for half ownership. A sharer agreement just details use of the horse on certain days for certain things, and protects your horse from mistreatment, protects your equipment from theft etc. I think it’s more similar to a landlord vs tenant relationship - if you don’t like what she’s doing, you can terminate the contract (and there’s a lot less recourse involved here!). Everyone stating OP should have stated something in the contract are right, retrospectively, but there is usually (or at least in the agreement I have with my sharer) a clause that says the horse can be used for xyz activity, anything beyond that the sharer has to agree separately with the owner (and potentially have the agreement updated). The owner is the owner. OP bought the horse, OP is likely to pay all/majority of upkeep, OP is responsible for vet costs (sharer can usually quit the agreement if the horse is out of work for 30 days).

It’s definitely common courtesy to make sure the owner is absolutely, 100% continuously comfortable if you’re publicising their horse, yard and equipment. Otherwise it would be like renting a house for private family use and then using the ground floor as a shop without clearing it fully with the landlord/getting that in writing.

 

[shortstuff99]

Not trying to be argumentative, but I absolutely don’t agree with the statement here saying a sharer agreement makes her qualify for half ownership. A sharer agreement just details use of the horse on certain days for certain things, and protects your horse from mistreatment, protects your equipment from theft etc. I think it’s more similar to a landlord vs tenant relationship - if you don’t like what she’s doing, you can terminate the contract (and there’s a lot less recourse involved here!). Everyone stating OP should have stated something in the contract are right, retrospectively, but there is usually (or at least in the agreement I have with my sharer) a clause that says the horse can be used for xyz activity, anything beyond that the sharer has to agree separately with the owner (and potentially have the agreement updated). The owner is the owner. OP bought the horse, OP is likely to pay all/majority of upkeep, OP is responsible for vet costs (sharer can usually quit the agreement if the horse is out of work for 30 days).

It’s definitely common courtesy to make sure the owner is absolutely, 100% continuously comfortable if you’re publicising their horse, yard and equipment. Otherwise it would be like renting a house for private family use and then using the ground floor as a shop without clearing it fully with the landlord/getting that in writing.

Yes but the owner did know it was all going on! They mention being alerted to that she was making money from it, which is when she had a problem with it.

 

[Circe2]

Yes but the owner did know it was all going on! They mention being alerted to that she was making money from it, which is when she had a problem with it.

Yes, because she thought the horse was being used for a hobby, not for a business. She hasn’t said she wants a cut of the money - she wants to go back on the sharer agreement and limit the horse’s public exposure, which seems to be increasing really fast if she’s seeing it randomly pop up on more and more social media platforms. I think that’s reasonable.

It would be an entirely different debate if she was trying to take the influencer to court for a cut of the money that’s been made, but this doesn’t seem to be the case.

I have to admit I have a generally low opinion on people who walk all over social convention in order to make money - whilst it might be a legal loophole because the professional influencer/YouTuber industry is a new one, it’s still totally antisocial and cheeky to continue doing something for your monetary gain, if the owner has at any point stated they’re uncomfortable. I think the owner needs to pull the contract.

 

[Sail_away]

I’m not comfortable with my horse continuing to line their pockets when it’s my horse which has put in just as much hard work as they have.

So this seems to be the issue. You’re okay with the horse being on social media, but are uncomfortable with her making money from it. And also - what does it mean, the horse worked just as hard as the sharer? Surely the horse has just been ridden, and fussed, on the days you agreed to, like any other share? It hasn’t had to edit videos or hold a camera...
I suppose you could ask her to take the content down but I don’t see that you could do much if she said no, and any magazine articles I expect will be out of your control entirely. If you’re really bothered, if you’re a BHS gold member you can call their legal helpline.

 

[shortstuff99]

Yes, because she thought the horse was being used for a hobby, not for a business. She hasn’t said she wants a cut of the money - she wants to go back on the sharer agreement and limit the horse’s public exposure, which seems to be increasing really fast if she’s seeing it randomly pop up on more and more social media platforms. I think that’s reasonable.

It would be an entirely different debate if she was trying to take the influencer to court for a cut of the money that’s been made, but this doesn’t seem to be the case.

I have to admit I have a generally low opinion on people who walk all over social convention in order to make money - whilst it might be a legal loophole because the professional influencer/YouTuber industry is a new one, it’s still totally antisocial and cheeky to continue doing something for your monetary gain, if the owner has at any point stated they’re uncomfortable. I think the owner needs to pull the contract.

The sharer is giving the horse up to continue with her career. It seems as of she got popular quickly and has now moved on. The owners horse therefore will not be used anymore, the problem is solved (from that issue). The problem seems to still be the money.

