8 ms·

Out of a Rare Super Bowl I Recording, a Clash with the N.F.L. Unspools

66 points by BWStearns 11y ago

coldcode 11y ago
There should be an exemption for historically important footage that trumps any legal ownership.
- dublinben 11y ago
  If we had sane copyright terms (14 years, 28 years, even 50 years) this wouldn't even be an issue.
- nhstanley 11y ago
  I think that sets a bad environment, because who decides what historically important is? How many years does it become "historic"? A much simpler and better solution is to not extend copyright to 120 years or whatever the hell it is now [1] (Thanks, Disney!). Twenty years or so should be plenty for all artistic works. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States#Duration_of_copyright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_St...
- tomswartz07 11y ago
  That's a humongously bad precident to set. You happened to record, using your cell phone, a major news story? Whoops, sorry. That video is no longer yours. It's far better to fix the Copyright regs that have been so modified recently that is causing this. Thanks, Disney.
  - rhino369 11y ago
    I think an exception for historically important content would be useful. At the very least historical archiving should be allowed, even if you aren't allowed to show it until copyright expires. But that wouldn't really solve this problem. The owner wants to get paid.
FussyZeus 11y ago
A million dollars is freaking chump change to an organization the size of the NFL. They're being childish. Just write the dude a check and get your tapes you big babies.
- arprocter 11y ago
  >A million dollars 1/44th of Goodell's yearly salary
michae1ochurch 11y ago
I'd love to see Woz cut the family a check for $250,000 then burn the tapes to troll the NFL.
- xirdstl 11y ago
  You could probably start a Gofundme and raise the money from angry St. Louis Rams fans.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
  Didn't you get banned.
  - kenjackson 11y ago
    Curious, why was he banned? I looked at his posting history and I don't see anything ban-worthy... (only two posts).
    - cbr 11y ago
      See https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=michaelochurch https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=michaelochurch And specifically https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10019003 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10019003
      - kenjackson 11y ago
        Thanks. I didn't see that other account.
  - michae1ochurch 11y ago
    Quentye
carlisle_ 11y ago
The NFL consistently demonstrates such a high level of greed it's astounding. I get it that you don't get rich writing checks, but what happened to doing right by people and the community at large. Maybe I'm just wishy washy.
- jedberg 11y ago
  > but what happened to doing right by people and the community at large. That's not really up to the NFL, it's up to the guy who has the tapes being willing to give them away for free. The NFL is basically being extorted here. Sure they have the money, but why should they pay? The value of the tapes is zero, because the only possible buyer isn't interested.
  - mmanfrin 11y ago
    it's up to the guy who has the tapes being willing to give them away for free No... that would still be illegal and the NFL could still sue. 'The value of the tapes is zero'; what a weird statement to make. Are the value of illegal drugs zero because 'the only possible buyers' (i.e., no one) can't show interest? There is inherent value in a recording of the first event of a series of events that attracts hundreds of millions of viewers.
    - dsp1234 11y ago
      would still be illegal and the NFL could still sue. If he uploaded a copy to youtube as part of a historical article or other non-commercial use, then the fair use analysis would likely go his way. Particularly for something of such cultural and historical relevance. That said, trying to get money for it is certainly going to count against that analysis.
      - TillE 11y ago
        That's really not how copyright works at all. If the NFL owns the copyright, then distributing it in any way is a blatant violation. There are no relevant fair use exemptions.
6stringmerc 11y ago
Too bad the over-arching discussion is about money, because if Troy Haupt would ditch the line of trying to get cash for it, there's probably a lot of wiggle-room in Fair Use to provide the tape to an academic venue as some type of historical artifact. Might be good to keep in mind that basically the guy has a "bootleg" copy of the game and there's no possible future where I see any kind of exemption to allow bootleggers to profit off of the material they obtained.
- chocolatebunny 11y ago
  If Troy gave the tape to an academic venue, can't the NFL get it from the same venue and rebroadcast it since they have the rights to it?
  - 6stringmerc 11y ago
