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

[voluntarysaftey]

About copyright: I wonder if the NFL would have to prove the material was copyrighted to prevent this guy from selling to anyone else -- and how they would go about proving it if they don't have a copy of the game stating it was copyrighted -- and if his copy doesn't state it -- either because it never existed or that part was cut out -- it might be hard for the NFL to prove any copyright claims without actually having a copyright notice documented anywhere.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

FWIW, I'm pretty sure that in 1969 (i.e. before the rules changed massively in 1976 as the US began the process of joining the Berne Convention) that you did have to have a copyright notice (under the new rules you no longer need to). So yeah, you have a good question.

 

[XLIX]

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.

The NFL is not going to sue a fan who has done nothing wrong or, at worst, did something wrong almost 50 years ago. Let's stay in the real world here.

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.

What you need to understand is the word "use" in the above copyright notice. It doesn't mean "use" the way people use that word in everyday conversation, it means "use" as in the sense of "gain benefits from" (and benefits are defined as monetary gain).

So you and I can talk about the game all day long and that isn't considered "use." Also, media reporting of what has happened isn't considered "use" either because that delves into the area of free speech rights.

But making recordings of NFL games and then selling those recordings is prohibited.

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.

Interesting paper. You should note the same paper you quoted says: "The NFL first got into the business of owning intellectual property rights in moving images in the 1960s. In 1962, Ed Sabol ... offered the NFL $3,000 in return, not for telecast rights, but for film rights."

So we can see the NFL first established rights in the early 60's, predating Super Bowl I.

 

[Koma]

PFT has an article up with a poor review for the SB 1 show NFLN broadcast last night. He They made some suggestions on how to improve the show, but doesn't mention anything about obtaining the broadcast footage the league doesn't have. It may have just been an oversight.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

The NFL is not going to sue a fan who has done nothing wrong or, at worst, did something wrong almost 50 years ago. Let's stay in the real world here.
What you need to understand is the word "use" in the above copyright notice. It doesn't mean "use" the way people use that word in everyday conversation, it means "use" as in the sense of "gain benefits from" (and benefits are defined as monetary gain).

So you and I can talk about the game all day long and that isn't considered "use." Also, media reporting of what has happened isn't considered "use" either because that delves into the area of free speech rights.

But making recordings of NFL games and then selling those recordings is prohibited.
Interesting paper. You should note the same paper you quoted says: "The NFL first got into the business of owning intellectual property rights in moving images in the 1960s. In 1962, Ed Sabol ... offered the NFL $3,000 in return, not for telecast rights, but for film rights."

So we can see the NFL first established rights in the early 60's, predating Super Bowl I.

I think you should read the article in the OP. The NFL has already referred them to legal twice and sent cease and desist letters. It's weird to hear you say they won't even though they already have threatened to.

Use is an interesting term. For example, fair use is a provision within copyright. What it actually means is quite open to interpretation though. I don't think it's anywhere close to as clear as you think it is. Could Ian be considered media and under that provision? Does he profit from this site? Probably not, but he does get donations. The NFL could interpret all sorts of weird ****.

As for IP rights and whatnot, I get the sense you're not really reading much thoroughly anyways and the game's about to start. It's fine. We'll agree to disagree. Game's about to start. Go Patriots.

 

[XLIX]

I think you should read the article in the OP.

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.

Use is an interesting term. For example, fair use is a provision within copyright. What it actually means is quite open to interpretation though. I don't think it's anywhere close to as clear as you think it is. Could Ian be considered media and under that provision? Does he profit from this site? Probably not, but he does get donations. The NFL could interpret all sorts of weird ****.

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.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

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.

 

[XLIX]

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.

Actually we don't "know" that. That's what his lawyer said, but I've found that lawyers are often full of it.

Also, assuming such letters exist, we don't know why they sent those letters. I do not believe they were sending him legal letters threatening to take him to court for something that happened 49 years ago. I do, however, find it plausible that they became aware of some attempt on his part to profit from the recording at which point they would have sent those letters, and had every right to do so.

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.

That is not even remotely preposterous. If you think you can go to games all season long and take video with your cell phone and then mass produce a Patriots highlight Blu-ray/DVD for sale and widespread distribution, good luck with that. They'll let you put it on YouTube in limited amounts but you don't own those rights and you won't be selling the DVD's made up of videos even though you took them on your own phone.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Actually we don't "know" that. That's what his lawyer said, but I've found that lawyers are often full of it.

