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

patchick said:

I really don't think that changes anything. I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that there's no exception saying you can sell something you don't have the rights to as long as you only sell it once.

Click to expand...

used books?

patchick said:

I really don't think that changes anything. I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that there's no exception saying you can sell something you don't have the rights to as long as you only sell it once.

Click to expand...

I think this sums up the guy's quandary. He has something of value, but only 1 "customer" he can sell it to legally and hassle free. That "customer" would love to have it, but they know he has nowhere else to go.

JJDChE said:

Are you sure? I'm sure they can't sell it for re-broadcast, but as a private sale for personal use only?

Click to expand...

Not 100% sure of what restrictions they had in the 60s broadcast but am pretty sure 99.9% I am correct about this. It would be like you recording the game Saturday and then selling it. If the NFL wants to give a reward (pay) for it then this is the only deal which would work. Anyone else who buys it would be in the same boat.

The fellow who has it can either hold on or take the $ from the NFL. They don't have any other options realistically. They may need to wait out the current NFL leadership who are pretty dumb.

bbobbo said:

used books?

Click to expand...

It's a different situation. You can sell a used commercial DVD after all, but not a DVD you recorded from a live broadcast.

EDIT: Or to put it another way, the recording you make of a broadcast is a copy, not an original.

Dr Pain said:

Not 100% sure of what restrictions they had in the 60s broadcast but am pretty sure 99.9% I am correct about this. It would be like you recording the game Saturday and then selling it.

Click to expand...

Like you, I have no idea what laws were in place in the 60's, but I do know that if I get the ole' VCR out of the attic and record tomorrow's game onto a VHS tape, it would be illegal for me to turn around and sell that tape, even if it's my only copy and I made no other copies.

Dr Pain said:

The fellow who has it can either hold on or take the $ from the NFL. They don't have any other options realistically.

Click to expand...

Keep
Sell
Donate
Destroy

Sure fire strategy to make the NFL blink.......leak the rumor that the tape will be donated to the future Bill Bellichick Museum of History. The Full 31 will never let BB win...off the field

I can promise you, having dealt with the league's legal department before on numerous issues, this probably had more to do with how they handled it. I'm sure rather than being nice and trying to negotiate a reasonable total with him as a reward as someone else said, they probably said he should just hand it over and give him as little as possible just because they said so.

I get that they own the footage, but they didn't archive it and this person has the ability to give them back an important piece of league history. As someone else pointed out, they'd return far more over the long term since that video would be played for generations to come, and it really is worth it for them to at least give the guy a few hundred thousand for it considering what game it was. Unfortunately they didn't want to go there and now thanks to this, we may never get to see it.

patchick said:

It's a different situation. You can sell a used commercial DVD after all, but not a DVD you recorded from a live broadcast.

EDIT: Or to put it another way, the recording you make of a broadcast is a copy, not an original.

Click to expand...

Exactly. You can't sell recordings (which is essentially a reproduction since you're reproducing it on whatever medium it's being recorded to) of any commercial broadcast, since it's a recording of someone else's work.

you mean we won't be able to watch rumbling Johnny Two Shoes smash it up the gut into Regular Joe Sideburns for 1.2ypc for 3 hours on the NFL Network? The horror

Those who read my posts know that I am quick to attack Goodell and NFL for almost any reason (hey, I stood outside the Federal Courthouse in downtown Manhattan last summer and booed Goodell on the sidewalk). But, in this case, I have to side with the NFL.

It seems pretty clear to me that the tape is the property either of the NFL or the Network that broadcast it.

Simply because the guy who has the tape "has the tape," doesn't mean that his ownership rights supersede those who have a legitimate claim to it.

I'd be very interested in knowing how this guy came into possession of it in the first place. Was it given to him by someone who had legitimate access to it or did it "fall off the back of a truck" as Tony Soprano used to like to say.

I think the offer of ~$50,000 can be regarded as a reasonable gesture of gratitude by the League for the possessor's taking care of the film for all these years. I'd also think that up to $100,000 would be reasonable.