    That supposes the academic venue would hand over a copy willingly I guess. That's where the Fair Use aspect comes in, in that the venue's possession of the physical copy / tapes doesn't constitute actual theft of property. The ex-NFL lawyer makes it sound like a slam-dunk on the 'NFL owns the property on the tapes' subject, but I'm not sure the NFL could compel the venue to hand over the property itself when no crime has been committed (and won't be due to the Fair Use exemption). I'm a big fan of copyright reform in several different aspects, which is why these are interesting cases. Rarely do they go to court though. So basically we all get to, ahem, 'armchair quarterback' the facts, laws, and interpretations in front of us!
  - dkokelley 11y ago
    I believe they could, but then anyone view it by going to the same academic source. Only the NFL could profit from it, but by then the game would be freely available. I'm also curious about the reproduction of "the work". If I write a symphony, that arrangement of melodies and instruments is mine. If you "performed" my work and recorded a copy of it, that copy is yours. I would probably take issue with you profiting from this copy without my consent, seeing as I own the IP rights, but what rights does writing the symphony give me over a performance of the work. If a school orchestra decides to perform my symphony and a proud parent records it, how much right do I have to the contents? The analogy is rough at best. I use it to point out that there was effort in the production and maintenance of the copy, so the NFL may still not have the right to broadcast that "private production" without Haupt's consent, even if it were made public in an academic venue. This is similar to how a fan's cell phone recording of a play belongs to the fan, even though he can't go about selling copies. If the NFL got ahold of the cell phone video, they also wouldn't have the right to broadcast it just because it's a recording of their IP. Copyright law gets complicated and I'm certainly no expert. If someone can correct or clarify any of the above, be my guest.
jedberg 11y ago
The NFL is greedy, but right. The value of the tapes is 0. The only entity in the world that can pay money for those tapes is the NFL, which means they are the entire market and can choose the price. But this guy is also being greedy. If he wanted the world to have these tapes, he could give them away to a museum. Wanting cash for these tapes is basically extortion. It would be nice if the NFL gave him some money, but I don't see why they should/would.
- dalke 11y ago
  > The value of the tapes is 0. There are at least two ways to extract monetary value. One is to wait until copyright expires in the US, which I think won't be for another 45 years. The second is to take the tapes outside of the US and sell them in a country which has a lower copyright. If I understand the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries'_copyright_lengths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries'_copyright_l... correctly, those include Australia ("50 years after making (television broadcasts and sound broadcasts)") and South Africa ("50 years from publication (sound recordings; broadcasts; programme-carrying signals; and published editions)").
- brianberns 11y ago
  Copyright controls only the right to make copies. The owner of the physical tape should be able to sell it to anyone he wants, since he's not making a copy.
  - URSpider94 11y ago
    Incorrect. He already made a "copy" (maybe we should call it something else: a recording?) by videotaping the original broadcast. He did not buy a pre-recorded copy of the tape.
    - brianberns 11y ago
      OK, his father broke the law by making the recording, but how does that fact stop the son from selling the recording once it's been made?
csense 11y ago
Maybe a university archive or a wealthy collector could pay off both the NFL and this guy, so everybody wins?
dkokelley 11y ago
I wonder what other options are available. The NFL owns the content of the tapes, but Haupt owns the only known copies of that content. Haupt and the NFL are collectively the owners of the 1st Super Bowl, but can't agree on what to do with it. The loss or destruction of the tapes won't meaningfully impact the NFL. They didn't have a copy of the work beforehand, and so nothing changes if they don't come to an agreement. On the other hand, a special viewing of the "lost copy of Super Bowl I" could be very lucrative to the NFL and the airing network. Haupt has something valuable to the NFL. There is obviously an incentive for the NFL to make a deal. What would the ramifications of submitting the tapes to a museum or other historical archive be? It might incentivize the NFL to make a deal if they know there is another legitimate course of action that Haupt can take to make the copy less rare. I'm not sure what the legal implications are.
barney54 11y ago
Maybe the guy who owns the recording is being too greedy, but given the NFL's track record it's likely the NFL. The NFL should buy the recording and play it on the NFL Network. That should be a decent draw during the off season or in the run to to the next Super Bowl.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
