5 ms·

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.
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  Regarding your reproduction example of the symphony, from my understanding the composition is protected by copyright from the moment its put to paper (unless explicity noted as CC or public domain). As a musical composition in the US under current copyright rules, for anybody to record a performance of that composition (like a cover song), that entity would have to pay a mechanical license to you. The public performance is a different issue, by my understanding, but definitely addresses your IP rights with respect to compensation. In theory the protections align with your rights as an artist with respect to the recordings. You're right that copyright law is complicated - way too much so in my opinion - and we didn't even discuss whether you would be considered a member of a collection society (ASCAP/BMI) which would forbid the performance of your work in any venue which does not have a license from one of those societies! That comes up every once and a while when some record company finds out a coffee shop (not paying ASCAP/BMI) is hosting "Open Mic Night!" type events and people play cover songs by major artists. The coffee shop owners feel like getting a $2,000+ surprise bill isn't fair, which the societies would rightfully counter it's not fair for the coffee shop to make money from the Open Mic Night business without paying for the material that's increasing their business. Fun stuff eh!

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.

6stringmerc 11y ago
Regarding your reproduction example of the symphony, from my understanding the composition is protected by copyright from the moment its put to paper (unless explicity noted as CC or public domain). As a musical composition in the US under current copyright rules, for anybody to record a performance of that composition (like a cover song), that entity would have to pay a mechanical license to you. The public performance is a different issue, by my understanding, but definitely addresses your IP rights with respect to compensation. In theory the protections align with your rights as an artist with respect to the recordings. You're right that copyright law is complicated - way too much so in my opinion - and we didn't even discuss whether you would be considered a member of a collection society (ASCAP/BMI) which would forbid the performance of your work in any venue which does not have a license from one of those societies! That comes up every once and a while when some record company finds out a coffee shop (not paying ASCAP/BMI) is hosting "Open Mic Night!" type events and people play cover songs by major artists. The coffee shop owners feel like getting a $2,000+ surprise bill isn't fair, which the societies would rightfully counter it's not fair for the coffee shop to make money from the Open Mic Night business without paying for the material that's increasing their business. Fun stuff eh!