Also, assuming such letters exist, we don't know why they sent those letters. I do not believe they were sending him legal letters threatening to take him to court for something that happened 49 years ago. I do, however, find it plausible that they became aware of some attempt on his part to profit from the recording at which point they would have sent those letters, and had every right to do so.
That is not even remotely preposterous. If you think you can go to games all season long and take video with your cell phone and then mass produce a Patriots highlight Blu-ray/DVD for sale and widespread distribution, good luck with that. They'll let you put it on YouTube in limited amounts but you don't own those rights and you won't be selling the DVD's made up of videos even though you took them on your own phone.

This is kind of getting ridiculous. Technically we don't even "know" he even has the tape. We can't "know" if the lawyer is an alien from another planet or not. Technically I can't really even "know" the game actually took place because I haven't seen video from it and I wasn't alive at the time. Maybe the whole thing is a hoax...

But really, I believe he can profit from something that happened at an event where no copyright was relevant. You believe the league has rights to it retroactively. You may be right. I may be right. Neither of us is really qualified to make that assessment. And I'm not even convinced there's a definitive answer for anyone. It may still be something that has to be argued before a court.

As for the personal videos, you're missing the point. I'm not talking about sales. I'm talking about YouTube, and personal blogs, and whatnot. They are claiming to have copyright over any videos or photos you take, even for personal use.

In any event, I don't think either of us are lawyers so we're speculating, and I'm not even sure any of these matters have been tested in a court. This is a big waste of time for both of us so I'm just dropping it.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

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.

Just coming back to this to say I bumped into another article on this and it turns out the NFL does, in fact, own copyright on the tape.

The tale of the missing Super Bowl I tape

So you're right, it isn't much of a commodity.

And the NFL has already undercut the importance of that tape by re-airing SB 1 with a bunch of talking heads which drew a ton of criticism. They are planning on re-airing it without commentary.

NFL Network will re-air Super Bowl I, the right way this time

So the tape is absolutely not able to be sold. I accept that.

I still however don't concede the personal videos. If someone records an entire game, sure. If it's a 20-second clip of me at the game cheering, the NFL can go **** themselves.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

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

Help me, here, just for my information.

Are you referring to the Statute of Limitations for an alleged crime of theft (misappropriation, whatever) or to a Statute of Limitations that says one is the rightful owner of a piece of art or the creative work of if one is in its possession for a certain period of time?

I'm almost certain that there is a Statute of Limitations for the former (and probably a lot shorter than 50 years), so the guy was in the clear a long time ago against a criminal charge of a theft of that nature.

But, as far as I know, there is no Statute of Limitations that says if you keep a piece of art or creative work that belongs to someone else long enough it becomes yours. Every day, somewhere in the world, a piece of art or creative work is returned to its rightful owner or the heirs of the rightful owner, many years (often well over 50 years) after the possessor came into its possession.

That's why the "provenance" of the tape is so important. How did he get it? Is there documentation that the tape was transferred to his father along with the rights to its content? Or did someone at the broadcast company or producer of the tape simply give him a copy as a personal favor, without any consent by the owner or sponsor of the work (a crime protected by the Statute of Limitations for theft)? Or did he just walk off with it (another crime protected by the Statute of Limitations for theft)?

That's pretty simple to settle. The documentation either exists or it doesn't.

If it doesn't exist, then the intellectual property/creation that is on the tape does not belong to him, just as the work of art that someone inherits in a completely legally drawn Will still does not belong to him if it was stolen a week or a century earlier.

 

[XLIX]

Help me, here, just for my information.

Are you referring to the Statute of Limitations for an alleged crime of theft (misappropriation, whatever) or to a Statute of Limitations that says one is the rightful owner of a piece of art or the creative work of if one is in its possession for a certain period of time?

I'm almost certain that there is a Statute of Limitations for the former (and probably a lot shorter than 50 years), so the guy was in the clear a long time ago against a criminal charge of a theft of that nature.

But, as far as I know, there is no Statute of Limitations that says if you keep a piece of art or creative work that belongs to someone else long enough it becomes yours.

There are plenty of laws that say if you steal something and keep it long enough, the rightful owner eventually has no legal recourse in either criminal or civil court.

Every day, somewhere in the world, a piece of art or creative work is returned to its rightful owner or the heirs of the rightful owner, many years (often well over 50 years) after the possessor came into its possession.

You're talking about Nazi War Crimes here, which are an entirely different category. Also, original works of art fall under different laws than copies of copyrighted material.