rocky1138 11y ago
When I was reading this, and I have no horse in this race, I was asking myself "What are they afraid of?" The only possible scenario I can think of is that they actually do have footage and are keeping it to themselves and essentially waiting until this third party footage corrodes and fails entirely due to time.
- URSpider94 11y ago
  They are standing on principle. They want to reinforce that recordings of NFL games have no commercial value under any circumstance, and them forking over cash for a copy of a recording would make a mockery of that argument. If they had footage, they would use it, since they are the only authorized users. This guy's tape would then be completely worthless.
- xirdstl 11y ago
  The article mentions that last month on NFL Network they aired a version that was constructed from their own archives.
mcherm 11y ago
I don't understand why the NFL can say (as the article lays out): "Haupt owns the recording but not its content, which belongs to the N.F.L. If the league refuses to buy it, he cannot sell the tapes to a third party, like CBS or a collector who would like to own a piece of sports history that was believed to be lost." Copyright law does not (as far as I understand it) actually give someone "ownership" of a work. Rather, it criminalizes making copies of the work without the permission of the copyright owner. But the author of a book cannot prevent you from selling your copy to a library, a friend, or a rich collector. My view would be that Troy Haupt ought to be able to sell his videotape to anyone he wants (just as he could sell a book). He ought to be able to show the content to anyone he wants (although a "public performance" is a different matter). If the NFL complains that the copy was made illegally, then they should sue Mr. Haupt's father (or his presumably long-settled estate). Perhaps the legal theory here is that the NFL never authorized the recording so it's existence is the equivalent of stolen property?
- URSpider94 11y ago
  Copyright law (and not just US copyright law, but international law) is pretty consistent that people have the right to make copies for archival purposes, for personal use -- but that they have no right to share those copies with anyone else. When you buy a book, you are actually buying a copy. When you videotape a TV show, you're not buying anything, you are MAKING a copy. That is the critical difference here. It would be more like if you borrowed a book from the library and made a photocopy, and then tried to sell that copy to someone else. I'm not making a moral judgment here, just explaining my understanding of the law.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
    - garrettgrimsley 11y ago
      The father didn't drive to the stadium with a camera, he made a copy of the broadcast. The NFL owns the rights to the broadcast, and does not allow others to create a copy of it. He essentially wants to sell a copy of a TV show.
joshuaheard 11y ago
Get them appraised by an expert. Donate them to a museum. Take a huge write off on your taxes. Otherwise, wait another 45 years when the copyright runs out and sell them then.
- MonadQueen 11y ago
  I guess you don't know what a "write off" and "taxes" are.
cjensen 11y ago
On a technical note regarding archiving: the tape is Quadraplex[1]. Quad was the first video tape format and was replaced by much cheaper/smaller/quieter/better helical-scan tape. Very few Quad machines still function, and as far as I know there is exactly one guy[2] who refurbishes them. (I worked under him for a summer job in college 25 years ago when Quad was already long obsolete). Not sure if anyone will take up that business once he retires. Makes an interesting real-life example of the problem with archiving anything for a long period of time. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadruplex_videotape https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadruplex_videotape [2] http://www.zinvtrworks.com http://www.zinvtrworks.com
URSpider94 11y ago
I originally made this comment on a child post that was deleted while I was writing it, so I've decided to post on the parent. Copyright law is so complicated. I'm not a lawyer, but here is what I understand, I welcome corrections and input. In general, copyright rights are additive. For example, * Alice can write a piece of sheet music, on which she owns the copyright * Bob can then perform that sheet music. He owns the copyright on the performance. However, he can't publicly perform the piece without getting permission from Alice. * Charlie can then make a recording of Bob's performance. He owns the copyright on that recording. However, he can't sell that copy without permission from both Alice (for the sheet music) and Bob (for the performance). (I should add here that for music, this process has been greatly simplified in most cases by ASCAP, which dictates compulsory license fees for public performance and musical scores for pop music.) In this case, it's further complicated, because I don't believe that the simple act of pressing "REC" on a VCR counts as creative input, and therefore probably doesn't generate a distinct copyright for this tape. Usually, when people talk about copyright for recordings, they are referring to the case where a sound engineer has captured the live sound, mixed it, and mastered it, to create a distinct new work of art.