 

[dogatemysalad]

If you recently took on a sharer who quickly made your horse famous on many media platforms and is an ambassador for various companies, you most own a pretty exeptional horse, either that or your sharer is spending many hours dressing and bathing your horse for all these photos and videos.

You've not mentioned any welfare concerns about your horses working life and did give permission for him to appear on youtube, so is the issue about the money you think is being made ? Either way, this very gifted sharer is about to buy her first horse, so after you or she, ends the share, the problem will resolve itself.

 

[Bluepepper]

I understand the feeling of being put out that your horse is being used in this way. It would bother me as well (more from a privacy POV)

However, I do think as the question was asked initially and you did give permission (however jokingly) for them to appear in youtube videos it would be unreasonable now to ask for all their content featuring the horse to be removed. If you weren't happy with them using the horse for product placement in the videos this should probably have been in writing as it's kind of a given with YouTube videos nowadays. Not sure you'd have any standing to get magazine articles removed either.

It sounds like the sharer's online presence is something you've been aware of for a while and the real issue is that these videos containing your horse will continue to make money for the sharer, even when they have a horse of their own. If you wanted a cut of that even after the share agreement ended it should have been in writing IMO.

 

[LadyGascoyne]

Really interesting one!

I can see both sides.

What was the sharer’s online presence like before she started sharing the horse? And what kind of content did she post pre-horse?

Did the sharer pay for the days she rode the horse?

Do you think the sharer has only received free or discounted product or do you think the sharer is being paid for the content specifically related to the horse?

Is there something particularly unique about the horse? Is it a particularly marketable breed or colour, or does it have a specific talent?

 

[Lois Lame]

I jokingly said sure ...

I've done this --- jokingly said, "Sure," to a question. Next thing everything got out of hand.

No more jokingly saying "Sure," for me.

 

[FourLeafClover]

I’m sure I know who you are talking about too - and that I guess is the problem if you are someone more private, which I would be too. I think I had just assumed that there was a very transparent owner/loaner relationship going on, particularly with the move to full livery (able to afford it with all the sponsorship etc now I guess?) but it’s interesting to know that’s not necessarily the case.

I think the loaner should have kept you in the loop about the deals/ads/sheer quantity of content being put online of your horse. There’s a big difference between ‘a bit of YouTube’ and weekly videos half an hour long to thousands of people and profiteering from the loan agreement. However, it’s definitely a grey area as it sounds like you did verbally consent, however loosely it may have been. I wouldn’t say there is much you can do about what’s been done thus far and I don’t think it would be fair to ask her to take the content down, but you would be within your rights to ask that your horse doesn’t feature in any more ads or videos. However given that the loan will likely be ending in the next few months anyway, and you could really sour your relationship with this person by sabotaging her ‘professional relationship’ with your horse, I would be inclined to let it run it’s course. The horse has been portrayed well, as a generous and well natured animal suitable for a competent novice, and you won’t have any issues with finding another loan home or even selling him should you wish to (possibly for more money than you would have got pre his new career!) as there is so much documented of it being good to hack alone/in company, good to jump etc etc.

 

[LadyGascoyne]

I think I’ve worked out who it is too so if I’m right...

What was the sharer’s online presence like before she started sharing the horse? And what kind of content did she post pre-horse?

Did the sharer pay for the days she rode the horse?

Do you think the sharer has only received free or discounted product or do you think the sharer is being paid for the content specifically related to the horse?

Is there something particularly unique about the horse? Is it a particularly marketable breed or colour, or does it have a specific talent?

It looks like she blogs about being an average novice rider and what other people can expect and learn from common horsey situations. It looks like sharing and then loaning your horse was a big learning experience for her and a big part of what she blogs about.

It looks like it was a paid share, and moved to a full loan some months into the sharing period.

It does look like some product sponsorship has occurred but it’s hard to tell how much financial gain there really is.

The horse seems lovely and very sweet but it is an ordinary horse and the blogs focus on an ordinary novice rider’s experience in riding, sharing, loaning and managing horses.

On that basis, I’d suggest that it could have been any horse and that the horse isn’t contributing anything specific; what the horse is contributing is paid for under the share/ loan and you state she mentioned social media and you did give her an ok, so there is an element of permission there.

The value in the content is how the blogger has designed and presented it so I wouldn’t say the horse has worked “just as hard”. The ‘following’ element has been built up by Q&A sessions and responding to followers not only videos, and whilst the horse features in videos, it is only as the recipient of an ordinary (probably good) level of basic care and riding.

It also looks like the horse’s owner has said some very supportive things about the sharer / loaner along the way, and offered to continue the arrangement while the loaner looks for her own horse.

I think the sharer/ loaner could reasonably have believed that she did have permission, and even support, for the videos.

