The Truefield Standard

Find the intellectual property or ownership clause. Which of these five states does the agreement expressly put footage ownership in? Report the state in reasoning, then score. customer ownership stated ......................... 2 other express allocation stated ................... 2 conflicting provisions located .................... 1 vendor ownership stated ........................... 0 no express ownership provision located ............ 0 This criterion asks ONLY who owns the footage. The scope of any licence granted back to the vendor is assessed separately under OWN-01B. Do not reduce the score here because the licence is broad — record the ownership state as the document states it.

Nominal ownership means little if the licence granted back is unlimited. Locate the licence grant and identify its scope. licence limited to hosting and delivering the service ...... 2 licence extends to product improvement only ................ 2 licence extends to promotion or marketing .................. 1 licence extends to redistribution or sublicensing .......... 0 licence permits any purpose, or is unlimited in scope ...... 0 no licence grant located ................................... 1 Score what the licence permits, not what the vendor is likely to do. A perpetual, worldwide licence "for any and all purposes" scores 0 even where the same agreement states the customer owns the footage — that combination is the finding this criterion exists to surface. Note in reasoning whether the licence is sublicensable, transferable, or survives termination.

Look for rights to license, sublicense, distribute, syndicate, or transfer content or data to third parties, affiliates, or "partners". Undefined terms like "partners" or "affiliates and their designees" score 0 or 1.

Does the agreement restrict the customer from using other capture providers, or from using footage families capture themselves? What counts as exclusivity: an express restriction on engaging another capture or streaming provider; a venue or facility restriction granting the vendor sole capture rights; a prohibition on families recording or sharing their own footage; or a right of first refusal on capture services. What does NOT count: minimum term commitments; volume commitments; restrictions on reselling the vendor's own service; ordinary IP or confidentiality restrictions; and restrictions on redistributing footage the vendor produced. express statement of no exclusivity, or exclusivity expressly limited in both scope and duration ....................... 2 exclusivity present and bounded in scope or duration ....... 1 exclusivity present and unlimited .......................... 0 silent .................................................... 0 Silence scores 0. An agreement that does not address exclusivity is not a commitment against it.

Does the customer approve advertising or sponsor categories shown alongside its content? Silence scores 1; vendor sole discretion scores 0.

Any clause permitting use of customer content to train, develop, or improve machine learning models, and whether opt-out exists.

Is there a DPA or data protection exhibit stating the vendor processes personal data only on documented customer instructions? A general privacy policy alone scores 1, not 2.

Is there a named or linked subprocessor list, and an obligation to give notice before adding subprocessors?

On termination, must the vendor delete or return all customer content and personal data, within a stated window, with certification?

Is a specific retention period stated for recorded content? Score 2 only for a definite period stated in the agreement (e.g. "90 days after season end"). Score 1 where a period is stated but qualified by vendor discretion, or stated only in a unilaterally amendable policy. Score 0 where retention is left wholly to vendor discretion, where only defaults or recommendations are described, or where the documents are silent. Product defaults are not a retention commitment.

Does the VENDOR contractually commit to honour a request by an authorized participant or guardian to restrict, suppress, remove, or prevent further use or disclosure of that participant's footage or footage-derived data? Score 2 for a clear vendor commitment covering the participant's footage and data across the service, subject only to narrow legal or technical exceptions. Score 1 where the vendor commits to some participant-specific deletion or restriction rights but material uses remain outside the request right. Score 0 where there is no vendor commitment. Customer account administration, viewer permissions, roster management, and general privacy settings do NOT count — an obligation imposed on the club is not a commitment by the vendor. Silence scores 0. General privacy rights do not by themselves satisfy this criterion. A general right to access, delete, erase, correct, restrict processing, or close an account — including statutory GDPR, CCPA, or COPPA rights — counts only where the materials expressly apply that right to the participant's footage, image, likeness, or footage-derived data. Deletion of account or profile data without deletion or restriction of shared video scores 0. The question is not whether a coach can remove someone's login. It is whether the platform is obliged to act on a request about a child.

Is the data hosting location or region stated, and any commitment about cross-border transfer?

Does the document expressly state whether the service creates or stores biometric identifiers, faceprints, voiceprints, or facial recognition templates? Silence scores 0 — this criterion requires an express statement.

Is there an affirmative commitment NOT to perform facial recognition or retain biometric templates? Describe exactly what the text permits.

What do the documents PERMIT? This criterion is not asking whether the vendor happens to advertise. It asks what the governing materials allow. Score 2 only where the materials expressly prohibit advertising targeted on the basis of participant identity or profile, and expressly prohibit sharing identifiers with advertising networks. Score 1 where advertising is addressed and constrained but the constraint is partial — limited to one age group, gated on consent or opt-in, or stated only in a policy the vendor may amend unilaterally. Score 0 where the materials expressly permit targeted, personalized, or interest-based advertising; permit sharing identifiers or personal data with advertising networks, affiliates, or social platforms for their marketing; or are silent. Note specifically, in reasoning, any provision that permits identity-based targeting of a MINOR under any condition, including with parental opt-in. That is a material finding regardless of the score.