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  I think you did a great job to demarcate those three facets of copyright law as I understand them too (not a lawyer, big time IP hobbyist though). There are two other aspects that might be relevant, and are only presented as complimentary, not contradictory. The first is that in that the recording the Engineer is doing is a "Work for Hire" as I see it. While they may negotiate 'points' of residual income from the sales of the recordings for their labor/efforts/contributions, the ownership issue is a lot more simple. The other angle is that 'derivative' works, especially for Fair Use, have a really high bar to clear in modern times - but it's possible. So, if Charlie is a Professor and he recorded Bob's performance of Alice's work, expressly so he can play one full song as an example in his University class "The Art of Shredding on a Violin while Playing Harmonica and Jumping Up and Down Simultaneously," then Charlie's use of the work should fall under Fair Use, and it doesn't matter the students are paying for the class or Charlie is paid an income by the institution. He's promoting progress of the arts and is protected in theory.
- 11y ago
jaynos 11y ago
Two options: 1. Offer to destroy the tapes in a manner decided by highest bidder(s). Perhaps the NFL would act if it knew that the recordings would be burned for possibly $5. This is the Mark Ecko approach [1]. 2.There is a commercial on the recordings for True cigarettes, a brand that was owned by R.J. Reynolds. If they don't still own that trademark, could he sell the tapes for that commercial and apologize for the Super Bowl footage that the purchaser will have to deal with? If he started a kickstarter for option 1, I bet a lot of people would pitch in a few dollars just to piss off Roger Goddell (NFL Commissioner). [1] http://m.mlb.com/news/article/2231076/ http://m.mlb.com/news/article/2231076/
- kenjackson 11y ago
  I agree that a lot of people would chip in for #1. Especially if he does prominently call out Goddell in the Kickstarter. Could he get more than $30,000? I'm not sure, but even if not, I feel like it would be worth it. I think option 2 is way too risky, and those who want the video will want the SB recording. Those people would still not have rights to air or show it.
- wyldfire 11y ago
  The trademark holder has no leverage on recordings/copyright until/unless the recording were used in actual trade (marketing of products, etc).
doe88 11y ago
Wouldn't the copyrights legally expire in 45 years in this case, and the content be in public domain? edit: s/70/45/ assuming the expiration delay is 95 years after publication not 120 years.
mizzao 11y ago
As someone famously said to Will Smith: "You're going to war with a corporation that owns a day of the week!"
DannyBee 11y ago
One interesting thing to note is that any copyright analysis using today's acts is possibly wrong :) These tapes predate the most recent major copyright act (they were made in 1974, the act was passed in 1976). For example, among other things (i'm lazy and quoting wikipedia, which is correct in this point): Under the 1909 Act, federal statutory copyright protection attached to original works only when those works were 1) published and 2) had a notice of copyright affixed. If no notice of copyright was affixed to a work and the work was "published" in a legal sense, the 1909 Act provided no copyright protection and the work became part of the public domain.
- dnm 11y ago
  I wonder if his copy has a notice of copyright recorded. If not, and the NFL doesn't have a copy, how can they prove that the notice was affixed during the broadcast?
  - DannyBee 11y ago
    They may have people able to testify that they did it to all copies, etc, but it will end up a jury question.
nrjames 11y ago
Donate them to the Library of Congress?
- DrScump 11y ago
  Indeed -- isn't Congress exempt from copyright law? And is the Smithsonian then an entity that could legally preserve it if not display its contents?
MonadQueen 11y ago
Of course I love football, and would love to see that tape. But let's distill this down to the simplest facts: Guy tapes a TV show off the TV. Wants to make money from this. But since he doesn't own the rights to the show, he can't. (You're allowed to tape to "time shift" and watch later, that's been well established.) Now it just so happens he wants to make a LOT of money. According to the article he was offered $30,000. He said no. So he still gets to keep the tape for himself, and the owners of the content still get to control how its sold and marketed. End of very simple story.