What I've tried to establish is that he cannot be charged in a criminal capacity, as some here seem to think, nor would the league be able to sue him in civil court to force the return of the tape. However, I have steadfastly maintained that the league still owns the copyrighted material on the tape and that he can't sell it without their permission. So while the league can't sue him for something that happened 50 years ago, they most certainly *can* sue him if he sells the thing tomorrow for $250,000.

 

[XLIX]

I still however don't concede the personal videos. If someone records an entire game, sure. If it's a 20-second clip of me at the game cheering, the NFL can go **** themselves.

The key point is if you attempt to profit financially. A 20 second video of you cheering arguably contains no copyrighted material, but even if it it did, it's not like you are making 100,000 copies for sale at $20 each.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

There are plenty of laws that say if you steal something and keep it long enough, the rightful owner eventually has no legal recourse in either criminal or civil court.You're talking about Nazi War Crimes here, which are an entirely different category. Also, original works of art fall under different laws than copies of copyrighted material.

What I've tried to establish is that he cannot be charged in a criminal capacity, as some here seem to think, nor would the league be able to sue him in civil court to force the return of the tape. However, I have steadfastly maintained that the league still owns the copyrighted material on the tape and that he can't sell it without their permission. So while the league can't sue him for something that happened 50 years ago, they most certainly *can* sue him if he sells the thing tomorrow for $250,000.

OK. I don't see where we disagree on the status of the tape then.

As I stated, the statute of limitations has passed on any "theft" 40 years ago, so there is no possibility of criminal charges on that account.

I'll leave it to lawyers smarter than me to determine whether the League could sue him for the return of the tape, but we agree that the League or the creator the material has rights if he tries to gain from its sale or use.

I do think you are wrong about art that is passed down without proper provenance and that this is a broader issue than the restoration of works plundered by the Nazis, but that's really not relevant given what I said above and I guess there are lawyers and investigative firms that make a (very nice) living out of adjudicating and/or resolving those matters.

 

[XLIX]

OK. I don't see where we disagree on the status of the tape then.

As I stated, the statute of limitations has passed on any "theft" 40 years ago, so there is no possibility of criminal charges on that account.

I'll leave it to lawyers smarter than me to determine whether the League could sue him for the return of the tape, but we agree that the League or the creator the material has rights if he tries to gain from its sale or use.

I do think you are wrong about art that is passed down without proper provenance and that this is a broader issue than the restoration of works plundered by the Nazis, but that's really not relevant given what I said above and I guess there are lawyers and investigative firms that make a (very nice) living out of adjudicating and/or resolving those matters.

I'd have to see a specific example of what you're talking about to respond, but it's worth noting that Statute of Limitations laws vary on the value of the object, so a piece of art worth millions of dollars has a longer Statute period than if I steal your iPad.

Also, it is worth noting that Statutes generally talk about time to file a claim or complaint. Once you've filed, the SoL's no longer apply since property disputes can drag on for years.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I'd have to see a specific example of what you're talking about to respond, but it's worth noting that Statute of Limitations laws vary on the value of the object, so a piece of art worth millions of dollars has a longer Statute period than if I steal your iPad.

Also, it is worth noting that Statutes generally talk about time to file a claim or complaint. Once you've filed, the SoL's no longer apply since property disputes can drag on for years.

As I said, I'm leaving that to lawyers and others who know more about this than I do.
Nice chatting with you.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

The key point is if you attempt to profit financially. A 20 second video of you cheering arguably contains no copyrighted material, but even if it it did, it's not like you are making 100,000 copies for sale at $20 each.

On the specific taped recording video, sure, I will concede that. But I think you're over-simplifying things here based on whether it's for profit or not. Fair use doctrine on copyrighted material is based on a variety of factors, but whether it is for personal or for profit is not the sole determinant.

For example, here's the NFL's blanket disclaimer voiced over on 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."

There are literally thousands, if not tens of thousands of websites that use descriptions and accounts of the game. And yes, some are for profit. Copyright does not extend to prohibiting discussions of events, and the profitability (or lack thereof) doesn't determine anything. Personal blogs can violate copyright, just as commercial uses can fall under fair doctrine.

In this specific instance with the video, again, I concede that point. But you keep going back to that profitability motive, and that really isn't the end-all of copyright or not.

 

[NashuaPats]

The NYT has a story about this today. It gives more background than I've seen elsewhere. It also talks about how the NFL quashed a CBS interview with the owner of the tapes. CBS was going to pay him $25,000 but the NFL stopped it. They are just so ruthless.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/03/s...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0