12 ms·

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 refu

by 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.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      I realized that and went back and deleted my comment, but I seem to have been a bit too slow.
- adekok 11y ago
  That's why it's also different from him buying a tape of the game from the NFL, and then re-selling it. When you buy a tape, CD, book, etc., you have the right to re-sell it. As-is, without making a copy. If his father had been at the game, and recorded it himself on his own video camera, he would be able to sell that tape. No one else could broadcast it, as that involves making another copy.
- mcherm 11y ago
  Thank you - the existing copy falling into the category of "archival copy" makes some sense to me. I realize that probably isn't the exact way the law works (at least in some country).
TD-Linux 11y ago
I don't think there's any law against giving bad legal advice to the public. I think the NFL is saying that mostly to try to get the owner to lower his price, and doesn't really care about any legal basis for it. EDIT: It's a recording of a live TV broadcast, which is probably different than if he was in a seat himself.
- URSpider94 11y ago
  There are other experts quoted in the article, who believe that the NFL has a strong case here. You shouldn't necessarily believe what the NFL says, but if they were blowing smoke, I'm pretty sure that the Times would have found someone to call that out.
askafriend 11y ago
Can he perhaps sell it to someone in another country without the NFL knowing? How does that work? Perhaps he can give the tape away "for free" but sell the experience of "Meeting the guy whose father taped the first game".
- knughit 11y ago
  That's still distributing a copy. Price is irrelevant
FussyZeus 11y ago
He should just sell the tapes as "used recording media."
dalke 11y ago
People have a right to record a broadcast and watch it later. This is known as 'time shifting'. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_shifting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_shifting . In "the Betamax case" - Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. - the Supreme Court said that time shifting was fair use as it did not substantially harm the copyright holder or reduce the market. Selling the recorded video takes it outside of that definition of fair use.

by mcherm 11y ago

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.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    I realized that and went back and deleted my comment, but I seem to have been a bit too slow.
adekok 11y ago
That's why it's also different from him buying a tape of the game from the NFL, and then re-selling it. When you buy a tape, CD, book, etc., you have the right to re-sell it. As-is, without making a copy. If his father had been at the game, and recorded it himself on his own video camera, he would be able to sell that tape. No one else could broadcast it, as that involves making another copy.
mcherm 11y ago
Thank you - the existing copy falling into the category of "archival copy" makes some sense to me. I realize that probably isn't the exact way the law works (at least in some country).

TD-Linux 11y ago

I don't think there's any law against giving bad legal advice to the public. I think the NFL is saying that mostly to try to get the owner to lower his price, and doesn't really care about any legal basis for it. EDIT: It's a recording of a live TV broadcast, which is probably different than if he was in a seat himself.

URSpider94 11y ago
There are other experts quoted in the article, who believe that the NFL has a strong case here. You shouldn't necessarily believe what the NFL says, but if they were blowing smoke, I'm pretty sure that the Times would have found someone to call that out.

askafriend 11y ago

Can he perhaps sell it to someone in another country without the NFL knowing? How does that work? Perhaps he can give the tape away "for free" but sell the experience of "Meeting the guy whose father taped the first game".

knughit 11y ago
That's still distributing a copy. Price is irrelevant

FussyZeus 11y ago

He should just sell the tapes as "used recording media."

dalke 11y ago

People have a right to record a broadcast and watch it later. This is known as 'time shifting'. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_shifting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_shifting . In "the Betamax case" - Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. - the Supreme Court said that time shifting was fair use as it did not substantially harm the copyright holder or reduce the market. Selling the recorded video takes it outside of that definition of fair use.