66 points by BWStearns 11y ago

coldcode 11y ago

There should be an exemption for historically important footage that trumps any legal ownership.

dublinben 11y ago
If we had sane copyright terms (14 years, 28 years, even 50 years) this wouldn't even be an issue.
nhstanley 11y ago
I think that sets a bad environment, because who decides what historically important is? How many years does it become "historic"? A much simpler and better solution is to not extend copyright to 120 years or whatever the hell it is now [1] (Thanks, Disney!). Twenty years or so should be plenty for all artistic works. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States#Duration_of_copyright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_St...
tomswartz07 11y ago
That's a humongously bad precident to set. You happened to record, using your cell phone, a major news story? Whoops, sorry. That video is no longer yours. It's far better to fix the Copyright regs that have been so modified recently that is causing this. Thanks, Disney.
- rhino369 11y ago
  I think an exception for historically important content would be useful. At the very least historical archiving should be allowed, even if you aren't allowed to show it until copyright expires. But that wouldn't really solve this problem. The owner wants to get paid.

FussyZeus 11y ago

A million dollars is freaking chump change to an organization the size of the NFL. They're being childish. Just write the dude a check and get your tapes you big babies.

arprocter 11y ago
>A million dollars 1/44th of Goodell's yearly salary

michae1ochurch 11y ago

I'd love to see Woz cut the family a check for $250,000 then burn the tapes to troll the NFL.

xirdstl 11y ago
You could probably start a Gofundme and raise the money from angry St. Louis Rams fans.
GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
Didn't you get banned.
- kenjackson 11y ago
  Curious, why was he banned? I looked at his posting history and I don't see anything ban-worthy... (only two posts).
  - cbr 11y ago
    See https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=michaelochurch https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=michaelochurch And specifically https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10019003 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10019003
    - kenjackson 11y ago
      Thanks. I didn't see that other account.
- michae1ochurch 11y ago
  Quentye

carlisle_ 11y ago

The NFL consistently demonstrates such a high level of greed it's astounding. I get it that you don't get rich writing checks, but what happened to doing right by people and the community at large. Maybe I'm just wishy washy.

jedberg 11y ago
> but what happened to doing right by people and the community at large. That's not really up to the NFL, it's up to the guy who has the tapes being willing to give them away for free. The NFL is basically being extorted here. Sure they have the money, but why should they pay? The value of the tapes is zero, because the only possible buyer isn't interested.
- mmanfrin 11y ago
  it's up to the guy who has the tapes being willing to give them away for free No... that would still be illegal and the NFL could still sue. 'The value of the tapes is zero'; what a weird statement to make. Are the value of illegal drugs zero because 'the only possible buyers' (i.e., no one) can't show interest? There is inherent value in a recording of the first event of a series of events that attracts hundreds of millions of viewers.
  - dsp1234 11y ago
    would still be illegal and the NFL could still sue. If he uploaded a copy to youtube as part of a historical article or other non-commercial use, then the fair use analysis would likely go his way. Particularly for something of such cultural and historical relevance. That said, trying to get money for it is certainly going to count against that analysis.
    - TillE 11y ago
      That's really not how copyright works at all. If the NFL owns the copyright, then distributing it in any way is a blatant violation. There are no relevant fair use exemptions.

6stringmerc 11y ago

Too bad the over-arching discussion is about money, because if Troy Haupt would ditch the line of trying to get cash for it, there's probably a lot of wiggle-room in Fair Use to provide the tape to an academic venue as some type of historical artifact. Might be good to keep in mind that basically the guy has a "bootleg" copy of the game and there's no possible future where I see any kind of exemption to allow bootleggers to profit off of the material they obtained.