But no one--even the godawful NFL-- should be extorted by another party who has something that belongs to them, so, IMO, it's not right to ask for a million dollars.

Like a lot of art of questionable provenance (i.e., stolen or misappropriated), this tape will probably end up in the hands of a private collector who will be content to sit on it and show it only to family and highly trusted friends. But, if I were the guy who has it today, I'd be very concerned about the FBI setting up a "sting" to entrap me.

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...

Unpopular opinion because everything that involves the NFL must be spat on since they screwed Tom Brady.
Otherwise, the guy recorded the game, large parts of the 3rd quarter are missing and he wants $1,000,000 and is holding it hostage from fans who wish to see it, since he has no real rights to the broadcast.

I'm sure many people would think that NFL has a lot of money so they should just give him whatever he wants. Maybe 1.5 billion

AndyJohnson said:

Otherwise, the guy recorded the game, large parts of the 3rd quarter are missing and he wants $1,000,000 and is holding it hostage from fans who wish to see it, since he has no real rights to the broadcast.

Click to expand...

In fact, the guy didn't even record the game -- his dad once worked for the company that did record the game. No word on how he came to possess the tape.

patchick said:

In fact, the guy didn't even record the game -- his dad once worked for the company that did record the game. No word on how he came to possess the tape.

Click to expand...

Even more reason he has no reason to be asking for $1,000,000.

The NFL owns the rights to rebroadcast the game and the rights to realize any profits from its distribution. They do not own the physical tape itself, though, and have no rights to it, other than to prevent someone else from using it for profit through a 3rd party.

Thus the guy has something of value and I see no reason whatsoever why he should not demand fair compensation for it.

It would be interesting to find how much money the NFL spent on doing NFL Film's cobbled-together version. The NFL felt it was worth it. For something better, you'd think they'd pony up more.

I don't know if $1,000,000 is fair compensation or not, but it seems a decent starting point.

I'd settle for 500K and 2 free Super Bowl tickets every year for life!

PatsFanSince74 said:

Those who read my posts know that I am quick to attack Goodell and NFL for almost any reason (hey, I stood outside the Federal Courthouse in downtown Manhattan last summer and booed Goodell on the sidewalk). But, in this case, I have to side with the NFL.

It seems pretty clear to me that the tape is the property either of the NFL or the Network that broadcast it.

Simply because the guy who has the tape "has the tape," doesn't mean that his ownership rights supersede those who have a legitimate claim to it.

I'd be very interested in knowing how this guy came into possession of it in the first place. Was it given to him by someone who had legitimate access to it or did it "fall off the back of a truck" as Tony Soprano used to like to say.

I think the offer of ~$50,000 can be regarded as a reasonable gesture of gratitude by the League for the possessor's taking care of the film for all these years. I'd also think that up to $100,000 would be reasonable.

But no one--even the godawful NFL-- should be extorted by another party who has something that belongs to them, so, IMO, it's not right to ask for a million dollars.

Like a lot of art of questionable provenance (i.e., stolen or misappropriated), this tape will probably end up in the hands of a private collector who will be content to sit on it and show it only to family and highly trusted friends. But, if I were the guy who has it today, I'd be very concerned about the FBI setting up a "sting" to entrap me.

Click to expand...

Who are you to decide what is a fair value? Also, the tape is not the property of the NFL or any Network. They have no right to it. Unless someone makes a valid claim that holds up in court that this guy got it illegally, then it is legally his. If it hasn't happened to this point, it seem pretty unlikely that it will. That being the case, he is the legal owner of a piece of league history. If the league wants it they should pay fair value. In this case, the owner decides what's fair value because, presumably, this transaction can only happen between the owner the league. If the league wants it, better pony up the dough.

