NYFL* offered original airing of SB 1 tape for one million dollars and turns them down..

Based on the public details there's no reason to think he can't profit from it any way he likes. I'm not into speculating about people's guilt with no information.

JJDChE said:

I'm not into speculating about people's guilt with no information.

Click to expand...

Well, he had to be AT LEAST generally aware that something was wrong.

convertedpatsfan said:

This guy holds a viable commodity. The league with $7B in revenue does not exactly need donations, especially one that is openly hostile towards it's customers.

Click to expand...

I agree that he shouldn't donate it, but what he has can hardly be considered a "viable commodity." It is seemingly something which he does not have the right to sell unless the NFL lets him (and they would only let him in a situation where they were the buyers).

JJDChE said:

Who says it wasn't given to him or his father? Is there a documented chain of ownership? If not, it's all just hearsay. If the NFL had proof it did not authorize change of ownership they could have sued him as soon as he said he had it. Yes?

Click to expand...

No, because it seems quite likely they never found out about it until well after the Statute of Limitations expired.

JJDChE said:

Based on the public details there's no reason to think he can't profit from it any way he likes.

Click to expand...

The fact that, based on public details, he hasn't tried selling to anyone or in any manner whatsoever (besides selling it to the NFL) makes the above pretty difficult to believe.

What a bunch of cheap sob's.

JJDChE said:

Who says it wasn't given to him or his father? Is there a documented chain of ownership? If not, it's all just hearsay. If the NFL had proof it did not authorize change of ownership they could have sued him as soon as he said he had it. Yes?

Click to expand...

The key is that the source he claims to have gotten it from wasn't the copyright holder to begin with. It doesn't matter if he has a notarized certificate of sale from the station that recorded the broadcast, they weren't in a position to grant him any rights to the content.

It seems like you're defending a stance the guy himself isn't taking. His lawyer isn't claiming that he received this tape from the NFL or has any rights to the content. Note that he is carefully not trying to "sell" it to anyone, just to get as much $$$ as he can out of the NFL. The disagreement between the two sides is on price, not principle.

XLIX said:

I agree that he shouldn't donate it, but what he has can hardly be considered a "viable commodity." It is seemingly something which he does not have the right to sell unless the NFL lets him (and they would only let him in a situation where they were the buyers).

Click to expand...

Without actually viewing the video, I can't be 100% sure, but I don't think the NFL put any type of copyright before that video broadcast.

I think it is a viable commodity and a private collector would absolutely give money for it. Doubtful it would be $1M, but probably could fetch a few thousand, and maybe even whatever 5-figure amount the NFL was offering.

I don't think this really is about the legality of whether he can sell the video tape or not. I think he just knows it's worth most to the league than any private collector.

He should see what Rick Harrison of Pawn Stars will pay!

denverpatsfan said:

Have to side on the NFL this time. Who the **** does that guy think he is? He didn't pay to produce it! Does he own the NFL films? Does he own the TV station that broadcast the game? If he were a true Packer fan or Chefs fan he would just donate it. **** him.

Click to expand...

What he does own is the physical copy.

And that's more than enough to make it his.

convertedpatsfan said:

Without actually viewing the video, I can't be 100% sure, but I don't think the NFL put any type of copyright before that video broadcast.

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure. I think the sports leagues had to have included copyrights in one way or another, otherwise every football/baseball/basketball/hockey game from way back in the 60's (and earlier) would be in the public domain and anyone could create highlight videos and stuff like that. So there simply has to be some sort of copyright protection in place.

festy1986 said:

What he does own is the physical copy.

And that's more than enough to make it his.

Click to expand...

Not true. As I mentioned before, if you record the Patriots game tomorrow, you own the "physical copy" of whatever tape or DVD storage device you used to record it but that doesn't mean you can sell that tape.

patchick said:

This is really interesting. If you own something that has enormous commercial potential but you don't have the right to exploit that potential, what do you own?

From the NFL's perspective, there's a legitimate principle involved in not allowing someone to extort you for access to something you already own all rights to. And yet, it's not purely a matter of principle, because they were willing to pay five figures for it. (As the old joke goes, "now we're just negotiating over the price.") Same questionable stance from the other guy's perspective: he'd rather take his ball and go home than let the world see this piece of history without making him rich.

I'm not ready to call the league jerks for not being willing to pay whatever ransom the guy demanded. (I'll call them jerks for many other reasons, over course.) From the provenance, it's far from clear he even has the legal right to have it in his possession.

Click to expand...

I'd pay $100 in a group fund to keep it out of the hands of the NFL.

XLIX said:

Not true. As I mentioned before, if you record the Patriots game tomorrow, you own the "physical copy" of whatever tape or DVD storage device you used to record it but that doesn't mean you can sell that tape.

Click to expand...

What we're the copyright laws when this game aired? What was the NFL copyright?