chocolatebunny 11y ago
If Troy gave the tape to an academic venue, can't the NFL get it from the same venue and rebroadcast it since they have the rights to it?
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  That supposes the academic venue would hand over a copy willingly I guess. That's where the Fair Use aspect comes in, in that the venue's possession of the physical copy / tapes doesn't constitute actual theft of property. The ex-NFL lawyer makes it sound like a slam-dunk on the 'NFL owns the property on the tapes' subject, but I'm not sure the NFL could compel the venue to hand over the property itself when no crime has been committed (and won't be due to the Fair Use exemption). I'm a big fan of copyright reform in several different aspects, which is why these are interesting cases. Rarely do they go to court though. So basically we all get to, ahem, 'armchair quarterback' the facts, laws, and interpretations in front of us!
- dkokelley 11y ago
  I believe they could, but then anyone view it by going to the same academic source. Only the NFL could profit from it, but by then the game would be freely available. I'm also curious about the reproduction of "the work". If I write a symphony, that arrangement of melodies and instruments is mine. If you "performed" my work and recorded a copy of it, that copy is yours. I would probably take issue with you profiting from this copy without my consent, seeing as I own the IP rights, but what rights does writing the symphony give me over a performance of the work. If a school orchestra decides to perform my symphony and a proud parent records it, how much right do I have to the contents? The analogy is rough at best. I use it to point out that there was effort in the production and maintenance of the copy, so the NFL may still not have the right to broadcast that "private production" without Haupt's consent, even if it were made public in an academic venue. This is similar to how a fan's cell phone recording of a play belongs to the fan, even though he can't go about selling copies. If the NFL got ahold of the cell phone video, they also wouldn't have the right to broadcast it just because it's a recording of their IP. Copyright law gets complicated and I'm certainly no expert. If someone can correct or clarify any of the above, be my guest.

jedberg 11y ago

The NFL is greedy, but right. The value of the tapes is 0. The only entity in the world that can pay money for those tapes is the NFL, which means they are the entire market and can choose the price. But this guy is also being greedy. If he wanted the world to have these tapes, he could give them away to a museum. Wanting cash for these tapes is basically extortion. It would be nice if the NFL gave him some money, but I don't see why they should/would.

dalke 11y ago
> The value of the tapes is 0. There are at least two ways to extract monetary value. One is to wait until copyright expires in the US, which I think won't be for another 45 years. The second is to take the tapes outside of the US and sell them in a country which has a lower copyright. If I understand the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries'_copyright_lengths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries'_copyright_l... correctly, those include Australia ("50 years after making (television broadcasts and sound broadcasts)") and South Africa ("50 years from publication (sound recordings; broadcasts; programme-carrying signals; and published editions)").
brianberns 11y ago
Copyright controls only the right to make copies. The owner of the physical tape should be able to sell it to anyone he wants, since he's not making a copy.
- URSpider94 11y ago
  Incorrect. He already made a "copy" (maybe we should call it something else: a recording?) by videotaping the original broadcast. He did not buy a pre-recorded copy of the tape.
  - brianberns 11y ago
    OK, his father broke the law by making the recording, but how does that fact stop the son from selling the recording once it's been made?

csense 11y ago

Maybe a university archive or a wealthy collector could pay off both the NFL and this guy, so everybody wins?

dkokelley 11y ago

I wonder what other options are available. The NFL owns the content of the tapes, but Haupt owns the only known copies of that content. Haupt and the NFL are collectively the owners of the 1st Super Bowl, but can't agree on what to do with it. The loss or destruction of the tapes won't meaningfully impact the NFL. They didn't have a copy of the work beforehand, and so nothing changes if they don't come to an agreement. On the other hand, a special viewing of the "lost copy of Super Bowl I" could be very lucrative to the NFL and the airing network. Haupt has something valuable to the NFL. There is obviously an incentive for the NFL to make a deal. What would the ramifications of submitting the tapes to a museum or other historical archive be? It might incentivize the NFL to make a deal if they know there is another legitimate course of action that Haupt can take to make the copy less rare. I'm not sure what the legal implications are.

barney54 11y ago

Maybe the guy who owns the recording is being too greedy, but given the NFL's track record it's likely the NFL. The NFL should buy the recording and play it on the NFL Network. That should be a decent draw during the off season or in the run to to the next Super Bowl.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

rocky1138 11y ago

When I was reading this, and I have no horse in this race, I was asking myself "What are they afraid of?" The only possible scenario I can think of is that they actually do have footage and are keeping it to themselves and essentially waiting until this third party footage corrodes and fails entirely due to time.

