A public, versioned standard for how youth sports video platforms capture, licence, retain, and handle footage of minors. Every criterion below is assessed from documents the vendor has itself published.
Each criterion is scored 0, 1, or 2 against the documents assessed. Criteria carry tier weights — Critical Criteria count three times, the second tier twice, the third once.
These govern every criterion. They exist because the first calibration pass showed that most disagreement between reviewers came from unstated rules rather than unclear criteria.
Where the supplied documents are SILENT on a criterion, score 0. Silence is a finding, not a gap in the assessment. Do not infer that a protection exists because it is customary, because the vendor is reputable, or because the absence of a restriction implies permission. If the criterion asks whether something is stated and nothing states it, that is 0.
A score of 1 requires language that addresses the criterion DIRECTLY but incompletely. It is not available for language from which an answer could be inferred. Score 1 where the language is: present but vague; present but qualified by vendor discretion; present only in a policy the vendor may amend unilaterally; or present but incomplete on a material element the criterion names. Score 0 where the language is: absent; adjacent but about a different subject; or descriptive of a product behaviour rather than a commitment. Operational description is not a contractual commitment.
Where a governing document incorporates another document by reference and that document is not available in the supplied corpus, the incorporated document CANNOT be treated as satisfying any criterion. Where a criterion asks whether something is true of "every governing document" or "all incorporated terms", an unavailable incorporated document forces 0. A document that cannot be read cannot be verified.
Unless a criterion expressly identifies another relationship, assess the ORGANIZATION-FACING agreement — the one governing a club, school, league, venue, or other organizational customer. Where an entity maintains separate individual-user, subscriber, or viewer terms, a favourable term in those documents is DISREGARDED for organization-facing criteria. It is not partial credit. A club is not party to them. Where a criterion expressly governs a participant or guardian relationship, assess the participant- or guardian-facing documents identified by that criterion's `doc_types` and `applies_when` — registration, membership, participation, and entry agreements. For those criteria the organization-facing agreement is not the operative document. Individual viewer, subscriber, or consumer terms remain disregarded throughout unless a criterion expressly makes them relevant. Where the operative agreement for a criterion is not published, that criterion is assessed under NOT_PUBLISHED and scores 0 — however favourable any other document may be. Where an agreement allocates a right or control to a third party (facility, venue, rink operator, league), identify whether that party is the customer under the assessed agreement. A right held by someone else is not a right held by the customer.
Score ONLY the documents supplied. Do not score on knowledge of the vendor from any other source, including prior research, product changelogs, press coverage, or personal familiarity. If a document is known to exist but is not in the corpus, it does not exist for scoring purposes and its absence is reported under the NOT_PUBLISHED convention.
Some criteria govern a relationship the assessed entity may or may not have. Those criteria carry an `applies_when` block naming the relationship and stating what in the documents evidences it. Before assessing such a criterion, ask one prior question: is that relationship evidenced in the assessed documents? NOT EVIDENCED -> NOT_APPLICABLE. There is nothing for the criterion to govern. Removed from the score entirely. Not a failure. EVIDENCED -> Assess normally. Absence of the governing document is then a 0, because the relationship exists and is ungoverned. The same missing document means different things in the two cases. A platform with customer organizations and no data processing agreement scores 0 — the relationship exists and nothing governs it. A club that processes nothing on anyone else's behalf has no such relationship, and the criterion does not reach it. **The relationship must be EVIDENCED IN THE DOCUMENTS, never inferred from what kind of organization the entity appears to be.