I don't know anything about the negotiations that took place, but from what I know from someone who had access to a private viewing at the Paley Center (where the tape was restored), the broadcast is heavily edited. Because tapes were costing a fortune back then, most huddles were edited out, along with halftime and almost all of the 3rd quarter. It's quite possible that the NFL looked at it, and decided that it could never air as such with all the edits, thus it has no value other than to add it to their archive.

RDS11 said:

I don't know anything about the negotiations that took place, but from what I know from someone who had access to a private viewing at the Paley Center (where the tape was restored), the broadcast is heavily edited. Because tapes were costing a fortune back then, most huddles were edited out, along with halftime and almost all of the 3rd quarter. It's quite possible that the NFL looked at it, and decided that it could never air as such with all the edits, thus it has no value other than to add it to their archive.

Click to expand...

That's definitely possible.

JJDChE said:

Who are you to decide what is a fair value? Also, the tape is not the property of the NFL or any Network. They have no right to it. Unless someone makes a valid claim that holds up in court that this guy got it illegally, then it is legally his. If it hasn't happened to this point, it seem pretty unlikely that it will. That being the case, he is the legal owner of a piece of league history. If the league wants it they should pay fair value. In this case, the owner decides what's fair value because, presumably, this transaction can only happen between the owner the league. If the league wants it, better pony up the dough.

Click to expand...

Well, since he won't identify himself, one can't make a case as to whether it is "legally his" one way or the other. However, I think it is reasonable to question the provenance of the tape and whether he has legitimate possession of it since he won't identify himself. Until we can know how the person who possesses the tape came into its possession, we can't say whether or not he possesses it legally. Just "having" something doesn't make it "yours."

As for your second point, IP law is pretty clear. The tape belongs to its creator or to the entity which commissioned its creation, depending on the terms of the original contract, unless one or the other party transferred title to the person who now possesses it. If he had evidence of such a transfer, I suspect he would have come forth in an open fashion.

"Fair Value" assumes a market. There can only be a "market" if one possesses legitimate title to what one is selling. I was not suggesting that $50,000--100,000 is the "value" of the tape (one could argue that the tape is worth seven or eight figures if it came to the open market in a legitimate manner), but rather what I thought reasonable sum for a rightful owner to pay for someone who had cared for their property over a period of time. However, the rightful owner would also be within his or her rights to sue the person who had maintained possession of their property and deprived them of its use and the benefits that would accrue to them therefrom. In other words, by offering $50,000--100,000 to someone who had kept its property in their possession in an, at best, questionable manner, one could argue that the League was being generous.

PatsFanSince74 said:

I'd be very interested in knowing how this guy came into possession of it in the first place. Was it given to him by someone who had legitimate access to it or did it "fall off the back of a truck" as Tony Soprano used to like to say.

Click to expand...

Ya I was wondering that too. Obviously, at the time, no one had the first clue that the NFL would become what it is and that footage would be worth saving. Maybe his brother worked at the station and said "hey here's something cool - keep it" or something like that.

I'd probably be willing to take $100,000 but anything less, I dunno..... tough to say for sure unless I'm in the situation. If I knew that $50,000 was the absolute most I could get, it would be tough to walk away from that so I can keep some video tape in my basement....

JJDChE said:

Who are you to decide what is a fair value? Also, the tape is not the property of the NFL or any Network. They have no right to it. Unless someone makes a valid claim that holds up in court that this guy got it illegally, then it is legally his. If it hasn't happened to this point, it seem pretty unlikely that it will. That being the case, he is the legal owner of a piece of league history. If the league wants it they should pay fair value. In this case, the owner decides what's fair value because, presumably, this transaction can only happen between the owner the league. If the league wants it, better pony up the dough.

Click to expand...

As mentioned before, I have no idea what the rules were in the 60's, but here in the current day that is not how it works. If I go to a store and buy a VHS tape, that VHS tape is legally mine. If I record tomorrow's Patriots game on it, the VHS tape is still legally mine, but the intellectual property on it is not, and I have no legal right to sell that tape to anyone else. I don't even have the right to broadcast it for free if I wanted to.