I would draw a line under this one OP, and chalk it up to a good learning experience. I’d also be very careful advertising the horse for share or loan again and he might have a bit of a following now and you might have people applying for the wrong reasons. I do think his value may have been increased if you’d like to sell - the sharer/ loaner has shown him in a very positive light.

 

[shamrock2021]

I think I’ve worked out who it is too so if I’m right...



It looks like she blogs about being an average novice rider and what other people can expect and learn from common horsey situations. It looks like sharing and then loaning your horse was a big learning experience for her and a big part of what she blogs about.

It looks like it was a paid share, and moved to a full loan some months into the sharing period.

It does look like some product sponsorship has occurred but it’s hard to tell how much financial gain there really is.

The horse seems lovely and very sweet but it is an ordinary horse and the blogs focus on an ordinary novice rider’s experience in riding, sharing, loaning and managing horses.

On that basis, I’d suggest that it could have been any horse and that the horse isn’t contributing anything specific; what the horse is contributing is paid for under the share/ loan and you state she mentioned social media and you did give her an ok, so there is an element of permission there.

The value in the content is how the blogger has designed and presented it so I wouldn’t say the horse has worked “just as hard”. The ‘following’ element has been built up by Q&A sessions and responding to followers not only videos, and whilst the horse features in videos, it is only as the recipient of an ordinary (probably good) level of basic care and riding.

It also looks like the horse’s owner has said some very supportive things about the sharer / loaner along the way, and offered to continue the arrangement while the loaner looks for her own horse.

I think the sharer/ loaner could reasonably have believed that she did have permission, and even support, for the videos.

I would draw a line under this one OP, and chalk it up to a good learning experience. I’d also be very careful advertising the horse for share or loan again and he might have a bit of a following now and you might have people applying for the wrong reasons. I do think his value may have been increased if you’d like to sell - the sharer/ loaner has shown him in a very positive light.

I completely agree with you

 

[milliepops]

I think I’ve worked out who it is too so if I’m right...



It looks like she blogs about being an average novice rider and what other people can expect and learn from common horsey situations. It looks like sharing and then loaning your horse was a big learning experience for her and a big part of what she blogs about.

It looks like it was a paid share, and moved to a full loan some months into the sharing period.

It does look like some product sponsorship has occurred but it’s hard to tell how much financial gain there really is.

The horse seems lovely and very sweet but it is an ordinary horse and the blogs focus on an ordinary novice rider’s experience in riding, sharing, loaning and managing horses.

On that basis, I’d suggest that it could have been any horse and that the horse isn’t contributing anything specific; what the horse is contributing is paid for under the share/ loan and you state she mentioned social media and you did give her an ok, so there is an element of permission there.

The value in the content is how the blogger has designed and presented it so I wouldn’t say the horse has worked “just as hard”. The ‘following’ element has been built up by Q&A sessions and responding to followers not only videos, and whilst the horse features in videos, it is only as the recipient of an ordinary (probably good) level of basic care and riding.

It also looks like the horse’s owner has said some very supportive things about the sharer / loaner along the way, and offered to continue the arrangement while the loaner looks for her own horse.

I think the sharer/ loaner could reasonably have believed that she did have permission, and even support, for the videos.

I would draw a line under this one OP, and chalk it up to a good learning experience. I’d also be very careful advertising the horse for share or loan again and he might have a bit of a following now and you might have people applying for the wrong reasons. I do think his value may have been increased if you’d like to sell - the sharer/ loaner has shown him in a very positive light.

figured out who it is now.
totally agree with this.

 

[SaddlePsych'D]

Also taking a guess that I know who this is referring to. If so, she addresses a question about consent from owner directly on a Q&A where it's stated that the owner is "so supportive of all my posts". So either the sharer is lying about that or the OP is 'off'. Personally with lines like "it’s my horse which has put in just as much hard work as they have" I'm slightly biased toward the latter.

Also that there are (positive) comments from the owners on the sharers posts? So either I've got the wrong sharer (apologies and ignore me if I have) or the OP really is off.

 

[jnb]

Can someone tell me who this is please(pm if you don't want to name) ?
I'm curious how you can make a lot from YouTube, you need about 10,000 likes for about £100 don't you?

 

[Meowy Catkin]

Sounds like an interesting youtube channel. Can someone PM me the link so I can have a look without having their name on the forum? Thanks.

 

[Laafet]

Sounds like an interesting youtube channel. Can someone PM me the link so I can have a look without having their name on the forum? Thanks.

I am interested which one it is too!

 

[twiggy2]

Sounds like an interesting youtube channel. Can someone PM me the link so I can have a look without having their name on the forum? Thanks.

And me please?

 

[LittleBayCob]

And me please?

Me too!

 

[HeyMich]

Me too please. I don't follow bloggers etc, so I'm not even sure I'd be able to search for them if I wanted to! Thanks