He literally owns the physical copy. That's his. Just like if I tape the game tomorrow, it's mine.

That doesn't mean I'm arguing he has the right to sell it, air it or re produce it.

I'm just saying, if he owns something the NFL wants and doesnt have, is he supposed to just hand it over cause he can't sell it to a third party to air?

Froob said:

Does it matter that he filmed it in the 60's or do laws today dictate the legality of obtaining the video he has?

Click to expand...

As long as it was filmed from the stands and not the sideline, he should be in the clear.

festy1986 said:

What we're the copyright laws when this game aired? What was the NFL copyright?

He literally owns the physical copy. That's his. Just like if I tape the game tomorrow, it's mine.

Click to expand...

Yes, the tape is yours - but you can't sell it.

festy1986 said:

That doesn't mean I'm arguing he has the right to sell it, air it or re produce it.

I'm just saying, if he owns something the NFL wants and doesnt have, is he supposed to just hand it over cause he can't sell it to a third party to air?

Click to expand...

As I said before, the league can't step in and confiscate the tape. He owns the hard copy. Even if it was stolen, we are far past the point of the Statute of Limitations expiring so they couldn't file any suit.

So now it becomes a game of chicken.

XLIX said:

I'm not so sure. I think the sports leagues had to have included copyrights in one way or another, otherwise every football/baseball/basketball/hockey game from way back in the 60's (and earlier) would be in the public domain and anyone could create highlight videos and stuff like that. So there simply has to be some sort of copyright protection in place.

Click to expand...

There are laws, then there are lawsuits. You haven't broken the law with your post, but I could threaten legal action against you and claim all sorts of stupid things. But if I spent enough on lawyers, you might be forced to protect yourself by hiring a lawyer to send me a letter saying I'm a moron which will cost you some cash.

As the NFL has shown this fanbase already, they're not above filing frivolous lawsuits and spending millions on lawyers with zero evidence.

And let's look at that NFL copyright before games.

"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."

Descriptions! Accounts! Everyone on this board has therefore violated the copyright of the NFL. Talk about that Dolphins game? NFL claims they own copyright! There's no way that holds up in any court of law.

This article in particular goes into detail about the NFL exploring IP, and how it started with film rights for Sabol. TV didn't show them until the 70s, with the NFL not filing anything with the copyright office until 1983:

https://law.und.edu/_files/docs/ndlr/pdf/issues/86/4/86ndlr759.pdf

So it is absolutely possible this video has no copyright on it and the NFL is just flexing it's muscles trying to coerce him into giving them the video. They've already offered him 5-figures for it, which shows it is a real commodity. The real question is the actual value.

BTW, can I just say, what a relief to finally be talking about legal matters again. I was getting saturated with actual football and all the excitement from last week's playoff games were quite frankly, overstimulating me.

Fortunately, this league can't go a month without bringing up something to do with the law. Thank goodness for that. Lawsuits, legal precedents, cease and desist orders > actual football. That must be what they're thinking.

That article talks about the NFL holding the copyright itself and says (among other things) that is legally doubtful for pre-1983 games.

That is NOT because those broadcasts aren't copyrighted but rather because there's little evidence that the NETWORKS ever assigned the copyright to the NFL. As the broadcasters the networks would be the ones with the copyright and the NFL would have it only of an assignment agreement was executed. But the game would still be copyrighted.

As for the oral copyright notice you quoted you are correct that if someone actually took on the NFL over the "descriptions and accounts" clause it would not be a slam dunk for the NFL. But the part that matters here is the "this telecast" part and telecasts are absolutely copyrightable.

Now, if only I had won Powerball I, upon reading that article, would have financed suits over both "descriptions and accounts" as well as the NFLs claim to own in-stadium non-game footage shot by anyone.

This is an interesting standoff.

1. Tape owner has no right to sell the tape without NFL's consent -- which is why he hasn't yet sold it to anyone else.
2. If Tape owner did have right to sell without consent, this would presumably go for millions on the art market.
3. Tape owner also has a right to do nothing with the tape except watch it in his own home or destroy it.

4. NFL has the right to block the selling or profiting from the tape
5. NFL also has the right to allow sale/profit of the tape under certain condtions.

So now without the NFL's consent, the Tape owner is left with an item that only has neat entertainment value for any house guests.
So the Tape owner can either, accept the NFL's offer, or decline and be left with nothing -- or just the hope that maybe in 30 years the NFL changes their mind and its more valuable then

The NFL, by playing hardball, and not acquiring the tape is leaving millions in profit on the table.

NFL is hoping that whatever their low offer was is enough to make this guy sell since he has no other market.

If the guy is well off, he can say 'I don't need 10k -- it's 1m or nothing' -- which is apparently the gamble he's taking.

If I had this tape, given I have savings and don't need 10k, I would not be doing the NFL any favors -- just like they don't do anyone else favors --and would be playing the same game this tape owner is