ATTENTION: Uploading Animated GIFs of Plays, etc. In Signatures, etc.

convertedpatsfan said:

I think there are several arguments for the broadcasters, but that one specifically falls flat I think. Google won a copyright case against Perfect 10, and one of the conclusions was that just because someone charges money for content doesn't preclude it from fair use.

Again, I'm not a lawyer. Nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn last night. But I think like with the Brady case, nobody could conclusively say which side would win. It depended on the judge, the lawyers, and the case law brought forth, and it seems there's even more vagueness and less case law when it comes to copyright cases.

I am finding the discussion interesting. I'm not questioning the decision. Absolutely the right thing to do.

Click to expand...

The reason Google won that case was the context the image was used under and one other key reason. They're using it under the context of directing users toward the content while also directly linking to the creator's version of that photo, but site owners have the option to prevent that. In that case the issue was/is the fact they also give content creators the option to not have their image crawled or included in their listings, which I believe Perfect 10 failed to do. Then it falls under the DCMA where you can request removal of the content, which the user would have to comply or in this case, get the image delisted. So that you can do, but you're not going to receive monetary damages and that's how Google gets off the hook for that. It's a pain because it's an extra step content creators have to take, but that's the way it goes if for whatever reason you don't want a link, content, or photo listed in a search engine.

But someone posting a photo that you or I took on their site, or Twitter, Facebook, etc. with no link and no credit isn't fair use.

n6249c said:

Fixed.

Click to expand...

I was being sarcastic.

Nikolai said:

Thanks for the heads up to give everyone time, but jeezus...the NFL is trying its damnedest to be as unlikeable as possible.

Click to expand...

Yeah, they have no clue how to make new fans. They cherry pick too. After SB XL I posted a montage video that showed how Seattle got hosed. It was completely fair use and legal. But, they made YT pull it down. It demonstrated too well how the game was, let's say biased, for Bettis's big moment I guess. Meanwhile fan videos using video from the same game is still up to this day.

Ian said:

Gifs of footage are the main issue right now. I wouldn't worry about anything else at this point.

Click to expand...

Phew I guess my fuzzy cut-off avatar is safe. Let's face it, they can't nail Tommy Boy, so we are probably next...

Just a quick bump for those who haven't seen it.

Essentially, they're running out of ways to make revenue because the NFL* is about as big in the US (probably Canada too) as it can get. Hence the interest in Europe.

Not sure why they think they can have continual sustained growth (at their rate) and it seems the owners are getting greedy. Good Luck. I love football, but it seems like it will be taking a hit in the mid-term future.

Will you make this thread sticky? (I apologize if I'm like the 9th to ask that.)

Nikolai said:

Thanks for the heads up to give everyone time, but jeezus...the NFL is trying its damnedest to be as unlikeable as possible.

Click to expand...

Being unlikable is the only thing Fraudger has done right.

I've outgrown using a sig .... not sure what purpose they serve .... my 2 cents.

Then again I would still like the old forum where posts branched off from the thread.

I have them turned off ... so I never see them.

Thanks Ian. As interesting and funny as some of the disputed content might be, I think that most of us come here primarily for discussion, information and the occasional argument. So do whatever you have to do to keep the site running and your own stress at a tolerable level!

Damn that sucks. Would suck even more if I knew how to post gifs

Done.......

KontradictioN said:

Click to expand...

I know - I'm going to be bummed not seeing that play any more - one of my favorites

Although I've had times where a good 2-3 minutes of my life evaporate while I watch that and a couple of others over and over again...so maybe my productivity will increase I guess.

What exactly is the NFL's plan for that? Nobody is going to pay to use gifs and obviously free advertising is good. Those guys have no idea what they are doing

Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk

They are losing so much money, they had to do something. I, for one, bypass purchasing merchandise or viewing the games on television because I know I can watch a six second animated GIF afterwards to fulfill all of my curiosity about the weekend in football.

Funny how you can describe a play in as much detail as you want but you can't post visual evidence of it.

The way I understand it, whether the NFL is right or wrong about fair use is irrelevant at this stage. They need to set precedents of taking measures to protect their property. So, when a court case does comes up, it cannot be argued that the NFL considered re-transmission of video/audio acceptable because they never objected.

It's another layer of their "intellectual property" onion, and another philosophical battleground.

What interests me in this is since they seem to deem it illegal to capture thier games in any format, then how do they deal with folks who DVR the games? The DVR system is owned by your provider, so there's TWO folks involved in it. an they force, say, DirecTV from allowing folks to DVR games?

Same goes, then, for having folks over to view the game with you?

Curiouser and curiouser.

#GIFGATE