URSpider94 11y ago
They are standing on principle. They want to reinforce that recordings of NFL games have no commercial value under any circumstance, and them forking over cash for a copy of a recording would make a mockery of that argument. If they had footage, they would use it, since they are the only authorized users. This guy's tape would then be completely worthless.
xirdstl 11y ago
The article mentions that last month on NFL Network they aired a version that was constructed from their own archives.

mcherm 11y ago

I don't understand why the NFL can say (as the article lays out): "Haupt owns the recording but not its content, which belongs to the N.F.L. If the league refuses to buy it, he cannot sell the tapes to a third party, like CBS or a collector who would like to own a piece of sports history that was believed to be lost." Copyright law does not (as far as I understand it) actually give someone "ownership" of a work. Rather, it criminalizes making copies of the work without the permission of the copyright owner. But the author of a book cannot prevent you from selling your copy to a library, a friend, or a rich collector. My view would be that Troy Haupt ought to be able to sell his videotape to anyone he wants (just as he could sell a book). He ought to be able to show the content to anyone he wants (although a "public performance" is a different matter). If the NFL complains that the copy was made illegally, then they should sue Mr. Haupt's father (or his presumably long-settled estate). Perhaps the legal theory here is that the NFL never authorized the recording so it's existence is the equivalent of stolen property?

URSpider94 11y ago
Copyright law (and not just US copyright law, but international law) is pretty consistent that people have the right to make copies for archival purposes, for personal use -- but that they have no right to share those copies with anyone else. When you buy a book, you are actually buying a copy. When you videotape a TV show, you're not buying anything, you are MAKING a copy. That is the critical difference here. It would be more like if you borrowed a book from the library and made a photocopy, and then tried to sell that copy to someone else. I'm not making a moral judgment here, just explaining my understanding of the law.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - garrettgrimsley 11y ago
    The father didn't drive to the stadium with a camera, he made a copy of the broadcast. The NFL owns the rights to the broadcast, and does not allow others to create a copy of it. He essentially wants to sell a copy of a TV show.

joshuaheard 11y ago

Get them appraised by an expert. Donate them to a museum. Take a huge write off on your taxes. Otherwise, wait another 45 years when the copyright runs out and sell them then.

MonadQueen 11y ago
I guess you don't know what a "write off" and "taxes" are.

cjensen 11y ago

On a technical note regarding archiving: the tape is Quadraplex[1]. Quad was the first video tape format and was replaced by much cheaper/smaller/quieter/better helical-scan tape. Very few Quad machines still function, and as far as I know there is exactly one guy[2] who refurbishes them. (I worked under him for a summer job in college 25 years ago when Quad was already long obsolete). Not sure if anyone will take up that business once he retires. Makes an interesting real-life example of the problem with archiving anything for a long period of time. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadruplex_videotape https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadruplex_videotape [2] http://www.zinvtrworks.com http://www.zinvtrworks.com

URSpider94 11y ago

I originally made this comment on a child post that was deleted while I was writing it, so I've decided to post on the parent. Copyright law is so complicated. I'm not a lawyer, but here is what I understand, I welcome corrections and input. In general, copyright rights are additive. For example, * Alice can write a piece of sheet music, on which she owns the copyright * Bob can then perform that sheet music. He owns the copyright on the performance. However, he can't publicly perform the piece without getting permission from Alice. * Charlie can then make a recording of Bob's performance. He owns the copyright on that recording. However, he can't sell that copy without permission from both Alice (for the sheet music) and Bob (for the performance). (I should add here that for music, this process has been greatly simplified in most cases by ASCAP, which dictates compulsory license fees for public performance and musical scores for pop music.) In this case, it's further complicated, because I don't believe that the simple act of pressing "REC" on a VCR counts as creative input, and therefore probably doesn't generate a distinct copyright for this tape. Usually, when people talk about copyright for recordings, they are referring to the case where a sound engineer has captured the live sound, mixed it, and mastered it, to create a distinct new work of art.