** Do not reason "this is a national governing body, so it probably has no customer agreements." Look for the evidence described in `applies_when`. If the documents are silent as to whether the relationship exists at all, record NOT_APPLICABLE and say which evidence was absent — do not guess in either direction. NOT_APPLICABLE, NOT_PUBLISHED, and a score of 0 are three distinct findings: NOT_APPLICABLE the relationship the criterion governs is not evidenced NOT_PUBLISHED the entity publishes no document of the required type 0 the document was assessed and did not satisfy the criterion Criteria sharing a `predicate` rest on the same underlying fact about the entity. They need not reach identical scores, but they should not reach opposite conclusions about whether the relationship exists. Where they do, the determination is held for human review and the resolution is recorded as a precedent. It is never resolved automatically. A predicate must define its own subject matter as strictly as a criterion must. Where criteria sharing a predicate diverge on applicability across runs, the first question is whether the predicate is bundling distinct facts — not which run was right. Incorporation by reference applies to applicability, not only to scoring. The `incorporated_documents` convention governs how a criterion is scored once it applies; this states that the same chain determines WHETHER it applies. A relationship evidenced only in an incorporated document is evidenced. Reading a signed form in isolation and finding nothing does not establish absence. Where criteria sharing a predicate split repeatedly across entities, and a clarification of the evidence text does not stop it, the criteria are asking different questions and the predicate must be divided. Two divisions have been made on that basis: processing on instruction from holding in custody, and the form of a consent instrument from the scope of the grant it carries. A predicate may also be divided on inspection, without waiting for a split to recur. Where the criteria grouped under one predicate already state different relationships in their own text, the grouping is wrong on its face and the observed-conflict test is unnecessary. That is how governing_agreement was divided: five criteria shared it while their relationship lines named an agreement to supply services, an allocation of liability, an undertaking of insurance, amendable accepted terms, and a renewing commercial term — five facts, any of which an entity may have without the others. The failure that division prevents is specific. A shared predicate that is satisfied by the wrong fact makes a criterion apply where the relationship it governs does not exist, and the criterion then scores 0 for silence. An association whose members register afresh each season has no automatic renewal to cancel; scoring it 0 on renewal because its bylaws are silent would report the absence of a relationship as a failure to document one. NOT_APPLICABLE exists to prevent exactly that, and a predicate too broad to distinguish the two defeats it.
Every published assessment states: the total number of criteria in the Standard version applied; the number applicable; the number NOT_APPLICABLE; the number NOT_PUBLISHED; and the distribution of scores across 0, 1, and 2. The percentage is calculated only from applicable criteria. NOT_APPLICABLE findings do not reduce the score — but they remain visible, so that a reduced denominator cannot be mistaken for broader assessment coverage. Where more than 30% of the Standard is NOT_APPLICABLE, the published rating carries LIMITED ASSESSMENT SCOPE and no overall band is stated. Too little of the Standard could be applied to support a conclusion in either direction. This affects the label, never the arithmetic. A Critical Criterion that was assessed and failed is reported regardless of coverage. Limited scope never suppresses a finding that was actually located.
The left rule carries the tier: heavy for Critical Criteria, medium for the second tier, hairline for the third. Expand any criterion to read the assessment instruction applied to it.
Ownership of footage is expressly allocated
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.
The licence granted back to the vendor is limited to service delivery
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.
No vendor right to sell, sublicense, or syndicate footage or participant data
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.
No exclusivity, or exclusivity limited in scope and duration
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.
Sponsor and advertising categories subject to customer approval
Does the customer approve advertising or sponsor categories shown alongside its content? Silence scores 1; vendor sole discretion scores 0.
Customer may opt out of AI model training on its footage
Any clause permitting use of customer content to train, develop, or improve machine learning models, and whether opt-out exists.
Written data protection terms — processing on customer instruction only
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.
Subprocessor list and notice of changes
Is there a named or linked subprocessor list, and an obligation to give notice before adding subprocessors?
Deletion or return of footage and data on termination
On termination, must the vendor delete or return all customer content and personal data, within a stated window, with certification?
Defined retention period stated in the agreement
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.
