I think you should read what I wrote.
First up, cease and desist letter =/= filing a lawsuit.
Second of all, forgive me if I don't take the guy's lawyer straight up at his word. Something tells me there's more to the story.
Third of all, I said they aren't going to sue someone who has done nothing wrong, or at least has done nothing wrong in the past 50 years. But since he is clearly trying to profit off this tape in one way or another, that would qualify as "doing something wrong in the present day" because it is someone else's intellectual property. So yes, they'll move to stop that.
In other words, if he keeps the tape on display in his own house, the NFL won't do anything. If he talks about selling it, then they will send a letter forbidding such.
There is no definition of "fair use" that enables people to sell copies of copyrighted events. People can talk about games all day long but, as Ian has told us in the past, he gets nasty legal messages when it comes to things like people showing too much NFL footage on here.
I'll admit I'm not a lawyer but I don't think the arguments presented here are concrete in any way. A lot of IP precedents are still being developed and set. The problem is it often pits large corporations with billions of dollars vs. individuals who don't necessarily have the resources to test the legal limits.
I understand that cease and desist letters are not the same as lawsuits, but they are a legal threat, and the first step towards a lawsuit. So I don't think it's fair or accurate for you to say they would never do it. You don't know what they will or won't do. But we do know they have threatened to take action if necessary.
As for intellectual property rights, I'm not so convinced they have them. They certainly don't seem to have had them established at the time of the taping. I don't believe they would carry back to the past as that individual couldn't have accepted a copyright agreement from 20+ years in the future. But again, not a lawyer here. I do think there's more than enough wiggle room. After 1983, sure. Before, not so much.
Bear in mind the NFL is now also trying to gain copyright on all film of all games regardless of who owns it. If you are a fan watching the game at the stadium and use your cell phone to record a few plays, the NFL is now claiming they own copyright on that. That is preposterous, but will be tested in court at some point.
The "fair use" item was something different and seems to have caused a strawman to be set up. The point is that the NFL is legally pursuing groups that may be following fair use.
Also, the blanket disclaimer the NFL uses should be limited to commercial entities but that's not exactly how it's worded. It clearly says:
"This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other use of this telecast or any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent is prohibited."
What is private use? Just to watch in your home I suppose. If I blog about it, is that no longer private?
I'm not trying to be silly about it, the league has gone to extremes to try to protect their IP including trying to ban newspapers and other groups from publishing stats once fantasy football started getting popular.
In any event, I could be wrong on all of this. I'm not a lawyer. But there doesn't seem to be much in terms of legal precedent to convince me that he doesn't have a valid case.