6stringmerc 11y ago
I think you did a great job to demarcate those three facets of copyright law as I understand them too (not a lawyer, big time IP hobbyist though). There are two other aspects that might be relevant, and are only presented as complimentary, not contradictory. The first is that in that the recording the Engineer is doing is a "Work for Hire" as I see it. While they may negotiate 'points' of residual income from the sales of the recordings for their labor/efforts/contributions, the ownership issue is a lot more simple. The other angle is that 'derivative' works, especially for Fair Use, have a really high bar to clear in modern times - but it's possible. So, if Charlie is a Professor and he recorded Bob's performance of Alice's work, expressly so he can play one full song as an example in his University class "The Art of Shredding on a Violin while Playing Harmonica and Jumping Up and Down Simultaneously," then Charlie's use of the work should fall under Fair Use, and it doesn't matter the students are paying for the class or Charlie is paid an income by the institution. He's promoting progress of the arts and is protected in theory.
11y ago

jaynos 11y ago

Two options: 1. Offer to destroy the tapes in a manner decided by highest bidder(s). Perhaps the NFL would act if it knew that the recordings would be burned for possibly $5. This is the Mark Ecko approach [1]. 2.There is a commercial on the recordings for True cigarettes, a brand that was owned by R.J. Reynolds. If they don't still own that trademark, could he sell the tapes for that commercial and apologize for the Super Bowl footage that the purchaser will have to deal with? If he started a kickstarter for option 1, I bet a lot of people would pitch in a few dollars just to piss off Roger Goddell (NFL Commissioner). [1] http://m.mlb.com/news/article/2231076/ http://m.mlb.com/news/article/2231076/

kenjackson 11y ago
I agree that a lot of people would chip in for #1. Especially if he does prominently call out Goddell in the Kickstarter. Could he get more than $30,000? I'm not sure, but even if not, I feel like it would be worth it. I think option 2 is way too risky, and those who want the video will want the SB recording. Those people would still not have rights to air or show it.
wyldfire 11y ago
The trademark holder has no leverage on recordings/copyright until/unless the recording were used in actual trade (marketing of products, etc).

doe88 11y ago

Wouldn't the copyrights legally expire in 45 years in this case, and the content be in public domain? edit: s/70/45/ assuming the expiration delay is 95 years after publication not 120 years.

mizzao 11y ago

As someone famously said to Will Smith: "You're going to war with a corporation that owns a day of the week!"

DannyBee 11y ago

One interesting thing to note is that any copyright analysis using today's acts is possibly wrong :) These tapes predate the most recent major copyright act (they were made in 1974, the act was passed in 1976). For example, among other things (i'm lazy and quoting wikipedia, which is correct in this point): Under the 1909 Act, federal statutory copyright protection attached to original works only when those works were 1) published and 2) had a notice of copyright affixed. If no notice of copyright was affixed to a work and the work was "published" in a legal sense, the 1909 Act provided no copyright protection and the work became part of the public domain.

dnm 11y ago
I wonder if his copy has a notice of copyright recorded. If not, and the NFL doesn't have a copy, how can they prove that the notice was affixed during the broadcast?
- DannyBee 11y ago
  They may have people able to testify that they did it to all copies, etc, but it will end up a jury question.

nrjames 11y ago

Donate them to the Library of Congress?

DrScump 11y ago
Indeed -- isn't Congress exempt from copyright law? And is the Smithsonian then an entity that could legally preserve it if not display its contents?

MonadQueen 11y ago

Of course I love football, and would love to see that tape. But let's distill this down to the simplest facts: Guy tapes a TV show off the TV. Wants to make money from this. But since he doesn't own the rights to the show, he can't. (You're allowed to tape to "time shift" and watch later, that's been well established.) Now it just so happens he wants to make a LOT of money. According to the article he was offered $30,000. He said no. So he still gets to keep the tape for himself, and the owners of the content still get to control how its sold and marketed. End of very simple story.