Participant-specific restriction or removal rights
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. Distinct from CON-05. This criterion asks whether the entity holding the footage commits to ACT on a request. CON-05 asks whether the original grant may be WITHDRAWN by the person who gave it. They are different mechanisms and either can be satisfied without the other: an entity may promise to honour removal requests under an irrevocable grant, or a grant may be revocable with no stated process for acting on revocation. Score each independently.
Hosting location disclosed
Is the data hosting location or region stated, and any commitment about cross-border transfer?
Express statement of whether biometric identifiers are created or stored
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.
Prohibition on facial recognition and biometric templates where not required
Is there an affirmative commitment NOT to perform facial recognition or retain biometric templates? Describe exactly what the text permits.
Targeted advertising on participant identity is expressly prohibited
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.
Vendor acknowledges the service involves minors
Does the document acknowledge minors or children and commit to corresponding handling? A generic B2B agreement silent on minors scores 0.
Customer controls recording activation
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.
Authenticated access only; no public indexing
Are streams and archives restricted to authenticated users, or can they be publicly accessible or search-indexed?
Geofencing or access controls available
Any access-control features described — geofencing, roster-limited access, link expiry.
Documented takedown and deletion request process with an SLA
Is there a stated process and response time for content removal requests?
Incident notification within a defined window
Is there a security incident notification obligation with a specific time period? "Promptly" or "without undue delay" alone scores 1.
Indemnity for privacy and data-security claims, not capped at fees paid
Is there vendor indemnification covering privacy, publicity, or data security claims, and is it excluded from the general liability cap?
Cyber and technology E&O insurance at defined limits
Any insurance obligation with stated coverage types and limits.
Cooperation obligations in an investigation or claim
Must the vendor cooperate, preserve logs, and provide information in an investigation or claim?
Full data export on termination within a defined window
Is there an export right, in what format, and within what period after termination?
No unilateral amendment by posting, including via incorporated third-party terms
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.
Workable cancellation from automatic renewal
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.
Continuity of archive on vendor acquisition or wind-down
Any provision addressing what happens to customer content on assignment, acquisition, insolvency, or service discontinuation.
The governing agreement and all incorporated terms are publicly available
Identify the agreement that governs the relationship being assessed. Where the entity contracts with organizational customers, that is the organization-facing agreement. Where the entity takes rights directly from participants, that is the registration, membership, participation, or entry agreement a parent or guardian signs. Where both exist, assess both. In neither case is it the individual viewer or subscriber terms. Is the governing agreement published? Then list every document it incorporates by reference — user terms, product terms, lease agreements, addenda, linked policies — and whether those are published. governing agreement published, and all incorporated documents publicly available ....................................... 2 governing agreement published, but it incorporates documents that are not published ................................... 1 the governing agreement itself is not publicly available .... 0 A person cannot agree to what they cannot read. This applies equally to a club evaluating a platform and a parent registering a child.
A prospective party can determine which agreement governs them
Can a prospective party — a club, school, or venue customer, or a parent registering a participant — determine from the published materials which document governs their relationship? First identify every published document that could apply to that party. 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 governing agreement that is not published .......................... 1 two or more live agreements cover the same party with no stated precedence ........................................ 0 no agreement addressed to that party exists at all ......... 0 Conflicting governing-law, entire-agreement, or liability provisions across two live documents is a 0, not a 1 — the party 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.
Every governing document displays an effective or last-updated date
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.
Media or likeness consent is separately presented or clearly distinguished within the governing form
Is the grant of rights in a participant's footage, image, or likeness presented as its own document, distinguished within a broader form, or buried as a clause inside a liability waiver or registration form? separate document, separately signed ....................... 2 distinct section with its own signature or initial line .... 2 distinct, headed section within a broader form ............. 1 an undistinguished clause inside a liability waiver or registration form ....................................... 1 no media or likeness provision located ..................... 0 A parent signing a liability waiver so a child can compete is not making a considered decision about likeness rights, and presentation is assessed directly rather than inferred. But presentation is not the substance: a bundled grant that is purpose-limited, time-bounded, and declinable is better than a separate one granting perpetual rights. What the grant permits is assessed under CON-03 through CON-08. Score 0 only where no media or likeness provision is located at all.