Does the document acknowledge minors or children and commit to corresponding handling? A generic B2B agreement silent on minors scores 0.

Does the agreement expressly establish that the club, school, venue, or its authorized personnel control when recording begins and ends, or that recording occurs only for customer-authorized or scheduled events? Score 2 for express customer control over activation or scheduling, or an express limitation that recording occurs only for customer-authorized events. Score 1 for some meaningful contractual control — a customer-controlled scheduling or activation mechanism — where exceptions or vendor automation remain insufficiently defined. Score 0 where there is no contractual allocation of activation control. An obligation to operate, place, secure, supervise, or obtain consent for a camera is NOT a grant of control over activation. Product description of what the device does is not an allocation of authority. Silence scores 0. The risk being tested is unauthorized capture, not ordinary equipment responsibility. Whose control counts (P-006): the question is whether the CUSTOMER UNDER THE ASSESSED AGREEMENT controls activation. Where control is allocated to a facility, venue, rink operator, league, or other third party, first identify whether that party is the customer under the agreement being assessed. Control allocated to a third party who is not the assessed customer scores 0 — it is an allocation between the vendor and someone else. Where that third party's agreement with the vendor is not published, score 0 and note the scope limitation.

Are streams and archives restricted to authenticated users, or can they be publicly accessible or search-indexed?

Any access-control features described — geofencing, roster-limited access, link expiry.

Is there a stated process and response time for content removal requests?

Is there a security incident notification obligation with a specific time period? "Promptly" or "without undue delay" alone scores 1.

Is there vendor indemnification covering privacy, publicity, or data security claims, and is it excluded from the general liability cap?

Any insurance obligation with stated coverage types and limits.

Must the vendor cooperate, preserve logs, and provide information in an investigation or claim?

Is there an export right, in what format, and within what period after termination?

Can the vendor change terms by posting to a website? Look at the Modifications or Changes to Terms clause. Unilateral amendment with no notice and no termination right scores 0. ALSO check whether the agreement incorporates a third party's terms by reference — payment processors, analytics platforms, cloud providers. Terms a customer is bound by but that a company outside the contract can amend at will are unilateral amendment one step removed, and score no better than 1.

If the customer agreement renews automatically, how difficult is it for a seasonal club, school, or venue to prevent the next renewal? Score 2 for cancellation at any time before renewal, or a short and clearly defined notice period a seasonal customer can reasonably satisfy. Score 1 where automatic renewal exists with a materially burdensome advance-notice requirement or other meaningful cancellation friction. Score 0 where renewal or cancellation terms are absent, deferred entirely to an unpublished Order Form or other non-public document, or otherwise cannot be determined before contracting. Renewal LENGTH is not the measure. A one-year renewal is fine if it can be cancelled cleanly; a one-season renewal is bad if it requires 90 days' notice before the season ends. Score the exit, not the term. Scope (P-004): credit only terms in the organization-facing agreement. A favourable cancellation right in individual-user, subscriber, or viewer terms is DISREGARDED ENTIRELY — it is not partial credit and does not cap at 1. Where the organization-facing agreement is not published, score 0 regardless of how favourable the viewer-facing terms are. A club is not party to them.

Any provision addressing what happens to customer content on assignment, acquisition, insolvency, or service discontinuation.

Identify the agreement that governs the CLUB, SCHOOL, OR VENUE customer — not the individual viewer or subscriber. Is it published? Then list every document it incorporates by reference (user terms, product terms, lease agreements, addenda, linked policies) and whether those are published. Score 2 only if the organization agreement and all incorporated documents are publicly available. Score 1 if the organization agreement is published but incorporates unpublished documents. Score 0 if the organization agreement itself is not publicly available.

Can a prospective club, school, or venue customer tell from the published materials which document governs their relationship? First identify every published document that could apply to an organizational customer. Then: one agreement clearly applies, or several apply with express precedence or scope language distinguishing them ......... 2 several could apply and precedence is implied by role or scope but never stated ........................................ 1 the agreement expressly points to a separate organization agreement that is not published .......................... 1 two or more live agreements cover the same customer type with no stated precedence ..................................... 0 a legacy agreement remains published alongside a current one with no supersession language ............................ 0 no agreement addressed to an organizational customer exists at all .................................................. 0 Conflicting governing-law, entire-agreement, or liability provisions across two live documents is a 0, not a 1 — the customer cannot determine which controls. Note in reasoning any mismatch between a live page's stated update date and the most recent entry in a published version archive.

Does EVERY governing document show an effective or last-revised date in the document itself? Score 0 if any governing document in the corpus carries no date; if a document references a "Last Updated" date that is not actually displayed; OR if the agreement incorporates a document by reference that is not available in the corpus and whose date therefore cannot be verified (see conventions.incorporated_documents). File metadata, copyright-year footers, and CMS timestamps do not count as a date.