A participant may decline the media release and still participate
Does the document provide a way to decline the media or likeness grant while still registering, competing, or participating? express opt-out and an express statement that declining does not affect eligibility or participation ...................... 2 express opt-out or decline mechanism, silent on consequences 1 no decline mechanism offered ............................... 0 expressly stated as a condition of participation ........... 0 Score 0 for silence. An absent opt-out is not an implied one. Record separately whether the document states the grant is a condition of participation. Silence and an express condition are different findings and must not be merged.
The grant is limited in purpose
What uses does the grant permit? Quote the operative scope language. limited to identified purposes, with commercial or endorsement use expressly excluded or requiring separate consent ..... 2 limited to promotion of the organization, the event, or the sport 2 promotional use, broadly stated ............................ 1 commercial use, sale, licensing, or broadcast permitted .... 0 any purpose, any lawful purpose, or unlimited .............. 0 Score what the grant permits, not what the organization is likely to do. Note in reasoning any permission to sell, sublicense, assign, or broadcast, and any language purporting to convey ownership rather than a licence.
The grant is limited in duration
For how long does the grant run? limited to a season, a term, or the period of membership .... 2 terminates on withdrawal, or on the participant reaching majority 2 stated but long, or renewable by default ................... 1 perpetual, in perpetuity, irrevocable, or unlimited ........ 0 no duration stated ......................................... 0 Record verbatim any use of irrevocable, in perpetuity, permanent, or without limitation of time.
A participant may withdraw consent or request removal
May a participant or guardian withdraw the grant or request removal of footage after signing? express right to withdraw, with a stated process, and a stated consequence such as ceasing further use ................... 2 express right to withdraw or request removal, process undefined 1 withdrawal offered but limited to future uses only, expressly stated as such ........................................... 2 no withdrawal or removal right located ..................... 0 Withdrawal limited to future uses scores 2, not 1. Material already distributed cannot be recalled, and a document that says so is more honest than one promising what it cannot deliver. Deletion of an account or of profile data is not removal of footage. Distinct from DAT-05. This criterion asks whether the grantor may WITHDRAW the grant. DAT-05 asks whether the entity holding the footage commits to ACT on a request. Score each independently.
Third parties receiving footage are identified
Does the document identify who other than the organization may receive, use, or distribute the footage? named third parties, or an identified and limited class ..... 2 categories described without naming, but bounded ............ 1 undefined terms such as partners, affiliates, sponsors, designees, or as we deem appropriate ..................... 0 no third-party provision located ........................... 0 Undefined breadth scores 0. A parent cannot evaluate a grant to unspecified partners.
The document does not require waiver of privacy expectations
Does the document ask the signer to waive, release, or disclaim any expectation of privacy, or to release claims arising from use of the participant's image? no such waiver present ..................................... 2 limited release confined to the identified permitted uses ... 1 general waiver of any expectation of privacy ............... 0 release of all claims arising from any use ................. 0 Note whether the waiver purports to bind the minor participant as well as the signing adult.
Consent is obtained separately for commercial or NIL use
Does any commercial, endorsement, sponsorship, or name-image-and-likeness use require a separate written agreement, distinct from the registration or participation consent? expressly requires separate written consent for commercial, endorsement, or NIL use .................................. 2 addressed but the boundary is unclear ...................... 1 commercial use permitted under the registration consent .... 0 not addressed .............................................. 0 This is the criterion most likely to matter to a family later. A perpetual, royalty-free grant taken at registration can reach uses no one contemplated when the participant was eight.
27 platforms have been assessed against this Standard. Each vendor receives its complete rating, with the underlying evidence, at no charge and not fewer than ten business days before first publication, with an invitation to identify factual errors and submit additional documents. Ratings publish as those notice periods expire.